Devblog: War Declaration Changes - The War Adjacent to Christmas

release
official
devblog

(Zachri) #121

You’re putting “CCP” and “iterate” in the same sentence :slight_smile:


(Max Deveron) #122

not just players in NPC corps, i stated all Characters not on corresponding ACL’s…
IE: if you dont have docking access, you should go suspect for mining there.


(Ashterothi) #123

A) Splitting hairs about EVE lore is kinda my thing

B) I am not making any comment about the agree-ability of wardecs, merely commenting on the fact that several people flatly said “CONCORD owns all highsec moons” which would make them the most powerful entity in the cluster, which they are far from.


(Max Deveron) #124

ok,

I think (like as i think but may be wrong) I know what your getting at.

I believe using the ACL’s and whether or not someone can dock at a moon station would be easier for checking to flag suspect or not.


(Daichi Yamato) #125

Suspect flag would be easier. But it’s just too punishing. No one will do it.


(Max Deveron) #126

someone will,

Hell i would if i thought i could get away with it. As in the moon owner not being present or his corp mates.

It would also be interesting to use the suspect system in this way as bait catching others, (the predator becoming prey kind of thing)

Edit: But lets explore your idea fora minute, KR, how often do you accumulate a KR instead of a supsect flag…or is it just one for that Corp, or the CEO of the moon owning corp?


(Daichi Yamato) #127

Suspect flag killed off ninja-salvaging and can flipping, which can be done in a combat ship.

You cannot expect someone to sit suspect for hours mining in a barge (because anything less is not worth while). It’s just not gonna happen.


(Tovh) #128

I want to see structures in space have the ability to target and shoot those who are suspect and criminal. During a wardec, but moreso all the time.


(Syeed Ameer Ali) #129

The justification for this change is given with the statistic regarding “5 alliances, 95% of wardecs, lots of wars with no kills”. And yet, I see no analysis as to how, exactly, these changes are meant to improve those statistics.

As a long time solo/small gang wardeccer, I can offer a little analysis as to how wardecs evolved to produce those kinds of statistics.

Years ago, the wardec landscape looked much different. In many ways it was much more vibrant and interesting. Rather than 5 large merc alliances specialized on farming high traffic zones and/or structure shoots, like we have today, wardecs used to be carried out primarily by small corporations, of which there were many, spread out across highsec. There were also many solo wardeccers of the Cannibal Kane or Syeed Ameer Ali type. New players banded together and formed newbie wardec corps.

In those days, rather than being a predictable nuisance on the way to Jita, wardecs used to be great content generators. A common story was that a small wardec corporation would travel to its target’s home system and fight actual battles with them on their own turf. Individuals would be actively hunted down. Great eve stories were written with the help of this awesome mechanic. Many new players, myself included, got their first taste of fleet PvP while defending their highsec corporation from wardeccers - and often winning. Those early defensive wardecs, the memories they generated, are why I still play EVE today.

So what happened, exactly? What brought the wardec system from its former glory to its current dysfunctional state? This is a question that should be discussed, and discussed at length, before making more changes.

Past changes to the wardec system have been of 2 types - those which raise the barriers of entry for aggressors, and those which reduce the tools available to aggressors (or increase those available to defenders).

The first sort is exemplified by the current fee structure. I myself can recall when wardec fees were a flat 2 million isk per week. I have heard tell of a mythical golden age when they were even free, but do not know if I believe the tales. When that was changed, all the newbie wardec corps went out of business - paying 50-500 million isk per week simply was not realistic for new players, especially considering that any wardec corp worth its salt needs at least a few concurrent wars in order to provide content for its members. These fees also are a hardship for smaller “elite PvP” wardec groups and solo artists. I myself can recall when my old friend and mentor, Cannibal Kane, who was perhaps the GOAT of solo wardeccers, was forced to resort to mercenary work in order to pay the fees. Bear in mind, before you call 500 million/war/week chump change, that we are PvP specialists who don’t have time to krab all day, as we are busy finding fights.

Any time you raise the barriers of entry for wardeccing, the result will be that wardeccers consolidate into fewer numbers of larger membership corps/alliances, and that new players are less able to participate.

The other sort of development - that which removes the tools available to aggressors, is perhaps best exemplified by the watchlist nerf. You will recall that there was a whole category of wardeccers a few years back, who would “take the fight to the enemy”, hunting their targets wherever they may live. I have no doubt that in those days, a much larger percentage of wardecs resulted in kills. I am certain, also, that the kill:death ratio was less skewed in favor of aggressors - as they were often fighting on the defender’s home turf, with all the inherent disadvantages that involved.

This category of wardecs was able to exist because wardeccers were able to watchlist their opponents, and be aware who was online and might, therefore, be worth traveling to attack. By removing the capacity to hunt specific targets, the only remaining viable option was farming strategic space, which requires a large number of concurrent wars without any real focus. Well that, and structure shoots.

Now as we analyze these new changes, we see that requiring wardeccers to anchor a structure falls into the first category, and will have a similar effect to raising fees - you raise the barriers of entry, you make it more expensive and difficult to be a wardeccer, and the result will always be that smaller numbers of larger, wealthier alliances dominate the playstyle, and that it becomes less accessible to new players.

This requirement seems particularly nonsensical to me, because there is no strategic justification to it. My wardecs have nothing to do with structures - I’ll just hide a couple if them in remote locations that my targets will never find. It will create no opportunities for a defender to “win” by destroying my structure. It seems like an arbitrary obstacle to put in my way. Unless, that is, the next update includes some new intel tool to reveal the locations of a corporation’s structures. Likewise, I have no intention of ever attacking structures belonging to my targets - because ■■■■ structure shoots. That’s not ever going to be my objective as an aggressor - nor should it be.

On the flip side though - allowing entry level or casual corporations to opt out of wars, this is a new and unprecedented thing. Carebears have always had an option to opt out of wardecs by hiding in NPC corps. If they now choose, instead, to hide in wardec immune player corporations, I actually think this could be a healthy development - just as long as, when they start building sandcastles, they become fair game. I’m optimistic about this part, but will reserve judgement until I see how it plays out.

Another point I’d line to bring up is that nobody on the CSM, to my knowledge, is in a wardec corporation. Are any CCP devs involved in these changes wardeccers? I do not know, but am skeptical. As you, the devs, prepare to eviscerate yet another playstyle, I would humbly suggest that you include players who enjoy and participate in that playstyle in your discussions.


(Max Deveron) #130

well, yes i could…

It doesnt take hours to ninja mine a rock or two…

and smart players would use somethng fit for quick get away…like a combat fit porpoise for example.

as to ninja-salvaging…that still happens, if you are salvaging and not looting, i have seen many crying in different locals about have to destroy their wrecks cause someone is there with them. (cause you dont go suspect for salvaging)
Can flipping, yeah thats a little more dead but thats more because of ore holds and orcas.


(Arrendis) #131

“Oh dear god, no”?

I mean, the Bellicose could maybe stand a redesign, but holy crap, that abortive mash-up of the Corax (bow), Slasher (lower panels), and half a dozen other hulls is just… no.


(Quor Dresden) #132

Sounds like someone made a living off of war decing small newbee corps and is a little upset. Panties all in a bunch.

Risk should be there for all Eve players. That goes for the attackers too. Now attackers have to take on potentially more well defended corps and their allies.


(Arrendis) #133

Sounds like someone doesn’t have a clue and hasn’t taken the time to find out if they’re right before trying to be snarky.


(Max Deveron) #135

I started in 2010,

So yes i remember the flat 2 million per week for wardecs…

you forgot to mention that when that price existed…a corp was also limited to having a total of 3 wardecs active at any one time…and there was no Ally on the Defense mechanic…

So you had to be smart in highsec, you had to have allies in regards to bigger more dramatic fights…
Like Shadow Alliances was a thing back then, and using the mechanics to work around that 3 dec limit with other corps made things interesting.


(Daichi Yamato) #136

You haven’t been reading have you.


(Max Deveron) #137

LOL, no im upset as a HS dweller cause my playstyle is being threatened…cause not enough people are taking stuff or being punished for when they do…


(Professor JinMine) #138

There is an indirect one : bash all refinery service fitted structures within X jumps from your moon system.
Another one : place good buy orders so the ores end up in your hands anyway regardless who mines your moon


(Zachri) #139

All predictable jokes on iteration aside, have you guys given any thought to the inherent conflict in player type drivers here? There’s a lot of emphasis on attracting specific types of users, a lot of which is on its own quite different from the focus of some years ago, or the archetyping before that. Only logical, things have been changing for a while now - seperate topic in its own right but one which defines the box.

Very simplistically put, on the one hand you’re attracting user and driver types which likes space stuff, wants to go out there, doesn’t have a stupid amount of time but is used to industry changes elsewhere, aiming to replicate ideas among pixels and in tune with shortcut concepts as well as leisure approaches. Part of all that to vent steam, part of that to build better dreams - so to speak.

The first group having been emphasised in spite of all the demonstrable data we clashed about with Oveur when he was still around, later prioritised, later just left as status quo (and a bit of a preserve).

The second group basically being the rapid replacement retention issue several marketing panels in a row at fanfests described but couldn’t really listen to due to restrictions.

Now eve’s been changing for quite a while, the first group having split, part of it is now in the second box of changing demographics, expectation & play patterns. CCP approaching change, good. Cause it’s a constant.

But there’s still the baseline variations in psychological profiles behind the math. Behaviour is a spectrum. In other words, you’ve still got “vent steam” and “do my thing and build a house” represented. But that second group isn’t just bigger, it’s growing, it’s sticking around a bit longer due to shortcuts. Which makes it a more viable plug for Hilmar’s hole in the bottom of the ship.

So, stale dynamic. Game design challenge. Changing demographics, types and drivers. But the solution, or at least the approach, doesn’t appear to really weight the last bit. Yes, putting up a fort is a signal. Yes, that may revitalise. But it sidesteps scale + drivers. It leaves the original drivers of toxicity intact, while essentially challenging that second group on an even deeper level of motivations than the current model.

On paper juggling statistics the rationality of these changes is clear and visible, and seemingly correct. I would argue that there’s over a decade of precedent where exactly that approach (within boundaries set, obviously) has been largely responsible for challenges with brand perception as well as the iteration / ignore issues of the past.

Context and definitions. Foundations to CCP’s analysis. As much as I don’t like it (differences in playstyle), more and more new types want to build, dream, vent in other ways than historically. To them a structure isn’t a fort, it’s a house. Base the new model around that, and you base it around a negative driver.

Humans are an odd species. Their behaviour isn’t rooted in this or that reality: their perception is what they make their reality. If circumstances provided / present for them do not match that, they have this odd tendency to entrench even deeper.

Maybe you need to just introduce an actual fort-not-house flag, might be too soon considering changes - it wouldn’t fly with what eve was, but it qualifies as a set requirement for what it’s becoming.


(WD 4E) #140

Oh, Engage brain and thought process before taking action. Sounds like some one with a MBA was told to make a number on a chart move. Let’s try this? NOT Think first. Engage others with knowledge.
I post this as it was just a small section of one post, but with profound meaning.


(Nana Skalski) #141

Its made by Minmatar from off the market parts and is influenced by designs that are proven in battle. Its to keep price low and offer good reliability for ship that doesnt need much duct tape to be held together.

Clearly superior design to the previous one.