Devblog: War, War Sometimes Changes

Already mentioned in the Dev blog that they must be in highsec.

1 Like

Besides, we’d just designate a keepstar in Sazilid. Including the Eye of Terror, it’s 10j from Dairy Queen.

Thanks for testing that Nevyn, so Shae was trolling and I was successfully trolled. I guess I wanted it to be true, my bad I should get my characters back on the test server.

Yeah, I allowed myself to get away from that fact when thinking it through, or not thinking it through as the case was. :tired_face:

Hey folks. Looks like you guys had some heated discussions while we were away over the weekend.

I can confirm that the results you’re seeing in your test are by design for current TQ/SISI code, and that after the April release the logi C would gain a criminal timer and CONCORD response if it reps B in this scenario. Of course a yellow safety would prevent the rep from activating and save the logi an embarrassing lossmail.

3 Likes

You are right. Then only individual aggression tracking will help. Something EvE is doing anyway for limited engagements. So you are allowed to rep an ally if he is aggressed only by war targets of the wars the ally is serving in.

If he gets aggressed by a defender of another war, or in a limited engagement with a neutral, you have to rely on your own corp, or bad luck.

Thats exactly one of my main points that RickyD pointed out.

The only way to keep the chain of suspect timers going is to be concorded when you rep your war target.

and yes there may be a Darwin award, but theirs always spies, awox attempts and other types of game play that use Darwin to win the day.

Sooo… logi in high sec will result in death by concord, never honestly understood from a lore perspective. (I’m that one guy who cares about the lore) Why would concord attack you for healing someones ship? It kinda makes sense in a gameplay sense but it is still really strange to me.

Because ■■■■ lore…

As someone else who cares about the lore (and there are in fact quite a number of us) the reason CONCORD does that in general is that you’re either interfering in a legally-sanctioned conflict of limited scope (duels, kill-rights, even a war-dec is limited in scope, really), and thus violating DED protocols governing capsuleer interactions, or you’re your aiding and abetting a criminal.

2 Likes

After the April release, the penalty for direct targeted neutral assistance meeting the conditions above AND occurring within highsec will become a criminal flag and CONCORD response. The safety system will prevent the activation of the targeted assistance modules under these conditions, so we suggest that support pilots in highsec engage their safety at either green or yellow levels to prevent unintentional CONCORDOKKEN.

SALTALANCHE!!!

War, War Never Changes for the highsec PvEr.

If you’re a small fledging corporation and just dropped your first structure, it will take 100… 200… 300 million ISK to evict you from the game. But, it would be demential to not give you a way out of eviction, right? Let’s look at your choices:

In order to defend yourself from eviction, you must…

…play in a way you aren’t paying for, lose horribly and eventually learn to play EVE the right way until you love it (because you didn’t want all that PvE, right? Right? RIGHT??)
…pay a hefty amount of iSK equal to several days/weeks of your small, fledging corp income (and pray you aren’t paying your attackers under another name) so a mercenary corp might bother to blow a highsec structure against a (supposedly) organized defense.
…stop playing until the wardec is gone (which for 100 million a week, aka a few minutes of corporate income for you attacker, isn’t going to happen unless you’re lucky) and carry on with a enlightening lesson learned
…agree to your eviction and think that, all in all, CCP didn’t need/want your money

Wardeccing structures so people could keep PvEing under wardec was a more sensible path given the demography trend. But then, we wouldn’t be having these wardec changes if CCP hadn’t been making detrimental decissions like this for the last 6 years so, why change the trend now? Less Players Is More EVE™ since 2013.

I’ve read a lot of this thread but i don’t recall see this if they intended to fix this loop hole as Arrendis has mentioned. Unless I missed a csm or dev reply to this issue. I’ve seen this abused a lot, when i would try to help high sec friends defend themselves against corps that spam HS war decs. When the hostile saw that defenders were joining the war they would spam 1 man alt corps into the war than right before they attacked a structure all corp hop into the 1 man corp with the fewest war targets to avoid having to fight a force that would beat them against their target.

So @CCP_Lebowski or any csm that may know the answer, is this being looked into? like making it so you can only join a corp at war with someone if there at war with all of the same people including defenders you current corp is at war with? so 1 corp spamming 50 wars has to fight all 50 if they banded together instead of hoping alt corps to fight a few at a time when they try to fight back.

1 Like

Near as I’ve been able to tell in the thread, it’s actually just going to get worse. Because this bit…

… is enhanced by the fact that even if their targets did try to coordinate… they’ll get CONCORDed as soon as they rep one another.

@Tora_Bushido: your take on all this? Are these changes going to level the playing field at all, or just make the HS wardec corps safer from retribution? (And richer because the price of dec’ing the large null blocs just went through the floor?)

1 Like

I think all hell will break lose in highsec after the patch. people should worry. :smirk:

5 Likes

That’s about what I expected you’d say.

And about what anyone (@CCP_Lebowski) hoping to create “entertaining conflicts between corporations and alliances while reducing the number of situations where players experience a lack of viable choices” should be horrified to see.

(I mean, you’re a right guy, Tora, but let’s face it, the big HS merc groups don’t go wardeccing 1-man corps to provide ‘entertaining conflict between corporations’. It happens to squeeze the target of every last ISK you can, and then blow up their crap anyway.)

1 Like

PIRAT agree with your comments and welcome these new changes. I hope to get some great content when people come to hit the War HQs. Gives goals to the defenders and i’m already looking forward to the PVP. Faylee linked me the twitch stream of his discussions with you. +1 from me.

4 Likes

Out of curiosity, what wil be the cost ratio between attacker and defender in a war? As in, attacking will cost 100 million ISK, how many more might cost to hire mercenaries to destroy a potentially undefended enemy HQ? No need for exact number, just… it’s 10x as in a bilion ISK? 20x? 30x? Worse?

When I was in the War Dec Discord I also suggested that the war follow the character for a week after they leave and would only apply if you joined another player owned corp, CCP could set this up so that it would only apply if they join another war dec eligible corp.

@Brisc_Rubal and @CCP_Lebowski

I was hoping to develop a hisec coalition, but this kills that idea stone cold dead. It is especially annoying as CCP are linking war decs to a structure which I agree with but CCP made it more difficult for the defender to fight back all for the sake of making it easier to pick off pipe campers. :roll_eyes:

The cost to hire Mercs like PIRAT will vary. What is for sure is that we are keen to obtain this work and be hired in this way. We have years of experience doing this and now this mechanic just got interesting.

At the end of the day we all want fights and content.

PIRAT will be happy to be hired to take out other war decing groups come patch day.

1 Like

I’ve rarely seen coalition fights where one alliance’s logi is helping another alliance’s fleet. It generally doesn’t happen. This shouldn’t have any impact on creating coalitions in highsec.

EDIT: The more I think about this, the more I think it might be a problem. Given that INIT has two separate alliances that act as one for the most part, I didn’t even think about that possibility. Going to have to think about that some more.

1 Like