EVE Search - Sticky:New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Sticky:New dev blog: Changes to War Mechanics

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 423	Posted - 2012.03.30 17:52:00 - [1] - Quote CCP SoniClover wrote: Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities? A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it. So you guys don't see a reason to support merc corps. Thanks for making that clear.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 424	Posted - 2012.03.31 04:31:00 - [2] - Quote Manssell wrote: And may I ask what exactly is your reasoning for making this "conscious decision" to charge the people least able to afford it, more than those who can for the same war?! "We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it." So you see no reason to support small corps efforts to wage war on larger entities, but you see a reason to support large entities efforts to declare war on small corps? REALLY! ......REALLY!? While I support the rest of the changes, I can't even begin to understand how you can justify charging a higher war fee for the 5 man corp to dec the 100 man corp than the 100 man corp would pay decing the 5 man corp. CCP doesn't know anything about actual highsec PVP gameplay and they don't care about PVP in highsec being good either. They just want to push out some new system while putting as little thought and effort in to it as possible so they can go "look we fixed highsec PVP" so they can sweep it under the rug. The only proposed feature that fixes any actual issue with highsec PVP gameplay is wars continuing on corps that drop from alliances. Everything else is just adding features for the sake of adding features.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 424	Posted - 2012.03.31 13:45:00 - [3] - Quote Ilandrin Yona wrote: Perhaps the cost of the war should be based not on the actual number of members of either corp, but instead on the difference in size between the corps? That way, whether it's 100-member-corp declaring on 5-member-corp, or 5-member-corp declaring on 100-member-corp, it's still the same cost? You're making a mistake if you think the the cost scaling is intended to promote fairness. It isn't. What it is, is a way for CCP to give all the large entities in EVE an automatic dec shield so they can run around in highsec without even having to worry about someone declaring war on them. Don't worry though, they totally "fixed" the dec shield mechanic.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 427	Posted - 2012.04.01 04:31:00 - [4] - Quote Dream Five wrote: So it will be virtually impossible to wardec the goons? while it will be super cheap to wardec small corps?? Whats going to be the formula for the price of wardec based on the number of members? Yep, the larger your alliance the more protection you get from CONCORD. Because Large alliances need more protection than small corporations.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 429	Posted - 2012.04.01 14:24:00 - [5] - Quote Dream Five wrote: [quote=Vimsy Vortis]So all hisec industry corps will join into one huge 30000 man alliance with a bunch of alts with a massive shared pool of capital to hire mercs which nobody will wardec because they will know they will fail, all haulers will still be on NPC accounts. What exactly does this fix? Nothing? Don't worry though, they "fixed" the dec shield exploit.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 429	Posted - 2012.04.01 15:13:00 - [6] - Quote I did use quotation marks for a reason.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 430	Posted - 2012.04.01 16:36:00 - [7] - Quote Chokichi Ozuwara wrote: The truth is, no one starts a small hisec corp for PvP. That's funny because that's exactly what me and my friends did about a year and a half ago.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 430	Posted - 2012.04.02 19:36:00 - [8] - Quote Gusto Gal wrote: If Neutrals RR the attacker, then a comprable NPC spawns to counter neutral RR. You realize that you would be able to have a neutral activate an assist module on a war target for a single cycle to spawn friendly NPCs right?
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 432	Posted - 2012.04.04 17:50:00 - [9] - Quote I think you're sorely mistaken if you believe that giving e-uni a means to make it prohibitively expensive to declare war on e-uni while claiming to have fixed dec shielding is in any way unintended. CCP don't care about highsec gameplay being good or making sense, they care about making sure there is some mechanic that e-uni can abuse the hell out of to get protection from wars. The consequences for the rest of highsec are secondary to that imperative.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 436	Posted - 2012.04.06 17:06:00 - [10] - Quote Pretty sure that the only way wardec changes are going to turn out to be not totally ****** is if CCP Soundwave spends the next month trying to run a highsec wardec corp. It's not as simple as people think it is.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 450	Posted - 2012.04.12 18:17:00 - [11] - Quote Retar Aveymone wrote: Goonswarm appreciates all of the best people to wardec self-identifying in this thread. See you all in inferno! If goonswarm is going to start declaring wars on people in highsec I'll make a list of targets for you.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 450	Posted - 2012.04.12 19:15:00 - [12] - Quote Alliances don't have a limit bro. Way to understand war mechanics.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 450	Posted - 2012.04.12 19:35:00 - [13] - Quote 3 man tax evasion corps like that are a dime a dozen, that list would be very long. But I'm sure the outcome would be funny.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 450	Posted - 2012.04.13 03:31:00 - [14] - Quote If the characters in question are alts and they rep people when you're fighting them exactly how would making them red for a week make a difference in any way? I mean, if they're always going to be accompanying a war target of yours and their exclusive purpose is to rep your war targets and that repping is enough to make you lose fights then how does making them red for longer help anyone? It wouldn't affect peoples repping alts at all, but it would provide a huge disincentive to non-alt characters who might otherwise provide remote assistance for their friends or neighbors who are involved in wars (which believe it or not does actually happen).
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 450	Posted - 2012.04.13 16:34:00 - [15] - Quote Thank you for confirming that you intend to keep cost scaling so that large highsec entities can keep their decshields.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 450	Posted - 2012.04.13 20:13:00 - [16] - Quote Killboard related pricing are even less sanboxy and even more anti-PVP than the proposed cost scaling system.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 450	Posted - 2012.04.15 17:00:00 - [17] - Quote Hakaru Ishiwara wrote: This is **** and sounds like complete laziness on the part of the design team. Neutral RR is a huge advantage to the aggressors in spite of the proposed "suspect" flag. Why is it a huge advantage and why is it an advantage specifically to the aggressors and not the defenders? Additionally, why is the ability to render remote assistance to people who are involved in wars in return for being flagged with aggression not okay in your opinion?
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 451	Posted - 2012.04.17 02:29:00 - [18] - Quote The person who wrote that massively article has clearly never actually fought a war in highsec in his entire EVE career. It's just the same cliche, unsanboxy, carebear crap that gets posted in F&I every thirty seconds.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 455	Posted - 2012.04.18 03:37:00 - [19] - Quote Cost scaling is a stupid idea in the first place, regardless of how it scales exactly and in which direction it scales it's a bad concept that will always be abused and however it gets implemented the outcome will be negative. The only people in highsec who stand to benefit from cost scaling in any way is e-uni who will now be able to maintain a decshield for free. Let me say it again just to be clear: Cost scaling is a stupid, CCP needs to come up with an isk sink doesn't give people automatic dec shields.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 457	Posted - 2012.04.20 21:43:00 - [20] - Quote That's not actually an unconditional surrender though. The point of an unconditional surrender is that you surrender to your aggressor with no conditions (I know it might be hard for you to understand). Also non-combat corps already have an option, they can join an alliance or they can hire mercs. There should under no circumstances be any means for a corporation to defend themselves from violence without actual defense being involved. You should defend yourself by defending yourself or by having other players defend you, not by pressing a magic button that makes the bad men go away.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 459	Posted - 2012.04.21 14:31:00 - [21] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: So they can't hae a button to make the bad men go away when the bad men have a button to allow them to practically kill anyone? Sounds a bit like a double standard. Trying to kill people is a type of gameplay. Making yourself invulnerable to other peoples attempts to kill you by pushing a button is literally anti-gameplay.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 480	Posted - 2012.04.23 21:14:00 - [22] - Quote Joe Risalo wrote: CCP SoniClover wrote: Dream Five wrote: It would be cool to get some indication if CCP is even reading any of this.. I'm still here The initial costs to wardec someone needs to be increased. I suggest 200mil for a corp to dec, 500 mil for an alliance to dec. Those costs are absurd. Virtually nobody would be willing to pay 500 million to declare war on anyone, mercenaries in particular would be completely screwed over since even fewer people would be willing to hire them. Putting large, arbitrary money barriers on war is entirely contrary to the idea that wars wars are underutilized and should be used more often. Making things more expensive won't make them more commonplace and more useful to the average player, it will prohibit anyone who isn't in a large alliance from using wars and will protect them from wars themselves.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 488	Posted - 2012.04.26 19:32:00 - [23] - Quote Buzzy Warstl wrote: bornaa wrote: So... all in all... CCP is going to **** up this game for majority of its players. I hope they've changed their minds by now on some of the changes in the Dev blog. Those ideas are based around the concept of making avoiding war more difficult, when any change to war mechanics that is going to actually resonate with the players will involve making engaging in war more enticing. They clearly haven't changed their minds because Soniclover still talks about the cost scaling formula as if cost scaling is something that should exist even though everyone pretty much universally agrees shouldn't. Seeing as e-uni officially announced their new anti-wardec policy this week it should be even more apparent that it is completely unacceptable for players to have any means under their control to affect the cost of declaring war against them and that cost scaling unfairly protects people who do not need protection. The strong should be fair game, not just the weak.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 496	Posted - 2012.04.30 13:46:00 - [24] - Quote That's how CCP does game design. They take a sideways glance what is going on in the game, decide it needs to change without even trying to determine why the state of the game is the way it is then jam in a pile of badly conceived game mechanics, then they leave them like that for a decade in spite of constant complaints from the userbase. I mean, we all loved dominion sov right?
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 509	Posted - 2012.05.03 15:03:00 - [25] - Quote So the wardec changes are up on singularity. Guess what the new "formula" for wardec cost scaling is? That's right it's the same flat 500k per member that was announced at fanfest. Glad to know that CCP is listening to the players!
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 509	Posted - 2012.05.03 15:47:00 - [26] - Quote CCP SoniClover wrote: we're still working on implementing the new stuff. Pull the other one.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 512	Posted - 2012.05.04 19:23:00 - [27] - Quote My prediction is that they will withhold information about the cost scaling formula changes until the absolute last second so that there is no time to change it before inferno is launched. After all the goal isn't to give the players the mechanics that they want, it's to push out what was announced at fanfest with as little change as possible regardless of what nonsensical crap it is, because groupthink dictates what we get, rather than people actually thinking about their product and releasing content that makes sense.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 512	Posted - 2012.05.05 03:03:00 - [28] - Quote Gort Thud wrote: Perhaps it would be better to delay the changes to the WarDec mechanics until after the upcoming release to take on board all of the comments and deliver a polished solution. After all the cost of delivering something that is broken and disruptive will be felt as both a loss of reputation and an increase in player frustration ; the cost of delaying in comparison is minimal Gort. Don't forget that whatever system gets released is going to be the system that we have to live with for the next five years, because god knows CCP don't ever iterate on anything they do.
Vimsy Vortis Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation 514	Posted - 2012.05.07 21:05:00 - [29] - Quote It's unlikely that you'll ever see CCP do anything to make local less effective as an intel source, in fact people keep talking about making local sortable by standings, so even in busy highsec systems with hundreds of people in them it will be trivial to know that a war target is in system with you. People constantly whine about how heavily neutrals are used in highsec wars, but the exact reason they are used is that it's so easy to determine the location numbers, and disposition of an enemy that it's extremely difficult to make engagements happen if either side suspects that the other is in a stronger position. The only option if you actually want to fight when two fleets have perfect intel on eachother at all times is to camouflage as much of your strength as possible via neutrality. It sucks balls.

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.