With Friends Like These... - New Ally System

[Quesa]

In EVE Online, wars are fought for any reason the human mind can come up with and are a true melting pot of emergent game play. We've always left it to the players to define WHY they fight, but we've also always wanted to give you guys more tools to frame your war-mongering ambitions. The new Ally System introduced in the upcoming Inferno expansion is an addendum to the war mechanics, one that allows players to more easily get aid when finding themselves dragged into an unfavorable war, through our mercenary marketplace. A corporation or alliance can join a defender in a war as an ally, fighting alongside the defending side. The war system will effectively regard the two one entity when it comes to tracking war progress. A previous dev blog (found here) discussed the ally system a bit, but now we have more to show on the UI side and can discuss the nitty gritty in a bit more detail. My Kingdom For An Ally So, lets say you find yourself on the receiving end of war declaration and you want to swing the odds a bit more in your favor. You want to it to be known that you’re interested in getting help. To do so, you go to your Corporation panel in the Neocom and select the Wars tab. In the 'Our Wars' tab you’ll see the wars you’re engaged in. You can click the sword in a war in which you’re the defender and check the Open for Allies checkbox on the bottom of the popup window called Allies (which also lists all active allies you have, and existing ally offers). Note that only the CEO (or a Director) can make this change. Click to enlarge The 'Our Wars' tab also lists the ally status of your wars and shows the wars that you’re an ally in. If you’re the CEO/Director, you see an exclamation mark (!) next to the sword, when you’ve received an offer from someone interested in becoming your ally. The offer includes a text field and an ISK amount. You can either accept or decline the offer. If you want to negotiate with the interested party, you can use the normal communication channels for that until an agreement is reached. Can I Come In And Play? On the other side of the coin, if you want to become an ally for some interested party willing to pay for your services, your first stop is the All Wars tab in the Corporation/Wars section. This is a list of wars to spectators, but a mercenary marketplace to potential sellers of muscle. In the All Wars tab you will see a list of all active wars (it shows 50 most recent, you can also use the search function to find wars of a specific corporation/alliance). Wars where the defender is asking for an ally are shown with a plus sign on the sword. Wars where there is one or more allies is shown with an asterisk (*) next to the sword. Click to enlarge The best way to find prospective patrons is to filter by checking the ‘Assistance requests only’ checkbox. You can now see all wars where the defender is seeking allies. Click on the sword icon on the right, this will bring up a box where you can enter message and suggested ISK cost and send it to the defending corp/alliance to initiate contact. When the defender accepts an ally offer, the ally becomes a formal part of the war and can start fighting 24 hours later. Say Hello To My Little Friend the Rules Lawyer Now it’s time to step back a little and look at some of the rules and regulations surrounding the ally system. Let’s do it in a nice, tight bullet point list: There are no limits to how many allies you can have There is no limit to how many wars you can be an ally in You get an ally for a specific war, not all wars you’re in. You can ally with the same corp/alliance several times though Only the defender can get allies If a corporation that is an ally joins an alliance, then the ally status transfers to the alliance as a whole A corporation/alliance cannot join as an ally against a corporation/alliance they are already at war with. Similarly, if you’re already an ally against someone, you cannot declare a separate war against them or join as an ally against them again. Basically, ally status counts as being at war with the aggressor corp/alliance, so anything that would create a new war state between them cannot happen The payment from the defender to the ally is a one-time payment, it does not recur every week The ally cannot seperately negotiate peace with the aggressor – the war ends for him at the same time as the defender (either because the bill wasn’t paid or either side surrenders) When you offer to ally someone, you must wait for them to respond, or 24 hours (which ever comes first) before making another formal offer. Just Shut Up And Tell Me Why So, now many long and fancy words have been spent to explain the what and how of the ally system. But the why is still left unanswered. One of the main goals we had in reworking the war mechanics was introducing more options for the defender. The line we had to skirt here was maintaining the war system as primarily a tool mechanic (as opposed to feature mechanic), so whatever options we would introduce had to comply to that. The ally system ended up being a good solution here, because not only does it provide a simple way for someone to get help, but it also introduced risk for the aggressor and an avenue, or career, for the many pilots interested in mercenary-like activity. And most importantly it emphasizes one of the key truths in EVE – that having friends is really important. Future Is Not A Dirty Word So what’s in store post-Inferno? While Team Super Friends is not going to do a whole-release worth of iteration on the ally system, there are a few things in the pipeline. Setting a fixed contract length to ally contracts is one thing we want to do. While the current implementation is fine for the most part, there are a few edge cases where the eternal ally bond can become an issue. It should also make negotiations smoother, when the knowledge of the exact length of the contract is known beforehand. Another thing we’re looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars – if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. We’ll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted. There are several improvements for the ally marketplace that we want to look into. Most notably, giving defenders the ability to enter more information when looking for allies, such as by allowing them to enter location, price range, etc. In a similar vein, allowing mercenaries to advertise their services is something we’re looking into, where they could filter by preferred area of operation, their strength, etc. Another area we might iterate on a bit is the war report - we want to show more clearly the contribution of each ally in the war - how much loss they've inflicted and received as portion of the total. This is in addition to other additions we want to make to the war report that are not just ally related, such as introduce timelines and battle reports. Finally, we want to expand a lot on the information spreading of wars and their state. We want to show information about active wars, their war reports and how wars concluded in EVE Gate. This can include several kinds of leaderboards, such as ranking war loss inflicted vs. war loss received, rank the effectiveness of allies (i.e. how much loss do they inflict of the total, etc.) and similar rank lists. One thing we want to be very careful about here is what data to count and what data is presented. For instance, wars against entities that actively fight back will count more for these rank lists, to encourage people to fight those willing to fight. Getting this information on EVE Gate would give players a better understanding of the military strength of corporations and alliances, with a special focus on mercenary corps. Naturally, it can also act as a nice status symbol for those interested in this kind of activity, with entities competing for the ‘Hall of Fame’. On the whole, the ally system is an exciting addition to the war system, one that makes wars more of an uncertain business and an interesting avenue for mercenary pilots in New Eden. New to EVE? Start your 14-day free trial today. Returning pilot? Visit Account Management for the latest offers and promotions.

View article...

[Quesa]

So, good or bad iteration?

Seems like they are simplifying and making the system more intuitive.

[Don Peyote]

I like this idea, not sure if people will pick up on it rather than just going for the easy option (turtling/decshield). It's a good idea, and the interface is nice (for EVE), but for once I think the problem is with the target playerbase rather than

Still, with this system in place, it's technically possible to extort carebear corps by wardeccing them with one corp, and using an alt corp to ally with them for a decent sum of money, and a new way of extorting hiseccers can only be good

[Quesa]

Seems this adds a new dimension to scamming - defense corp scams. Defenders offer to help for x amount of ISK then do nothing. Maybe they'll get to work on a corp reputation system to combat this.

[Hilmar Keller]

"You get an ally for a specific war, not all wars you’re in. You can ally with the same corp/alliance several times though"

So in other words, it's an option specifically for high-sec wardecs, but has virtually no relevance to low/nullsec.

Why not use this system to replace the annoying 'standings' system? I mean, it's not terribly necessary, but at first that's what I thought this was all about.

[Quesa]

So in other words, it's an option specifically for high-sec wardecs, but has virtually no relevance to low/nullsec.

Why not use this system to replace the annoying 'standings' system? I mean, it's not terribly necessary, but at first that's what I thought this was all about.

Wardecs don't affect 0.0 entities as much as they do high-sec entities. This system will make it easier for defender corps to counter-dec those griefer corps who dec null-sec'ers since I didn't see a CONCORD cost involved with defending another entity (unless I missed something).

Overall, I like the change.

[Hilmar Keller]

Wardecs don't affect 0.0 entities as much as they do high-sec entities. This system will make it easier for defender corps to counter-dec those griefer corps who dec null-sec'ers since I didn't see a CONCORD cost involved with defending another entity (unless I missed something).

Overall, I like the change.

So here's the abuse potential I see:

1. Small High-Sec Wardec Corp Please Ignore puts a wardec on Small High-Sec Industrial Corp Please Ignore.
2. SHSICPI looks through the Ally list and picks MOAR TEARS, who will play Defender for free.
3. SHSWCPI can't contract any Allies for supporting their wardec, so they get roflstomped by MOAR TEARS.
4. MOAR TEARS pays zero wardec fees.

[Matos]

So here's the abuse potential I see:

1. Small High-Sec Wardec Corp Please Ignore puts a wardec on Small High-Sec Industrial Corp Please Ignore.
2. SHSICPI looks through the Ally list and picks MOAR TEARS, who will play Defender for free.
3. SHSWCPI can't contract any Allies for supporting their wardec, so they get roflstomped by MOAR TEARS.
4. MOAR TEARS pays zero wardec fees.

They could just drop the wardec though.

Edit: But after thinking about it it really reduces motivation to wardec a lot so its a valid concern. Especially since you can probably get allys for free and there is no limit how many of them you can get.

[Rer]

I think we'll see continued change over the coming months after release. Still not sure whether this is a good or bad change, but all I know is the War-Dec system as it currently stands is fucking retarded, so at least now they're trying something new.

Edit: But after thinking about it it really reduces motivation to wardec a lot so its a valid concern. Especially since you can probably get allys for free and there is no limit how many of them you can get.

It does totally create a Mercenary Market (in theory) though, which I would argue evens out the possible disincentive to war-dec like crazy.

[Gyncognito]

Create 5 man high sec corp. Grief and taunt the hell out of someone until the dec war. Bring in literally every alliance in eve as a free 'ally.' Why would anyone ever dec war under any circumstances when you could literally have the entirety of eve come in against you? This will effectively kill the 'legit' wardec where two corps try to settle a difference. The only people left dec'ing will be the ones just looking for high sec kills who would love if some massive alliance jumped in as an ally because it's a free dec at zero cost.

So essentially, nothing at all is changed. This is basically a tool for professional war dec corps to avoid the massive fees that might normally apply to certain decs.

[poaw]

So here's the abuse potential I see:

1. Small High-Sec Wardec Corp Please Ignore puts a wardec on Small High-Sec Industrial Corp Please Ignore.
2. SHSICPI looks through the Ally list and picks MOAR TEARS, who will play Defender for free.
3. SHSWCPI can't contract any Allies for supporting their wardec, so they get roflstomped by MOAR TEARS.
4. MOAR TEARS pays zero wardec fees.

The onus is on the small wardec corp to not be so shit that MOAR TEARS stomps on them when they declare war on an indy corp. Or pick another wardec corp to wardec instead of a group of industrialists/mission-runners who are much more likely to simply dock up or bring in allies?

Seriously you're asking what CCP can do to stop bad players from losing to better players.

[Aerallo]

The fact of the matter is, you aren't just war deccing anyone (doesn't matter if they're High Sec industrialists or not), you're essentially opening your door to anyone coming past, to thoroughly fuck up your day.

It's interesting, because it adds a new twist to War Decs. Already we've seen many alliances offer their services for free on existing war decs on high sec entities. It just comes down to creating a class of high sec pvpers (what) that don't necessarily dictate who their targets are, it changes week to week, depending on who they support.

[Quesa]

I don't really see it as a new twist/dimension of the wardec system, I see it as an obvious oversight. I'm not the sharpest needle in the package but even I saw that potential a few seconds after reading it.

[Hilmar Keller]

To clarify, any corporation which sends a wardec can expect to fight a clusterfuck of corps/alliances which will offer their services free-of-charge. Since there's no money involved, entities like the Orphanage could feasibly be able to fight every single entity with an open wardec in high-sec without paying a single ISK. I mean, if I had a high-sec corp and we got wardec'd, why wouldn't I hire MOAR TEARS, The Orphanage, and three or four other wardec alliances just for shits and giggles?

[Le'Blob]

To clarify, any corporation which sends a wardec can expect to fight a clusterfuck of corps/alliances which will offer their services free-of-charge. Since there's no money involved, entities like the Orphanage could feasibly be able to fight every single entity with an open wardec in high-sec without paying a single ISK. I mean, if I had a high-sec corp and we got wardec'd, why wouldn't I hire MOAR TEARS, The Orphanage, and three or four other wardec alliances just for shits and giggles?

You would, and that is exactly what is happening atm. Just take a look at goonswarm federations current wars. Personally, I can't really see why this wardec system is better, seens how it just discourages nullsec/lowsec alliances to do ANYTHING in highsec, outside of logistics with alt corps.

[Themick]

As someone in a mainly high-sec corp at the moment, yeah..I kind of like the new system. We had a war up at the time the patch went through and since then 12 other entities have joined. 0rphanage joined last night also.

We're a bunch of newish players, and when some of our vets told us about 0rphanage and what they're about, our comms blew up with excitement. We're not stating we're going to kick some ass, most likely the opposite will happen, and we'll take losses. However, as a 3 day newb put it; "If you're scared of losing ships, stay docked." We'll have some heavy red on our KB, but we'll have fun learning too.

[Brooks Puuntai]

They really need to put a limit on how many groups can help defend, or a cap on how many decs you can help defend. Otherwise it will be abused like hell. I however kind of see CCPs reasoning for this, since war decs really have gotten out of control, and has just turned war decs into a cheap griefing pass.

[poaw]

You would, and that is exactly what is happening atm. Just take a look at goonswarm federations current wars. Personally, I can't really see why this wardec system is better, seens how it just discourages nullsec/lowsec alliances to do ANYTHING in highsec, outside of logistics with alt corps.

What the hell did nullsec/lowsec entities do in highsec before the revamp?

That being said I can't really muster sympathy for someone who wardecs some no name indy corp or something then cries when someone who can actually fight shows up. If they're really that concerned about being dogpiled, then they can just drop the wardec.

Heat. Kitchen. Get out.

[Hilmar Keller]

What the hell did nullsec/lowsec entities do in highsec before the revamp?

That being said I can't really muster sympathy for someone who wardecs some no name indy corp or something then cries when someone who can actually fight shows up. If they're really that concerned about being dogpiled, then they can just drop the wardec.

Heat. Kitchen. Get out.

First off, the complaints with these changes aren't on behalf of nullsec alliances. They have legions of hauler/missioning alts to do their highsec business for them. Instead, this system totally assrapes small corps which want to PVP a corp near to their size in highsec. Maybe I'm just nostalgic, but something like this happened with me within my first week or two of playing EVE (my corp wardec'd a corp known to be mining in the area).

Also, this doesn't just affect the little guys - alliances which wardec for fun (like, ironically, the Orphanage) are going to find every other highsec wardec alliance red to them if they haven't already. MOAR TEARS likes ganking, but I don't think they very much like running into gate camps themselves.

[poaw]

I weep, and I mean WEEP for all the highsec PVPers who will be forced into fighting other PVPers with these changes.

If a small pvp corp really wanted to avoid the a MOAR TEARS/0RPHANGE gang rape, they could just move to tthe ass end of highsec and do their business there instead of playing the elite merc of Jita/Amarr game with people who are bigger and better at it.

Or move to lowsec like someone born without a vagina.

[Hilmar Keller]

Yeah, because the solution to broken game mechanics is 'move as far away from other players as possible.'

Do you actually read what you write before you post?

[poaw]

That isn't a solution to "broken game mechanics". It's a solution to being inferior to someone and not wanting to deal with getting better than them.

Someone smaller/dumber/worse having to deal with unpleasantness isn't some kind of broken aberration that must be fixed. It's the point of PVP in EVE.

[Pielemieni]

That isn't a solution to "broken game mechanics". It's a solution to being inferior to someone and not wanting to deal with getting better than them.

Someone smaller/dumber/worse having to deal with unpleasantness isn't some kind of broken aberration that must be fixed. It's the point of PVP in EVE.

Mhm, that's why the current sov mechanic is so wildly applauded, amirite? Because it allows someone smaller/dumber/worse to deal with unpleasantness by various means (in particular by 'moving as far away from other players as possible') and does not need to be fixed.

[Hilmar Keller]

That isn't a solution to "broken game mechanics". It's a solution to being inferior to someone and not wanting to deal with getting better than them.

Someone smaller/dumber/worse having to deal with unpleasantness isn't some kind of broken aberration that must be fixed. It's the point of PVP in EVE.

Since you're trying to celebrate PVP here, let me remind you that with the current mechanics, declaring war (regardless of my corp's size or experience) will absolutely result in a clusterfuck unless the wardec is pre-arranged with the intent of goodfights (see: RvB).

How is this mechanic not broken?

[kristoffon]

Also, this doesn't just affect the little guys - alliances which wardec for fun (like, ironically, the Orphanage) are going to find every other highsec wardec alliance red to them if they haven't already. MOAR TEARS likes ganking, but I don't think they very much like running into gate camps themselves.

Oh the irony! Griefers being griefed! Please do go on sir, those tears are delicious.

[Hilmar Keller]

No moar tears?

[Grim]

Highsec wardecs have always been pretty gay. This just makes war an actual risk when tryhard highsec elitists wardec that 15 man miner corp for :goodfights:

[Arrador]

so this has the mechanic potential of turning all of highsec into RvsB? And this is seen as a bad thing?

[Mfume]

How is this mechanic not broken?

It keeps very well with the EVE theme of being harsh, unfair and not particularly pleasant unless you're the strongest.

[poaw]

Mhm, that's why the current sov mechanic is so wildly applauded, amirite? Because it allows someone smaller/dumber/worse to deal with unpleasantness by various means (in particular by 'moving as far away from other players as possible') and does not need to be fixed.

That has nothing to do with Dominion sov. Dominion sov is loved so much because you have to shoot through 2 Bajillion HP of inanimate objects and the grind itself is often times more demoralizing than the fights you lose. Huge masses of people showing up for fights happened before Dominion, and will happen after Dominion.

Since you're trying to celebrate PVP here, let me remind you that with the current mechanics, declaring war (regardless of my corp's size or experience) will absolutely result in a clusterfuck unless the wardec is pre-arranged with the intent of goodfights (see: RvB).

How is this mechanic not broken?

Because in EVE escalation is always an option. Be it ISK, ships, or blue lists, a sandbox has never restricted the ability of someone to do things bigger than the next guy. That and you're acting as if the entirety of highsec war dec corps are going to immediately start camping in every pocket of highsec waiting to spring into action against you. When the reality is that they're just in it for a free wardec so they have more potential targets to pick off on the Perimeter gate and Jita 4-4 undock.

[Rer]

> Leave HighSec
> Problem Sol~ved

[Themick]

Quickie random update: Same newbie tackled an 0rphanage Loki, and hung on for some corp mates to show up and kill it.

[Prodnovick]

It isn't a bad thing that high sec wars became unpredictable. Escalations are one of the best parts of fights in eve. The only problem is can see with the current system is that the aggressor can't escalate to some extent too.

Now we will see what the 4-4 elite pvpers are made of. They have an opportunity for endless amounts of targets and fights but they might have to fight each other for their ganking spots. If they go all gay and nap/bleu/agree not to shoot each other, they really are the faggots I believe them to be.

Since you're trying to celebrate PVP here, let me remind you that with the current mechanics, declaring war (regardless of my corp's size or experience) will absolutely result in a clusterfuck unless the wardec is pre-arranged with the intent of goodfights (see: RvB).

How is this mechanic not broken?

Whaa Whaa we reinforced an IRC pos and NCdot and evoke came to defend it. Like I said, the only bad thing atm is that the aggressor can't escalate in return and maybe defenders should pay a reduced wardeck fee instead on none.

[Hilmar Keller]

Whaa Whaa we reinforced an IRC pos and NCdot and evoke came to defend it. Like I said, the only bad thing atm is that the aggressor can't escalate in return and maybe defenders should pay a reduced wardeck fee instead on none.

Slightly bad analogy, since it's more like we reinforced a CVA pos and the whole CFC, NC., -A-, BL and (fuck it) E-Uni came to defend it. And CVA didn't pay a cent for it. And nobody from CVA had to show up to fight.

But now that I think about it, I don't expect the Jita ganking alliances to accept positions as allies against each other. They might become allies for some shitty high-sec corps or wannabe 4-4 campers, but, you know. The spice must flow.

[poaw]

It isn't a bad thing that high sec wars became unpredictable. Escalations are one of the best parts of fights in eve. The only problem is can see with the current system is that the aggressor can't escalate to some extent too.

The new system makes it easier for the aggressor to escalate than it was before. The wardec cost is a fixed fee and the doesn't increase with the number of active wardecs so as long as you're willing to pay the fee a functionally infinite number of parties could join the aggressor.

[Quesa]

The new system makes it easier for the aggressor to escalate than it was before. The wardec cost is a fixed fee and the doesn't increase with the number of active wardecs so as long as you're willing to pay the fee a functionally infinite number of parties could join the aggressor.

The difference is the defenders can evade the war-dec costs, which is a mistake.

[Kanloch]

The new system makes it easier for the aggressor to escalate than it was before. The wardec cost is a fixed fee and the doesn't increase with the number of active wardecs so as long as you're willing to pay the fee a functionally infinite number of parties could join the aggressor.

Maybe I read wrong but from the devblog I thought they said only the defender i.e. the corp/alliance that was wardecced can have allies join in, but the aggressor i.e. the one who initiated the wardec can't?

[Pielemieni]

The new system makes it easier for the aggressor to escalate than it was before. The wardec cost is a fixed fee and the doesn't increase with the number of active wardecs so as long as you're willing to pay the fee a functionally infinite number of parties could join the aggressor.

Maybe I read wrong but from the devblog I thought they said only the defender i.e. the corp/alliance that was wardecced can have allies join in, but the aggressor i.e. the one who initiated the wardec can't?

An aggressor can have e.g. all his blues wardec the same target. So assuming they all pay the fee, functionally the attackers will be acting as the same side of the same war. Only from the game mechanics POV, these wars will be treated as separate (so the defenders' allies will have to be employed for each of them separately). The escalation factor poaw refers to (I think) is that previously, each next "blue" of the initial attacker would have had to pay more and more money, while now the wardec fee is not related to the amount of target's wars.

[Kanloch]

Oh I see now, thanks.

[Hilmar Keller]

Still, each of those 'blues' has to pay the wardec fee, while the defender could enlist the same allies for every wardec for no charge. It still favors the defender in every scenario.

[Mfume]

Still, each of those 'blues' has to pay the wardec fee, while the defender could enlist the same allies for every wardec for no charge. It still favors the defender in every scenario.

The defenders are generally not highsec PvP corps/alliances, so I don't see how throwing them a bone is a bad thing.

[Quesa]

The defenders are generally not highsec PvP corps/alliances, so I don't see how throwing them a bone is a bad thing.

I think the main point is that CCP usually tries balance two aspects and in this case it isn't balanced.

[Hilmar Keller]

The defenders are generally not highsec PvP corps/alliances, so I don't see how throwing them a bone is a bad thing.

Like nullsec alliances need to be thrown a bone in highsec?

[Mfume]

Given that the ideal result of a highsec wardec is no kills for either side, I'd say it's reasonably balanced in holistic sense. Anything to make the war engagable for the side that generally just docks up/logs off or uses alts to get around it.

[Hilmar Keller]

Given that the ideal result of a highsec wardec is no kills for either side, I'd say it's reasonably balanced in holistic sense. Anything to make the war engagable for the side that generally just docks up/logs off or uses alts to get around it.

I think the ideal result of a highsec wardec is that both sides get a lot of kills, actually.

Yeah, it's inconvenient that you have to use alts to get around highsec wardecs, but like I've said, those highsec alliances which traditionally wardec large nullsec entities aren't going to ally against each other. The spice must flow.

[poaw]

Like nullsec alliances need to be thrown a bone in highsec?

I'm trying to think of a time where the highsec wardec corps AREN'T at war with multiple nullsec entities anyway.