These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Dec, Kill Reports and New Modules discussion

First post First post
Author
T1nyMan
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2012-05-08 14:51:35 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
T1nyMan wrote:
Does Adam ever get out for a walk? Perhaps a wine and dine. I mean seriously... What if anything is in it for Adam? Does anyone even care? Just sayin is all...


I think it's mixed feelings.. for example the game designers are really really fond of him and try to be nice to him all the time and get really defensive when the programmers (who don't care that much about him) try to ruin him


To be frank I read as much into the post and that's why I felt compelled to edit my post above.. I think we could all take just that little bit of time out of our busy lives to think about Adam. Is that asking too much? I don't think so. I leave you all now to ponder.
Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#342 - 2012-05-08 15:02:22 UTC
I can't tell you precisely how it's done but the procedure involves a magnet, goldfish, jumping on one leg and single hair from CCP Hellmar's head.

= Totally understandable, I can picture that.




Once the game designer knows what value to change, why and to what number then it's a simple edit on the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam). The data is then ported for deployment along with other code and data changes tagged to a particular release and deployed to TQ in the form of code and database updates.

= This sounds like a weird Voodoo ritual.



Anyway, could you call your priest to a new session and do the magic, so that we can test the new module stats on Sisi, please?

Blink
Axl Borlara
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#343 - 2012-05-08 15:13:49 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:

the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam).


I'm guessing there's also a Code Authoring Server called Eve?
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#344 - 2012-05-08 16:00:42 UTC
Axl Borlara wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam).
I'm guessing there's also a Code Authoring Server called Eve?
... no, there is this game called EVE Big smile

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer

Bruce Vendetta
Final-Vendetta
#345 - 2012-05-08 16:58:53 UTC
While we're on Adam, is there any chance of the bulk data delivery system that was tested July last year being used to quickly apply balance changes? Instead of having to wait a week or more for adjustments.
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#346 - 2012-05-08 18:33:08 UTC
So no introduction of Micro Jump Drive module?
An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes
#347 - 2012-05-09 07:16:56 UTC
Personally I think that if a war dec is going to depend on the numbers of people involved then it should be the same cost in either direction. Just add the 2 sides together and figure a cost from there, regardless of which side is making the declaration. Lets face it, a 2 man corp wanting to dec the Goons is likely after some idiot mission runner in a pimped ship so they can probably afford it; similarly if Goons wanted to dec the 2 man corp then I doubt there'd be an issue over cost. If isk is to be a deciding factor at least make it an even playing field.
Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#348 - 2012-05-09 10:30:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Tenga Halaris
EDA: New stats on Sisi, yay!

The new stats on the EDA (Extrinsic Damage Amp) are certainly a step in the right direction. After having tested some ships, here is what I found out:

CPU is ok with 35 req on the T2 module.

Damge Bonus should be:

- 16% for T1
- 19% for T2
- 21% for a faction EDA. I hope there will be a Fed Navy EDA. (Oh please do this!)

Ishtar and Domi would perform well, if the EDA gets the 21% damage bonus.

A droneboat, where it finally is more useful to mount dromemods instead of turretmods on lowslots could be very nice.
A Nos /Neut Domi with a better drone damage may also be a nice option for PvP.

The Ishtar can mount 2 EDAs, but only if you don't use a Sentry Rig and an additional CPU rig, which is balanced, because you can't tank and do 700 DPS, without either gimping your fit with supportrigs, or using only Faction/ Deadspace stuff on that Ishtar and still having only 3 tankslots.

Rattlesnake and Gila:

The RS will get a significant boost, but won't be unbalanced at all. ~1000 DPS and a nice tank will be in line with a 1300 DPS Machariel.

Gila will be in line with the Ishtar where you have to sacrifice tank over the EDA and/ or use very expensive mods to compensate.

Another thing is the Skill requirement for the T2 EDA. If you don't want, that everybody and his dog can fit the T2 version, it should have higher req. than Drones IV, WU IV and Gunnery II.

I'd suggest Drones V and Drone Interfacing V.


o/
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#349 - 2012-05-09 11:14:48 UTC
Tenga Halaris wrote:

I'd suggest Drones V and Drone Interfacing V.


o/

Maybe you should have a look at the reqs for a T2 turret mod :p

There should be a rather awesome pic here

Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#350 - 2012-05-09 11:22:09 UTC
Hmm k, you're right. Never mind.
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
#351 - 2012-05-09 14:28:01 UTC
Give up on the shield booster and balance the game instead of implementing weird patches plz

  • Make shield boosters 25-50% better (Consider boosting armor rep cycle time in equal scale too)
  • Remove Crystal implants and make them hitpoint based instead
  • Tweak CCC rigs to give 5% less cap bonus to avoid the easily capstable Eve is experiencing
  • Make the new module an alternative and not a bandaid

If you want to make a fun alternative shield booster you should make it recharge from the capacitor on a 1 to 1 scale like giving the module it's very own capacitor where it draws cap from when activated. When not in use it should recharge taking 10 seconds to recharge from every 10 seconds it has been active. Allow it perhaps 30-60 seconds of capacitor before having to recharge. Maybe even script it so you have to manually ask it to recharge?

Anyway just my warning about not thinking so far out of the box you forget the where the problem was originally. In this case the original problem is active tanking only being good for PvE and small number skirmish fights using Tengu booster, crystal set implants and booster pills. Make it easier to burst tank with the old shield boosters and nerf the permaboosting. Then you can focus on the alternative booster while you already solved an existing problem.

Pinky
Omnathious Deninard
Ministry of Silly Walks.
#352 - 2012-05-09 14:31:04 UTC
If for example, the Dominix had a role bonus of 99% reduction in the cpu and powergrid needs for drone control units, 250 bandwith and a drone ba of about 700~900, the bonuses of the EDA would be fine. Doing this would also remove the 5% damage bonus to large hybrid turrets. Because the drone control units are restricted by skill level/DCU this still makes it so that there is a similar amount of training to achieve maximum dps form the ship.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.

LaserzPewPew
Hard Knocks Inc.
Hard Knocks Citizens
#353 - 2012-05-09 16:05:30 UTC
Pinky Denmark wrote:
Give up on the shield booster and balance the game instead of implementing weird patches plz

[list]
  • ... Make it easier to burst tank with the old shield boosters and nerf the permaboosting. Then you can focus on the alternative booster while you already solved an existing problem.

  • Pinky



    I love permaboosting tengus! They are already on or near cap threshold making it rediculously easy to neut them to 0%!
    Tobiaz
    Spacerats
    #354 - 2012-05-09 17:24:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
    I just tried out the wardec system and i'm quite curious about the prices.

    I wardecced a 1-man corp and that was 50m isk, but the CONCORD mail says:
    Quote:
    The weekly cost is 100.000.000,00 ISK and you will receive a bill which needs to be paid promptly to maintain the war. If the bill is not paid before it is due then the war will be cancelled. If the war is cancelled then do not pay any outstanding bills for that war.


    Also when wardeccing larger corporations or alliances, the 20m or 50m isk + 500k/member rule doesn't seem to apply. Small corps cost either 50 or 100m ISK but it isn't clear why. Yet EVE Uni with 1806 members costs 484.649.761 ISK, TEST with 6483 costs 942.306.241 ISK, Goons with 8498 costs1.071.672.973 ISK. IT'S A BLOODY MESS.

    I still think a MUCH better way to calculate the war-bill is this:

    Divide corporations and alliances into size-classes with individual price tags
    1-10 (15 M)
    10-25 (25 M) - this is a rather crucial corp-size so it should not be 10-50 or something
    25-50 (40 M)
    50-100 (75 M)
    100-250 (150 M)
    250-500 (350 M)
    500-1000 (600 M)
    1000+ (750 M) - no ISK decshield for corps and alliances big enough to be able to just defend themselves

    The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.

    Small corporations are protected against larger corporations because it's just not worth doing it.
    84 member corp declares war on 8 member corporation: 150 + 15 = 165m ISK per week, 20.6M / target

    Going after similar-sized targets is stimulated by a good burder/member to cost/target ratio
    4 member corp declares war on a 7 member corporation: 15+ 15 = 30m ISK per week, 4.3M / target
    175 member corp declares war on a 125 member corporation 150 + 150 = 300m ISK per week 2.4M / target

    If they can finance the burden/member, small corporations will go after larger corporations (that can defend better)
    18 member corp declares war on 890 member alliance: 25 + 600 = 625m ISK per week , 700k / target


    The size brackets make it a LOT more comprehensible then the very messy way it is now on SiSi and it also protects smaller corps against larger corps, while not giving mega corporations a ISK decshield against small corporations. It even reduces the effect of member-padding. It's also very easy to later adjust individual price tags to influence size-specific corp-behavior. Something simply not possible for the current logarithmic 'solution' on SiSi.

    Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

    Loius Woo
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #355 - 2012-05-09 17:57:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Loius Woo
    Tobiaz wrote:
    I just tried out the wardec system and i'm quite curious about the prices.

    I wardecced a 1-man corp and that was 50m isk, but the CONCORD mail says:
    Quote:
    The weekly cost is 100.000.000,00 ISK and you will receive a bill which needs to be paid promptly to maintain the war. If the bill is not paid before it is due then the war will be cancelled. If the war is cancelled then do not pay any outstanding bills for that war.


    Also when wardeccing larger corporations or alliances, the 20m or 50m isk + 500k/member rule doesn't seem to apply. Small corps cost either 50 or 100m ISK but it isn't clear why. Yet EVE Uni with 1806 members costs 484.649.761 ISK, TEST with 6483 costs 942.306.241 ISK, Goons with 8498 costs1.071.672.973 ISK. IT"S A BLOODY MESS.

    I still think a MUCH better way to calculate the war-bill is this:

    Divide corporations and alliances into size-classes with individual price tags
    1-10 (15 M)
    10-25 (25 M) - this is a rather crucial size-class so it should not be 10-50 or something
    25-50 (40 M)
    50-100 (75 M)
    100-250 (150 M)
    250-500 (350 M)
    500-1000 (600 M)
    1000+ (750 M)

    The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.

    18 member corp declares war on 890 member alliance: 625m ISK per week
    84 member corp declares war on 8 member corporation: 165m ISK per week

    The size brackets make it a LOT more comprehensible then the very messy way it is now on SiSi and it also protects smaller corps against larger corps, while not giving mega corporations a ISK decshield against small corporations. It even reduces the effect of member-padding.


    I like this idea, +1
    Tobiaz
    Spacerats
    #356 - 2012-05-09 18:07:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
    No offense, but L2Read

    Quote:
    The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.


    It only doesn't count individual members, but uses the pricetags of the size-classes belonging to the attacking and the defending corp.

    edit: IMHO much more elegant then the lump sump, with a minimum price, combined with a logarithmic member-modifier as it seems to be now on SiSi.

    Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

    Loius Woo
    Sebiestor Tribe
    Minmatar Republic
    #357 - 2012-05-09 18:10:31 UTC
    Tobiaz wrote:
    No offense, but L2Read

    Quote:
    The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.


    It only doesn't count individual members, but that would only make it more messy again.



    You're right, I missed that you went from an 890 man corp in one example to an 84 man corp in the other... and i thought the wrong thing.

    So we are agreeing that the cost should involve some consideration for BOTH corps involved.
    Tobiaz
    Spacerats
    #358 - 2012-05-09 18:15:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
    Yes. The inherent pricetag of your own (attacking) corporation makes it less attractive to go after much smaller corporations, while not being a big factor when going after larger corporations that have their own inherent big pricetags. Basically your best targets are in your own size-class or close to it.

    And that goes pretty much for every size class, except the 1000+ ones. But when a corporation or alliance reaches that size, it should be able to defend itself properly, instead of hiding behind a ISK decshield.

    Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

    Tobiaz
    Spacerats
    #359 - 2012-05-09 18:44:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
    I've been testing out the war dec system a bit more. It seems that making a war mutual makes it impossible for the attacking to stop the war unless it offers formal surrender or disbands. THIS IS EXCELLENT!!! If you bite off more then you can chew, you deserve having to swallow a Treaty of Versailles.

    I foresee one problem though: mutual wars with 'dead' a dead corporation makes it impossible to end by formal surrender. Make it so a peaceoffer is automatically accepted if it isn't rejected within a week.

    • A tooltip on the flag explaining it's use like the sword icon has, would be nice as well.
    • Icon and status updates like the 'sword+' when the defender requests allies, or 'flag!' when a peaceoffer is on the table seem to update very erratically, sometimes taking like 15 minutes or more.
    • Perhaps add a 'flag?' for the asking party, now both have the same icon, no matter who asked for peace.
    • I don't know if this is just a SiSi issue, but the kill report doesn't contain any pre-patch losses or kills currently.


    Also: looking at a corporations in the war history, many of them long gone, dead and forgotten, it makes me a bit melancholic. Cry

    Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

    CCP Punkturis
    C C P
    C C P Alliance
    #360 - 2012-05-09 19:18:41 UTC
    Tobiaz wrote:
    I've been testing out the war dec system a bit more. It seems that making a war mutual makes it impossible for the attacking to stop the war unless it offers formal surrender or disbands. THIS IS EXCELLENT!!! If you bite off more then you can chew, you deserve having to swallow a Treaty of Versailles.

    I foresee one problem though: mutual wars with 'dead' a dead corporation makes it impossible to end by formal surrender. Make it so a peaceoffer is automatically accepted if it isn't rejected within a week.

    • A tooltip on the flag explaining it's use like the sword icon has, would be nice as well.
    • Icon and status updates like the 'sword+' when the defender requests allies, or 'flag!' when a peaceoffer is on the table seem to update very erratically, sometimes taking like 15 minutes or more.
    • Perhaps add a 'flag?' for the asking party, now both have the same icon, no matter who asked for peace.
    • I don't know if this is just a SiSi issue, but the kill report doesn't contain any pre-patch losses or kills currently.


    Also: looking at a corporations in the war history, many of them long gone, dead and forgotten, it makes me a bit melancholic. Cry


    the surrender icon should be shown with a ! for both parties when a surrender offer has been made.

    if it doesn't I should probably fix itBlink

    ♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis