Devblog: War, War Sometimes Changes

[Brock_Khans]

@Querns

This was a concern I had way back when they announced highsec moons, and while it’s a little affirming to see it was actually true, it’s still kinda sh​itty that it’s going on for those who own highsec moons.

My suggested fix to this would be that anyone who tries to mine your moons while not on the ACL for the structure that generated them gets a suspect flag. It’s not a perfect solution, but it allows for at least some counterplay.

Bumping Mach and call it a day

[Arrendis]

@ArmyOfMe

Why does it need to be in high sec? Thats a very strange move to make in my opinion.

Well, let’s counter your example:
Goons declare war on small highsec group. Set their War HQ to be deep in Delve, where we can drop titans on anything the small highsec group wants to use against us.

[ArmyOfMe]

@Arrendis

@ArmyOfMe

Why does it need to be in high sec? Thats a very strange move to make in my opinion.

Well, let’s counter your example:
Goons declare war on small highsec group. Set their War HQ to be deep in Delve, where we can drop titans on anything the small highsec group wants to use against us.

I thought about that, and the restriction could be made to be in empire.

[Arrendis]

@ArmyOfMe

I thought about that, and the restriction could be made to be in empire.

Ok, so we put it in Sakht… where we can drop titans on anything the small highsec group wants to use against us.

[Nikolai_Mazinkov]

Has there been any discussion of allowing logi or remote assistance if you are in 2 Alliances at war with each other OR at war with the same target corp/alliance?

RvB btw, but this has other applications for joint wars against an enemy, as it stands you have to form separate fleets, go without logi, or go suspect with logi. With that being removed there is no real logi option for Corp A&B to engage Corp C with logi or assistance together.

I agree that neutral assistance is a problem, typically abused in major hubs on station or gates by larger alliances, however the ability of multiple groups to assist each other against a mutual target would be a good thing.

[ArmyOfMe]

@Arrendis

@ArmyOfMe

I thought about that, and the restriction could be made to be in empire.

Ok, so we put it in Sakht… where we can drop titans on anything the small highsec group wants to use against us.

Are you saying a small corp would stand a chance to kill an war hq belonging to Goons anywhere in eve?
Sounds like a typical goon answer if im honest.

[Arrendis]

Not really, but they’d have more of a chance in highsec. The question was ‘why does it have to be in highsec?’ and the answer is pretty simple: it’s the only place where the larger group can’t drop caps on you, and the smaller group is guaranteed to at least have access to the target system.

[ArmyOfMe]

@Arrendis

and the answer is pretty simple: it’s the only place where the larger group can’t drop caps on you, and the smaller group is guaranteed to at least have access to the target system.

Then the issue is caps and power projection from larger alliances, not the war structures itself.

[Brisc_Rubal]

I’m pleased with these changes, especially the CONCORDing of neutral logi, as that’s been an issue that has been on the table for many, many years.

I’m also pleased that the War HQ idea has been fleshed out, as giving the defender a goal to achieve to “win” the war has been a fundamental part of all of the ideas I’ve pitched about war dec changes over the last year. I’m glad to see that made it in.

I am also pleased to see the changes to the price of war decs, as that was a specific issue that was brought to me by the pro-war dec community as being something they wanted addressed, and the reduction in price for deccing some of the larger war targets should help off-set some of the changes they dislike, as well as increase their profitability, which they made clear in our roundtable was important to them.

I think this is a pretty good compromise system that provides both sides with something, and should encourage more pew pew and less docking up in the future.

[Arrendis]

Well, once you’re out of highsec, ‘larger alliances’ becomes purely a concern for the wardec itself, because in lowsec, anyone can shoot you. So let’s say you limit alliances to 100 people. Put it in lowsec. Ok, I bring members of all 300 Goonswarm alliances.

I appreciate you looking for ways to fit your ‘grr gons’ into this, but take us out of the equation. PIRAT wants to hit a 10-man corp in highsec. So they put their war HQ deep in Aridia. Or Stain. Or a C5 wormhole. How is that fair to the smaller group?

[Eternus8lux8lucis]

Will the War HQ stay the same over multiple wars or will you be able to declare a new war HQ for each war?

As if its the same HQ over multiple wars then thats a great thing. As then by destroying one target many wars are silenced from the war dec squads.

[CCP_Lebowski]

@Nikolai_Mazinkov

Has there been any discussion of allowing logi or remote assistance if you are in 2 Alliances at war with each other OR at war with the same target corp/alliance?

This is something we have discussed, but ultimately would prove much too complicated to track and convey correctly. From April onward you’ll need to be in the same corp or alliance to provide remote assistance in a war.

@ArmyOfMe

a) Small high sec corp war decs goons to try and kill of their logistics, mission runners or whatever.
Goons form for them a tiny fleet, kills the war hq with a fleet 30x the size of agressors corp corp
numbers and destroy war hq. Result, war lasted two days or something and agressors cant restart for
two weeks

The war would always last as long as the reinforcement cycle of a high sec Upwell Structure so significantly longer than 2 days, but you are mostly correct, this change allows corporations and alliances an avenue for ending a war as a defender, and generally speaking, larger groups are going to find this an easier challenge than smaller ones.

@ArmyOfMe

b) Small/medium sized pirate corp has some alliance move in close by, but they are tired of having to
deal with sentrys for every engagement and declares war. Problem is that pirate corps cant go to high
sec to defend their war hq. War lost due to not being able to defend it.

Mercenaries would be an option in this case. generally the high sec restriction is there to prevent destroying the HQ from becoming a nigh on insurmountable challenge for a high sec group.

[Arrendis]

Corporations or alliances with multiple outgoing wars may choose to spread out the War HQs for their wars across multiple structures or use the same structures as HQs for multiple wars as they wish. It will not be possible to change the War HQ once a war has been declared.

So while the war’s active, you can’t change it, but each war can have a different one, and each time the war ends, you can re-dec a new group and designate a new HQ.

[Rivr_Luzade]

Does that War HQ change also require allies who want to participate in a war to aid the defender to have such a structure?

You also do not need to simplify cost calculation, you need to make it cheaper to permanently keep huge groups under war while it is more expensive to keep small groups under war. That will solve many more problems than most of your convoluted but less-bad changes. Keep that 100M weekly cost, but reverse the initial cost. Huge groups do not need guarding from wars, they need to be wide open for dozens and dozens of wars against them. Smaller groups need to get a little better guarding so that people do not just yolo declare wars against them and instead have to identify a worthwhile target that justifies the cost.

That thing aside: I am positively surprised by the described changes.

[Arrendis]

@CCP_Lebowski - the devblog’s options for neutral assistance includes this line:
“2. does not share a corp/alliance (or FW side if the war in question is the FW war) with the assistor”

That would seem to indicate that if you’re on the same side in the militia, fighting against FW enemies, you’re ok in the war… but with the HQs being in highsec, what stops a group from declaring war on (for example) a group like Ushra’Khan, in the Minmatar Militia… and putting their WarHQ in Amarr Highsec, where MinMil can’t go?

[Tribal_Trogdor]

Nothing. Hire mercs or leave milita vov

[Arrendis]

@Rivr_Luzade

You also do not need to simplify cost calculation, you need to make it cheaper to permanently keep huge groups under war while it is more expensive to keep small groups under war. That will solve many more problems than most of your convoluted but less-bad changes. Keep that 100M weekly cost, but reverse the initial cost.

Reverse the initial cost and amp it up. It should be orders of magnitude more expensive for Goons to dec a 10-man corp than a 10-man corp to dec Goons.

[CCP_Lebowski]

@Arrendis

That would seem to indicate that if you’re on the same side in the militia, fighting against FW enemies, you’re ok in the war… but with the HQs being in highsec, what stops a group from declaring war on (for example) a group like Ushra’Khan, in the Minmatar Militia… and putting their WarHQ in Amarr Highsec, where MinMil can’t go?

There’s nothing to stop this specifically, you could also for example, war dec a corp with terrible standings to a faction, and put your HQ in their space, or put your HQ in a High Sec island. There are a few ways to make your HQ harder to kill for the defenders. They aren’t perfect, but as you can also always hire mercenaries or leave militias etc, we’re mostly alright with them.

[CCP_Lebowski]

@Rivr_Luzade

Does that War HQ change also require allies who want to participate in a war to aid the defender to have such a structure?

Allies, like defenders, do not need a war HQ. they are only required to be war eligible.

[Arrendis]

@CCP_Lebowski

They aren’t perfect, but as you can also always hire mercenaries or leave militias etc, we’re mostly alright with them.

Well, this all has the goals of “encouraging the sorts of wars that provide entertaining conflicts between corporations and alliances while reducing the number of situations where players experience a lack of viable choices or feel forced into avoiding joining player corporations entirely.”

But that problem amounts to discouraging conflict, or making players feel forced to giving up their preferred gameplay… or having someone else fight for them. I mean, you’re talking about FW corps. They want to fight.

‘Hi, CCP, we’re here to fight.’
‘Great! You can’t. Go hire someone else to play the game you wanted to play.’

Seems… counterproductive.