Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[orange]

From Warfare & Tactics forum

Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside)

Well played Jade, well played.

I had not been following the wardec system much, only a little bit and it did seem weird the proposed changes really seemed to provide "protection" to large entities.

[Jade Constantine]

From Warfare & Tactics forum

Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside)

Well played Jade, well played.

I had not been following the wardec system much, only a little bit and it did seem weird the proposed changes really seemed to provide "protection" to large entities.

Why thank you

Its a shame it wasn't given the chance to play out to the full extent - while its kinda nice its revealed the largest alliance in the game as people who need developer intervention to keep them out of disaster in a wardec - it would have been much better if the sandbox had been allowed to function without interference for a while so we could really demonstrate what is truly meant by "social consequence" in this single server game.

I think its going to take a long long time now before wardecs get any proper attention though. Still, luckily we still have Faction Warfare.

[orange]

I just read a rather straight forward suggestion on Eve Opportunist.

[Jade Constantine]

I just read a rather straight forward suggestion on Eve Opportunist.

Certainly makes more sense than what we have now. Would be good if CCP actually listened.

[Myyona]

It is my feeling too, that the high sec war dec system not will improve much before there is something tangible on the line for the aggressing corporation too, giving the defending corporation a way to achieve "victory".

From the top of my head I can come up with a significant personal security rating loss for the aggressing corporation if they fail to cause equal or more damage to the defending corporation by the end of the war. The security loss is applied to any pilot who has been a member of the aggressing corporation at any point during the war. There is already tracking of assets destruction in the current system so this should be easy to implement. It is already the aggressing corporation that majorly decides when to end the war, by stop paying the bill, so they can opt to continue paying the fee and be stuck in the war if they do not want the security loss. In mutual wars this penalty is voided.

From an RP point of view it could be argued that CONCORD dislikes corporations who bribe them into allowing the war but fail to deliver a victory. Bad press and all. Further, by hurting the aggressing corporation on their security rating they will, unless steps are taken to redeem the damage, sooner or later have serious difficulties operating in high sec and play into high sec wars.

Anyway, just a quick idea with room for adjustments.

[Myyona]

I just read a rather straight forward suggestion on Eve Opportunist.

This is frankly common sense. One can only wonder how CCP Soundwave managed to sell his version.

[Jade Constantine]

Well the main argument I have against this "merc marketplace" in Inferno wardec system is that its really not for mercs - its just for random mayhem because the defensive opt-in is just for ganks - and it doesn't give any way to actually bring about the end of a war.

I fully agree that war needs stakes, victory conditions and boons and penalties to stimulate the desire to actually hire "mercs" to make a difference. If there is no difference to be made then nobody is going to be be paying extra isk for hangers on to shoot people at trade hubs.

So yep, there is definitely room for discussion of how you introduce victory objectives into the war system - but that said, I have very little faith that Soundwave and Team Superfriends will be up for actual player feedback in the near future.

[Jade Constantine]

I just read a rather straight forward suggestion on Eve Opportunist.

This is frankly common sense. One can only wonder how CCP Soundwave managed to sell his version.

He doesn't need to "sell" his version. He's the chief designer. He simply told them what to do. His vision is that "eve isn't fair" so nor should the wardec system be "fair." Its a "pay-to-grief" system where people get to targeted according to "social consequences."

Unfortunately the "unfairness" only goes one way - and it needs to be scrupulously fair to large alliances and the social consequences of 52 hisec corps defensive allying to kick a large attacker in the face is a social consequence too far.

[Desiderya]

It was a nice move.

But I disagree at your views regarding CCP-GOON-Conspiracies and the 'unfairness' of the system. Most war-declaring entities are rather small. For them, having the option of inviting unlimited allies was tremendously bad. "Free Ally" on every possible war-dec was far more damaging to the merc business than slightly higher prices for ally contracts. There's only two ways to effectively hire mercs: Structure removal/protection or inflict X amount of damage. This is still possible as it was possible before Inferno - it's just easier to signal that you're looking for help now.

[Casiella]

Side note: this isn't the merc marketplace, which did not make it into Inferno.

[Jade Constantine]

It was a nice move.

But I disagree at your views regarding CCP-GOON-Conspiracies and the 'unfairness' of the system. Most war-declaring entities are rather small. For them, having the option of inviting unlimited allies was tremendously bad. "Free Ally" on every possible war-dec was far more damaging to the merc business than slightly higher prices for ally contracts. There's only two ways to effectively hire mercs: Structure removal/protection or inflict X amount of damage. This is still possible as it was possible before Inferno - it's just easier to signal that you're looking for help now.

Well the system was working when it was "unfair to everyone." It becomes more problematic when it becomes "unfair only to some." Without comprehensive revamp of the wardec system to include objectives and victory conditions it remains as it as always been "pay to grief" (in effect) with the attacker having full control of how long it will last and even if it will be fought at all. In 1.0 there was a brief moment where consequences dawned on the attacker in wardecs (mutual war removing their right to drop when they pleased + multiple defensive allies to load up empire space against them.) This realization was terrifying and the game mechanics were swiftly changed.

As Casiella notes above Merc Marketplace was never rolled out for Inferno - what we're talking about is the "mayhem marketplace" or random assistance offers from anyone who wants a fight.

I think CCP themselves have muddied the waters by claiming 1.1 was designed to help mercs better use the non-existent "merc marketplace" when pretty much anyone who has ever fought an empire war, hired or worked as a merc in eve online knows this is not the case.

[Desiderya]

It's a start on the way to support mercenaries with ingame-tools along the intention to generally make wars less of a griefing tool to a stronger gameplay element.
So, where's the difference to pre-Inferno war decs now? Wars are more expensive against all targets, defenders become the possibility to hire help more easily and cheaper than it would work with a regular war declaration.

For almost all the possible cases this is better ( more fair ) than before. The exceptions are the few huge alliances where the prices reaches the 500m war fee cap. Might need tweaking, but it's still a borderline case, and in the end EVE is indeed unfair, where bigger numbers mean more protection. It's not that maintaining a huge alliance doesn't require effort. It's not that 'being virtually immune to highsec wars' is a big deal for a nullsec entity, in a game where logistics can and are easily handled by neutral alts. There's plenty of space where you can fight without CONCORD mingling, others can even hop on the bandwagon without paying a war fee.

[orange]

It's not that 'being virtually immune to highsec wars' is a big deal for a nullsec entity, in a game where logistics can and are easily handled by neutral alts.

Which drives me to think about true piracy, scanning every freighter within a few jumps of Jita and organizing the ganking of any of them with a hint of Tech or Platinum Technite.  A Charon full of Tech is over 200B isk in value, a single shipping containers worth is 25.5B isk.

At that price, you could conceivably spend 0.5B on each Battleship and still only need a single container of Tech to survive to make it more than worth it.   Hell, the first 7 Battleships can be dirt cheap (<200M) as they alpha through the shields & armor.  The expectation is you lose the ships anyway; need to stay alive long enough to make sure the damage hits home.  The structure takes a bit more work, but still only talking about ~25 battleships.  So 32 battleships, multiple scanning scouts, specifically targeting NPC freighters - even better if you scan them as the freighter comes in from low-sec!

[Louella Dougans]

they should have demutualled all wars when they changed the rules regarding mutual wars.

[Desiderya]

they should have demutualled all wars when they changed the rules regarding mutual wars.

Yes.


@orange
Yes. You would hit the Tech Owners wallets. But this would still reduce overall supply of tech ( only 50% drops ), which will still favor the ones who can own the means of production. :/