Devblog: War, War Sometimes Changes

[Nana_Skalski]

Can we get this SKIN for citadels then?

[Pheonix_Jr]

Can confirm this is epic. However, due to legacy code this prevents us from doing anything but ui updates for the next year, as weve already done our annual content destruction patch. Sorry.

/sarcasm

[Dracvlad]

I have argued for a long time that larger war dec groups in hisec had no consequences war decking that huge nasty heavy group that no one would mess with because their stuff would get stomped in every other area of space. Now there is at least something to get stomped

If a couple of these nullsec alliances start stomping I would be happy. Consequences have now arrived for war decking the wrong people above being unable to dock up in time and that is a good thing.

Also mercs would have a use and perhaps if CCP could create a special contract type based on the destruction of said HQ structure linked to payment then the real fun could start! @Brisc_Rubal

[Pheonix_Jr]

Sure, new merc corps in eve until pirat marmite and riot rip down any structure they put down by blobbing the ■■■■ out of them and smothering content. But hey, ccp might get headlines for their fights again right?

[Tipa_Riot]

What about command boost in the limited engagement case? Do still work or not?

[Pheonix_Jr]

@Dracvlad

I have argued for a long time that larger war dec groups in hisec had no consequences war decking that huge nasty heavy group that no one would mess with because their stuff would get stomped. Now there is at least something to get stomped

Groups like BAW or gnomes would stomp on mercs all the time, at least whenever active mostly, vmg is a perfect exaple of larger groups being vulnerable to smaller ones… only now theyre not…

[CCP_Lebowski]

They will still work

The increased penalty for neutral targeted assistance will also apply to limited engagements (such as those caused by duels) but for performance reasons we won’t be preventing command bursts from applying to pilots in limited engagements.

[ArmyOfMe]

@Pheonix_Jr

Sure, new merc corps in eve until pirat marmite and riot rip down any structure they put down by blobbing the ■■■■ out of them and smothering content. But hey, ccp might get headlines for their fights again right?

It must be really ■■■■ to be constantly negative like that.
Do actually feel slightly sorry for you, cause it really cant be fun to never see any sort of positivity in life.

Dont get me wrong, I dont agree with everything CCP does (well duh, who would thought right), but at least I try to look for the good stuff when I can. You seem to be focused on depressive thoughts around this, rather then hoping it will be a change for good.

[Arrendis]

But Steve! What about the enemy of my enemy’s enemy’s enemies?

@Steve_Ronuken

Either D just entered the war with C, or C cannot shoot D. But D can repair B.

D just entered the war. And yes, I know it means ‘allies in an offensive war’. So what?

PIE can field 9 people. LUMEN can field 8 people. Electus Matari can field 20, but those dirty savages are in Thebeka doing bad things, so PIE, having been knighted by the Empress last year, feels an obligation to Stop Them™ and brings LUMEN in to help.

As long as joining as an ally means you’re all in and can be shot when you’re not fleeting up, what’s wrong with offensive allies? Because it’ll allow unfair blobbing? Lots of groups can dogpile onto one defender?

That’s already there. They just declare war independently. You’re never going to prevent that. If the individual groups are already strong enough that them ganging up is a problem, they don’t need to gang up. They don’t need that mutual logi support. But this allows, for example, half a dozen small alliances who individually couldn’t do squat against Marmite or PIRAT to gang up without giving up their individual alliances’ identity to take the fight to the bigger groups.

So what’s wrong with that?

@CCP_Fozzie

The same issues tie into the reason we can’t simply allow war allies to rep each other freely

Can you explain what the issues with allowing war allies (ie: people who have joined a war as defensive allies) from repping one another are, and why offensive allies (as opposed to ‘we both wardec’d the same guy’) are bad?

What is bad about ‘you wardec A, you’ve wardec’d A+[A’s Treaty-Obligated Allies]’?

[Arrendis]

@William_Markarian

C should just have helped B in the war against D as an ally, and everything should be fine.

That assumes that B knew D was A’s alt-corp ahead of time… or you have to ally in all wars someone gets into.

[Arrendis]

@R-0-B-0-C-O-P

But should CCP be catering to players and allow them to have corp identity if they aren’t going to be playing fully in our sandbox?

Yes. CCP should be making small, reasonable concessions to keep people engaged and playing, so that maybe they’ll eventually choose to go war-eligible, rather than forcing it and having them dock up for a week, find something else to do with their group, and then never come back because… they found something else to do with their group.

Which is what was happening.

[Nana_Skalski]

@Arrendis

But Steve! What about the enemy of my enemy’s enemy’s enemies?

Blue them anyway.

[Dracvlad]

He does sort of have a point here, I was in Spectrum on an alt but they had a change in direction which did not suit me so I left, nothing major, I like the guys there. They ended up declaring war against PIRAT. My location is near an important structure and I noticed something in local after coming back to my computer after doing an hours bike.

I then checked and saw the kill mail and then saw that PIRAT had reinforced this structure. The next day was the next timer, I had something to do so could not observe, but I saw that Spectrum gave it a go, they got smashed. They played right into PIRAT’s hands, it was a total one-sided massacre.

I would have done this differently and I would love to have sit down with the FC’s and suggested a different approach to take into account the sheer bling and power of PIRAT for example and a more clever approach, however due to spying this would be very difficult to pull off but a lot better than what they did. But a part of me suspected that maybe this is what they wanted…, maybe it was setup for content and easy kills to pad the killboard.

I understand where he is coming from.

@Pheonix_Jr

Groups like BAW or gnomes would stomp on mercs all the time, at least whenever active mostly, vmg is a perfect exaple of larger groups being vulnerable to smaller ones… only now theyre not…

I remember that period, but explain now why they are not now, maybe send me an Eve mail because I think they are more vulnerable.

[ArmyOfMe]

Well I suspect the answer here would be to hire better mercs.
In EVE, just like in most other things, you get what you pay for.
Granted, MC is now dead (again), but newer, stronger merc alliances will come to life because of this, of that I have little doubt.

I used to be in a merc corp waaaay back when it was an actual thing rather then what most “merc” corps are today, and it was both fun and rewarding. I’m really hoping that we will once again see an influx of good corps like that. I even expect some bitter old vets that have long since left the game, come back for something like this (yeah, bitter vets are always romantic to the thought of reliving the old glory days).

[Karma_Bad]

My response to April Changes

Proposal: using the KISS Method vs Sludge Hammer

1. Command Boosts
   1: Suspect Flag
   2: Add Ammo
   3: Sec Status Hit

2. Remote RR

* Keep in Mind this is not my dream vision, but Between the current Proposal and fixing Problems.

* Duels are a different Animal, Concord can create its own sub rules on how they can work, and does not need to have any influence over any game mechanic changes.

.
.

Command Bursts - Remove the Complexity that will be added and server load and Add Ammo Types

Give Command Bursts a suspect flag in Highsec under x conditions
Not much more to be added to above

Add ammo variations
T1 & T2 - Boosts Only those in Corp / Alliance (So remove boosts to all neutrals in High sec)
Pirate Faction - Allows Boost to those in Fleet with Drawbacks ( Note *A )
Officer - Overload Version ( Note *B )

Sec Status Hit
Add sec status hit capsuleers become a suspect due to Command Bursts (just like suicide ganking)

• If Players really have a problem with people being neutral and Command Bursting, have them go to -5 sec status eventually, (Not my first choice but it would work)

.
.

A: Pirate Ammo Command Burst
Allows Boost to anyone in fleet but with a potential Suspect Flag

**Potential Drawbacks to be added (not all need apply)

1. Possible Suspect Flag - When Non Corp / Alliance mate in fleet has an Engagement Flag and is in range.
2. Reduced Effectiveness
3. Reduced Effective Boost time but with increased Ammo Consumption (no net change but increased ammo)
4. Inability to warp for x (Lore reasons: Overloads Warp Drive Computers, Or Concord Anti Combat Initiative of Thursday , April 4th, YC121)

B: Officer Ammo Command Burst

1. “Massive” Boost
2. Reversed Bastion Module Stats to Ship
3. Or Destruction Of Ship after Use

**Potential Drawbacks to be added (not all need apply)

1. Possible Suspect Flag - When Non Corp / Alliance mate in fleet has an Engagement Flag and is in range.
2. Reduced Effectiveness
3. Reduced Effective Boost time but with increased Ammo Consumption (no net change but increased ammo)
4. Inability to warp for x (Lore reasons: Overloads Warp Drive Computers, Or Concord Anti Combat Initiative of Thursday , April 4th, YC121)

&

5. Inability to be remote repaired
6. Reduced Ship Stats
7. Can only be fitted to X ship type
8. Ship Distruct depending on how big of boost
9. Unable to Affect X ship Types (Capitals or whats needed for balance)

Rational for Proposal

• Working Understanding

1. Command Boosting Is still Complex on player knowledge and Server Side
2. This is intended to Try to Fix boosts without Modifying and complicating Server Code significantly
3. The Current Wars are creating massive neutral headaches
   .
4. Things in eve shouldn’t be disallowed just to make life easy
5. Things in eve should be easy to understand how and when something works
   .
6. If the Affect is > than the Cost than eve players will tend use it.

.

• The Whys then (Always a work in Progress)

1. The Real Problem with Boosts: The Simple Problem isn’t that they can boost but can boost without being shot at, Give them a suspect Flag and either

• the boosters will fly cheaper ships
• get killed
• or boosts are to powerful for the current fleet meta and should be balanced by itself
• • By reduced Bonuses
• • Reduced bonuses based on how many are affected by boost
• • Or By some other metric

2. Simplify the code: Changing the Server Logic to Simple If, Then Code on the Ammo it reduces how much the server needs to work

3. Remove Edge Cases: Simple Yes / No to a large pool will Reduce the edge cases that not if, Will be Created, (none of this if A looks at B wrong what does C get to do)

4. Creates Variety: wile still streamlining minimal modules

5. Reduced pound head on Wall: Capsuleers can still do there normal day to to day with minimal modifications vs a now you Cant or a server response of it might work when you activate your module or it might not.

6. Precog Crimes: Just because people cant shoot neutrals before they commit a crime doesn’t mean it should be banned, or in that case concord should effectively start preemptively targeting every ship in eve before they activate there weapon systems in high sec.

7. Sec Status Hit: If boosting is being such a problem create a higher cost to use the feature vs removal

• • This is either done via destruction of ship (by -5.0)
    or forcing sec status tags to stay above -5.0

.
.
.
Neutral RR

My Big problem with the upcoming changes:

Is it really being said that if I RR someone that im at war with, I Will be CONCORDOKKEN. in high sec.

If your at war with someone you should be able to do what you want without fear of retribution of mechanics.

• This should be something that is mostly solved with meta mechanics, Bring a Fleet of alpha ships and shoot those that RR

• If its believed that those that shoot RR will be killed by the RR reshiping into pvp, Than Create a flag that expires when the ship is destroyed only for RR.

• This Removes the option of emergent game play of Neutral Medics entering a battlefield

• Removes RR for NPSI that happen to pass through high sec

Proposed Fixes vs Concord Hammer

1. Create a module option to Still go suspect but reduced effectiveness or range
2. Add sec status hit
3. Add Anti Warp affect to those that use RR
4. Create a Ramp up affect like Triglovian Technology
5. Longer Suspect Flag
6. Suspect Flag for aggressors of RR ships removed after destruction of RR Ships
7. Create a flag where NPC faction police are sent vs concord (So a penalty without 100% destruction)
   .

Rational

1. This touches to many types of game play to be “Just rolled out” within a wardec changes
2. RR has been a option to have newer players assist larger assets
3. The Current mechanics allow tag along into a fleet fight to introduce / vet players without forcing to full immediate integration into a corporation
4. Removes the option of My enemy of my enemy is my friend.
5. The largest conglomerate of players under 1 alliance/corp will be better of holding a field vs a Larger collection of players that are now unable to work together outside of dps application or ally’s of a war, despite all of them being at war with Entity A.

.

To be Continued / Updated at a later Point

.
.
.

[Brisc_Rubal]

I really like that idea - need to figure out how it would work.

[Arrendis]

I still feel like wars need to have objectives. When you declare war: why are you declaring war?

Without a clearly designated objective, CONCORD’s literally just accepting a bribe to ignore murder.

[Brisc_Rubal]

I agree. That’s why I wanted victory conditions. The War HQ thing is as close as we could get.

[Arrendis]

But that’s exactly the opposite. It’s a ‘victory condition’ for the people who didn’t want the war.

I mean, it’s literally ‘Hey, you know that thing you didn’t want to have to do? We found a way you can not do it! All you have to do is… GO DO IT! YAAAAAAY!!’

I mean, sure, that’s a valid thing to tell a kid who doesn’t want to clean out the cat box, but do we really want EVE warfare in the same category as cat feces?

[Dracvlad]

Well we could take your deal with Darkness as an example, you wanted content, to win, a green killboard and ISK. Most hisec war deckers run protection rackets threatening to blow your stuff up unless you pay them ISK. That is their objective, you did the same with Darkness.

There are some who have an objective to take that moon or drive that person away etc., but the main war deckers are in it for the ISK.

Here is an example:

@R-0-B-0-C-O-P

Right??? Wardecs are so much more enjoyable when you can bot in a super to pay for the costs. /s

Drac you’ve ignored my point before that Pirat is self-sustaining through contracts. The srp, the war costs, and all that come from contracts. No need to bot you silly person.

It is not merc contracts as such but protection money, I had a guy in the AG channel who paid some people 2.5bn not to blow up his hisec Azbel.