These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Fanfest: War Declarations

First post
Author
Ana Vyr
Vyral Technologies
#181 - 2012-03-25 14:57:17 UTC
Shouldn't the war cost shrink the closer you get to pairity in the corp sizes involved? The modifier should increase with disparity in corp sizes.
Rikeka
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#182 - 2012-03-25 15:19:01 UTC
So, if the attacker is smaller, the cost should increase? Shocked

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DZUXQ.jpg[/IMG]

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#183 - 2012-03-25 15:30:37 UTC
Ana Vyr wrote:
Shouldn't the war cost shrink the closer you get to pairity in the corp sizes involved? The modifier should increase with disparity in corp sizes.

If CCP legitimately thinks that wars are underutilized and that they should happen more often they way to go would be to have the only thing that affects cost be the number of wars the attacker is involved in.

Having wars costs scale with the size of the target will make wars cost much, much more than they do currently and that will make wars less common. Period.
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#184 - 2012-03-25 16:20:00 UTC
Rikeka wrote:
So, if the attacker is smaller, the cost should increase? Shocked


Depends how you structure it.

For instance, you could make it so that if the target is larger then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/4) to calculate the cost differential in that part of the equation. And if the target is smaller then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/2.5) to calculate the cost differential. So it becomes slightly more expensive for a large corp to declare a small corp rather then the other way around.

A = base cost to declare war, 40M is a good starting point

B = base cost of the size of the target (member count, excluding trials and inactive accounts), 40M might be a good weight, which should be scaled based on (N ^ 1/4)

C = base cost of the difference in size of member count, 40M might be a good weight, scaled as either (N ^ 1/4) if the defender is larger or (N ^ 1/2.5) if the defender is smaller

A note on (N ^ 1/2.5 vs N^1/4 or N^1/3):

With Sqrt(N), the difference between N=10 and N=10k is a factor of about 31.6
With N^(1/2.5), the difference is a factor of only 15.8
With N^(1/3), the difference between a 10-person and a 10k person entity is a factor of only 10 in scaling
With N^(1/3.5), the difference is a factor of 7.2
With N^(1/4), the difference is a factor of 5.6

Here's what happens with the numbers, assuming:

A = 40M, B = 40M, C = 40M
Small Attacker, Big Defender - COST = A + B * (target_members^(1/4)) + C * (diff^(1/4))
Big Attacker, Small Defender - COST = A + B * (target_members^(1/4)) + C * (diff^(1/2.5))

1v1 (atk/def) = 80M ISK/wk
10v1 = 180M
1v10 = 176M
100v1 = 331M
1v100 = 292M
10k vs 1 = 1672M
1 vs 10k = 840M
10k vs 10k = 440M

Using only "target size" means that small entities can be pushed around for miniscule costs by very large entities. That's probably not good for the game long-term and would lead to very large entities being the only way to survive. So the size difference needs to be accounted for in some manner. One reason would be that in order for CONCORD to look the other way while you make war in hi-sec, you need to pay a bigger bribe each week.

Using only the "difference in size" would result in small entities being pushed around by aggressors who can easily game their membership counts. They would figure out the size of the target (say 10 pilots), boot all the optional members out of their corp, initiate the wardec for cheap, then bring the members back on board for the war during the 24h warm-up. So you can't just rely on that as the scaling factor either.

You have to factor in both B (target size) as well as C (size difference). By using both metrics to scale the costs of the wardec fee, you lessen the amount of meta-gaming that can be played and you level the playing field (a bit more) for both small entities and large entities, without making either immune to the other due to costs.
Dutarro
Ghezer Aramih
#185 - 2012-03-25 16:22:33 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:

If CCP legitimately thinks that wars are underutilized and that they should happen more often they way to go would be to have the only thing that affects cost be the number of wars the attacker is involved in.

Having wars costs scale with the size of the target will make wars cost much, much more than they do currently and that will make wars less common. Period.


You can have a lot of war declarations and still have the war system "underutilized", if the wars don't result in much fighting. For example if the defending corp just docks up for the duration, or the attacker just afk's in the defender's favorite mission hub, the war has little "utility" in the sense of active PvP. Station games can hardly be called fighting either.

Not that scaling dec cost with number of defending corp members will help. Some wars that would have been fought hard might not be declared at all in the new system due to cost, as you pointed out.

The most important change that will improve war "utilization" IMO is the merc contract market; it could encourage some PvP-challenged corps to come out and fight, who otherwise would have just docked up or disbanded.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#186 - 2012-03-25 16:29:01 UTC
I had to laugh Tippia..

Quote:

If you want a POS, you get wardecs.
If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs.
If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.


Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot.
Dutarro
Ghezer Aramih
#187 - 2012-03-25 16:40:58 UTC
Scrapyard Bob wrote:


For instance, you could make it so that if the target is larger then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/4) to calculate the cost differential in that part of the equation. And if the target is smaller then the attacker, you use the formula (N ^ 1/2.5) to calculate the cost differential. So it becomes slightly more expensive for a large corp to declare a small corp rather then the other way around.


or just scale dec cost with ( number of attacking pilots + number of defending pilots ):
* small attacker vs. small defender = cheap war
* large attacker vs. small defender = expensive war, not worth the cost for so few targets
* small attacker vs. large defender = expensive war, high cost per attacking player
* large attacker vs. large defender = very expensive war, but the defender can afford it


Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#188 - 2012-03-25 16:48:50 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
I had to laugh Tippia..
Quote:
If you want a POS, you get wardecs.
If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs.
If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot.
If that's what you think, then excellent: there are absolutely no reasons for you to get a player corp and as a bonus, you don't get wardecs either. Everyone wins.
Resivan
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2012-03-25 16:59:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
I had to laugh Tippia..
Quote:
If you want a POS, you get wardecs.
If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs.
If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot.
If that's what you think, then excellent: there are absolutely no reasons for you to get a player corp and as a bonus, you don't get wardecs either. Everyone wins.


If you join a corp large enough to deter war decs, what are the chances that they'll give you the roles you need to use a POS or have free access to the corp's hangers and wallet? If those are why you want to be in a player corp, might as well stay NPC. The chat's usually better anyway.

The market signal basing costs solely on number of defenders sends is that two types of organizations are desirable: too small to bother with and too expensive to be worth it.
Rikeka
A Blessed Bean
Pandemic Horde
#190 - 2012-03-25 17:02:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
I had to laugh Tippia..
Quote:
If you want a POS, you get wardecs.
If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs.
If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.
Those are not benefits, they are liabilities. THey are all broken to boot.
If that's what you think, then excellent: there are absolutely no reasons for you to get a player corp and as a bonus, you don't get wardecs either. Everyone wins.


This.

I just hope CCP thinks this over. Sure, decs could be a bit more pricey, but the new costs are a wallet killer.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/DZUXQ.jpg[/IMG]

Muestereate
Minions LLC
#191 - 2012-03-25 17:04:22 UTC
So you guys all want to control war? How futile. Thats not wars nature. When a nation declares war on another, all the connected parties are suddenly stakeholders in that war. For instance if you attack Goonswarm, You put tech at risk. Say I make a lot of money on t2? My first interest would be to profit from the rise but if the tide turned I would want to protect them. If I was a large customer, there are some corps that might be interested in helping me so they could maintain their market

Now paying to fight and you all say this is a pvp game. Doesn't that set off dangerous pay to play bells in your head. Is fighting people that don't really want to fight that important to you that you will pay billions. This whole corp concept is broken

I'm assuming your only talking about hi sec here? cause you don't need decs in null and low has no concord? or is it the standings loss

From my view, they only reason to have a pos in high sec is to to do print research specifically copies for t2. I can think of a couple other reasons in low and null

Whats the use of offices. It give me hangers. Hangers need to be managed to reduce liability, thats work not play

Wallets, if I give someone wallet unlike a hanger they can take from it. More liability for one person to steal from all

Corp taxes, why do you even need them except to pay for offices

Shares. CCP mentioned a bank but if your corps shares cant trade there and go up and down with your fortunes, why ? dividends and votes? more liability

Really no reason to run a corp let alone defend one.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#192 - 2012-03-25 17:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Resivan wrote:
If you join a corp large enough to deter war decs, what are the chances that they'll give you the roles you need to use a POS or have free access to the corp's hangers and wallet?
If you're going to make use of them in a way that benefits the corp, very high. Exactly what benefits there are to the corp will change with this revamp…

Quote:
The market signal basing costs solely on number of defenders sends is that two types of organizations are desirable: too small to bother with and too expensive to be worth it.
…which is why we suggested the relative pricing to them during the roundtable and why this suggestion was met with widespread approval among the players. Just throw a few more people behind the idea and it just might happen.

Muestereate wrote:
Really no reason to run a corp let alone defend one.
Again, excellent. Everyone wins.
Laechyd Eldgorn
Avanto
Hole Control
#193 - 2012-03-25 17:26:23 UTC
current dec shielding and alliance hopping etc is just lame

good thing this finally gets attention

i would suggest surrender gives 30 days dec shield from deccing corp instead of just 7 though. then people would be more willing to pay instead of just sitting docked 7 days.

i would want to note that consider also ownerships of pos's etc. so there will be no loophole to save pos by switching corps etc.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#194 - 2012-03-25 17:29:38 UTC
Laechyd Eldgorn wrote:
i would suggest surrender gives 30 days dec shield from deccing corp instead of just 7 though. then people would be more willing to pay instead of just sitting docked 7 days.
This was brought up during the roundtable, and the idea presented was to make the length of the cease-fire a negotiable part of a surrender/peace agreement. That would provide further incentives to actually use the thing: offer a buck or billion extra and get 30 or 42 or 90 days rather than just 7.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#195 - 2012-03-25 17:31:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
I just wanted to chime in with a vote to scale the cost of the war down if the attacker is smaller than the defender too.

As an example I just went through this headache last month with a small 3 man corp, my 1 man corp was going to dec (and before crybabies come in, they started it!). While I was waiting out the voting period they joined a 30 man alliance and that suddenly raised the cost for me to 50 mil to dec the whole alliance. Now here's the thing... I was still up for it. But after some recon, and some RL stuff, 50 mil for the chance to station camp the few guys in my TZ for a week seemed a waste. So while I think scaling the war dec price to protect the small corps from the big guys is good, lets also scale so the small guys can fight back against a bigger guy if they want too without breaking their bank.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#196 - 2012-03-25 17:35:41 UTC
Really, what about financial balance, this sounds so expensive. Wouldn't it be cheaper just to gank them plus they have no warning and live in constant fear? Why pay all that money just to let people know whether or not its safe to go mine or not?
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#197 - 2012-03-25 17:38:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Lexmana wrote:

I really liked the part where they said they wanted wars to be more hardcore and after that everything just seemed right. Many of us were afraid they would cave in to the hisec bears and some even interpreted the crimewatch changes as a sign of that. But I think we can relax now. CCP have good intentions and they are sticking with their vision. EVE is real.

EVE has grown every year since launch, yes even the year of the summer rage 2011, by making a game that has consequences and meaning. Many leave in frustration but those who stay become loyal customers that stay in the game for years to come. That is the secret behind CCPs success. Caving in to the demands of hisec bears has a great chance of backfiring. Thankfully they seem to realize that and has chosen their path.

U mad?


Let's see the dire "consequences" a 30 men corp gets deccing a 1 man corp with 1 POS. Oh wait they have none.

EvE has grown every year? Sure. The new marketing guy was very good showing how WoW, GW and stuff tanked after some years while EvE is going strong.

He just forgot the little details like, how many decades would EvE take to ever get to Blizzard's profitability made in 5 years.
He also forgot how GW sold 6.5M subs (not counting extras) and GW2 will sell more millions.

It's just different business models and CCP can't go boasting around their unique growth when the others don't even rely on constant growth and earn with new releases and patch cycles.


Tippia wrote:

The point is what was said at the very beginning at the presentation: new ground rule — if you want the benefits of a corp, you get wardecs. Period.

If you want a POS, you get wardecs.
If you want the benefits of offices, you get wardecs.
If you want the granularity of wallet sections, you get wardecs.


The point is that they want to remake POS to make almost everyone want one. Plus they plan to replace station services with player provided ones.

Imagine everyone having to setup a corp just for this new kind of personal POS. Sounds quite redundant to say the least.
They have to go beyond the 1 POS 1 corp concept if they want "1h to play time per day" people to get involved into that stuff.


Tippia wrote:

Oh, and as for that POS? It takes less than an hour to tear it down and put it up again with the new rules, and guess what?


I suppose you have this vast experience at having mercs deccing you at your 20th day of copying a capital ship BPO, right?
And then drop the wardec and 1 week later wardec again so you just lose zillions of ice and time.

Guess what happens when you try hiring "counter-mercs"? "Sorry we don't do this, guarding a POS 24/7 is crap" and the few who accept want 1B. So you shell 1B for a sh!tty medium personal use POS and the next week 1B again?

Once again "a game of consequences" on whom? 99% of the consequences are on the shoulders of the industrialist, GREAT concept we got.


Tippia wrote:

They don't. They want the “POS for everyone who can stomach the prospect of a wardec” to have a degree of success


This cannot be, else they'd just leave everything as is, since this is the current situation: everyone can have a small POS if they want even right now.


Masral Kabo wrote:
Agree 100% with Tippia.

And lol at Vahrokha for thinking everyone should be able to operate a POS with zero risk. If you cant defend corp assets you should lose them.


I am talking about the NEW type of "POS for everyone" concept.
Not going to work if you have the same situation you have today and it will work worse with the new wardec rules.
Cucumis melo
State Protectorate
Caldari State
#198 - 2012-03-25 17:40:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Cucumis melo
Haven't bothered reading the entire thread so I'm not sure if this has been suggested before.

Why isn't the dec pricetag based on the attackers member count rather than defenders? It both makes sense in that you "pay per char disregarded by CONCORD" and that balances the corp sizes. Having a 100+ char corp offensive dec should always cost.

EDIT: May have ****** up the grammar. I R WIN!
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#199 - 2012-03-25 17:41:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Tippia wrote:

Muestereate wrote:
Really no reason to run a corp let alone defend one.
Again, excellent. Everyone wins.


Nope. No reason to run a corp alone even today. Other MMOs implementing "player made housing" give everyone the chance to have their own thing and if they join a guild they get additional benefits.

In EvE there's no "personal" solution, even as 1 man you must enter the massively huge burden to upkeep a corporation, buy an office and so on just to have your personal home. Not realistic (nobody needs a corp IRL to have their house) and just redundant.


Tippia wrote:
This was brought up during the roundtable, and the idea presented was to make the length of the cease-fire a negotiable part of a surrender/peace agreement. That would provide further incentives to actually use the thing: offer a buck or billion extra and get 30 or 42 or 90 days rather than just 7.


This will be exploited to hell. I can imagine actual software being made to scan all the corps (it's already done btw) and dec them 1 by 1 just to get surrender-racket ISK rolling in.

Once again the "game of consequences" means the "PvP" corp either gets money or gets the PvP they want, the other only gets to pay or lose their assets.

The only positive consequence for the target is to be in a statistical ignored "cloud" of corporations and therefore be ignored and therefore being able to make ISK with his activities.


I can foresee how it'll go with player driven station services: everybody in a decent placement (i.e. 3 jumps off Jita) will be permanently wardecced by mega-huge corps cartels who will seize the control of the whole area. Say goodbye to the "personal POS" (or whatever the involved facility will be).
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#200 - 2012-03-25 17:50:03 UTC
Well actually to have a small pos in a corp in High sec requires a whole corp full of level 4 mission runners. My experience is that mission runners want nothing to do with hauling fuel or doing research, recruiting new players interupts your ability to put up POS's. Kicking corp members and asking to rejoin is asking for defections cause a lot of peopl only sitck around cause its more comfortable than moving all your stuff in and out of hangers and making new friends.

The standing system or High sec POS's and activities of Industrialists just doesn't scale easily. Unless this is fixed too. POS's will remain liabilities. Just think if goons couldn't put up pos's cause they have to many accounts registered?