These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Can we get clarification on the upcoing war mechanisms ?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Severian Carnifex
#21 - 2012-03-31 18:36:59 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:


Ill try to go step by step:

First:
Make killboard of corps as a combined killboard of their members so that players kill record goes with him when he change the corp.

Second:
Make difference between killboards of attacker and defender as a base for calculating war fee.
Something like this:
- Add up isk worth of all destroyed things by all members of the corp
- Add up isk worth of all losses of all members of the corp
- Subtract this two values
- Divide value that you got after last step with number of corp members.

Third:
- Do above thing (from second step) for attacker and defender corp
- Subtract values of attacker and defender corp
- That value you have now use for calculating the price for war dec (multiply it with some number of isk and you get war dec fee)


This way you have system that will make cheap for PVPers to war dec PVPers regardless of number of players in corps.
And will make attacking indy/noob corp by the PVP corp expensive

If you have balls to attack someone who can fight back you will pay little, and if you are a wuss and attack someone who cant defend itself you will pay much.

I hope you understand better now.

p.s.
This was only an example so there can be changes.


For this to work then you would have to have an official CCP Kill Board which is probably the biggest problem with this idea and any other that involves kill boards.

As for values of items destroyed, how would you decide what their values are?

Mineral values for ships and modules perhaps, what about things like BPO's, BPC's, PI, Implants which values are purely based on what people want to pay for them and such very subjective.


Yea, killboard is must for it.
But CCP is introducing killboards for wars so i don't think they are far from all-around killboards.
And about prices, some DEV on FanFest (watched it on live feed) said that they have prices for everything that are calculated so that's not the problem.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#22 - 2012-03-31 18:38:33 UTC
Gank'aho wrote:
Point 1- If you attack freighters then you should have isk to continue a war.
Point 2- Real Pvp'ers will pay whatever is needed to pvp.
Point 3- I support the war dec changes.


1. Assumption
2. Assumption
3. Opinion

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-03-31 18:51:35 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Being unable or unwilling to defend yourself shouldn't be a means to defend yourself.

Just putting it out there.


It's more like these griefers don't want to fight.

One war was very funny because I spent hours in space in my covops. Never saw other ships on same grid. I thought they wanted to fight, but I guess I was wrong.
Severian Carnifex
#24 - 2012-03-31 19:26:07 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Ill try to go step by step:

First:
Make killboard of corps as a combined killboard of their members so that players kill record goes with him when he change the corp.

Second:
Make difference between killboards of attacker and defender as a base for calculating war fee.
Something like this:
- Add up isk worth of all destroyed things by all members of the corp
- Add up isk worth of all losses of all members of the corp
- Subtract this two values
- Divide value that you got after last step with number of corp members.

Third:
- Do above thing (from second step) for attacker and defender corp
- Subtract values of attacker and defender corp
- That value you have now use for calculating the price for war dec (multiply it with some number of isk and you get war dec fee)

This type of system would be so unbalanced that CCP would be literally $1000 jeans-on-head ******** to even consider it.

So I guess we'll be seeing a dev blog on its implementation shortly.


What is unbalanced here???What?
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#25 - 2012-03-31 20:01:24 UTC
Well, doing this by kill-death ratios alone would be blatantly exploitable. Using ISK values makes it slightly more difficult, but each side can still game the system.

Both sides are aiming for the lowest efficiency possible; the attackers do it to lower the cost of war by being more like the defenders, and the defenders are trying to raise the cost of war by being much "worse" than the attackers. Both can fake losses to lower their ratio. They can also lower it by padding the corporation with no or low activity members.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Marduk Nibiru
Chaos Delivery Systems
#26 - 2012-03-31 20:12:54 UTC
Gank'aho wrote:

Point 3- I support the war dec changes.


Don't know that I'd call the simple fact that you hold an opinion to be a point. Even if so, it's a pretty irrelevant one.
Severian Carnifex
#27 - 2012-03-31 20:27:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Severian Carnifex
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Well, doing this by kill-death ratios alone would be blatantly exploitable. Using ISK values makes it slightly more difficult, but each side can still game the system.

Both sides are aiming for the lowest efficiency possible; the attackers do it to lower the cost of war by being more like the defenders, and the defenders are trying to raise the cost of war by being much "worse" than the attackers. Both can fake losses to lower their ratio. They can also lower it by padding the corporation with no or low activity members.


Ok, they can, but its so much harder then with CCPs proposal.
And what if there is not middle value??? (value is not divided with number of members)?
Then its fix sum of all members isk damage and i don't see how it can it be exploitable then.
No exploits but gradation is more steep then.
Justa Altlol
Doomheim
#28 - 2012-03-31 21:11:58 UTC
Dead Loss wrote:

Why does it seem that so many decisions taken by CCP in the development of this game have the sole purpose to reinforce the idea that everyone should be in a power bloc and that small entities and small groups of players are none of CCP's concern ?

Probably for the same reason T20 started using dev hacks to cheat for BoB. Most of the 0.0 alliances are probably full of secret CCP alts.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#29 - 2012-03-31 21:20:35 UTC
Severian Carnifex wrote:
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Well, doing this by kill-death ratios alone would be blatantly exploitable. Using ISK values makes it slightly more difficult, but each side can still game the system.

Both sides are aiming for the lowest efficiency possible; the attackers do it to lower the cost of war by being more like the defenders, and the defenders are trying to raise the cost of war by being much "worse" than the attackers. Both can fake losses to lower their ratio. They can also lower it by padding the corporation with no or low activity members.


Ok, they can, but its so much harder then with CCPs proposal.
And what if there is not middle value??? (value is not divided with number of members)?
Then its fix sum of all members isk damage and i don't see how it can it be exploitable then.
No exploits but gradation is more steep then.

Even if we use math to somehow make this system extremely efficient (would be impossible), at the end of the day you're still using a system that punishes efficiency. Punishing players who take initiative to get ahead of others is entirely contrary to the nature of a competitive sandbox environment. This system needs to be rejected on its implications before its implementation should even be considered.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Voith
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2012-03-31 21:44:33 UTC
Gank'aho wrote:
Gank'aho wrote:
Dead Loss wrote:
Gank'aho wrote:
Fixed that for you
I support this feature and I do war dec, why should it cost you just 50 mill to dec a 1000 man alliance? I am sorry that eve is becoming to "hardcore" for you. If you actually did target freighters then you would have plenty of isk to fund the war..so nice try.


Your irrelevance is amazing.


So valid points are brought to the table and you dismiss them because I disagree with you? lmao

Destiny Corrupted wrote:

You brought zero valid points to the table, and two personal attacks.


Point 1- If you attack freighters then you should have isk to continue a war.
Point 2- Real Pvp'ers will pay whatever is needed to pvp.
Point 3- I support the war dec changes.

"Real" PvPers don't use Wardecs.
Aranakas
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2012-03-31 21:54:40 UTC
So the huge alliances can declare on any small alliance they want and small alliances can declare war on nobody. Seems balanced.

Oh wait, who was this supposed to protect again? The big alliances who need to be defended from small groups of casual pilots, right?

Aranakas CEO of Green Anarchy Green vs Green
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#32 - 2012-03-31 22:11:46 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
It's more like these griefers don't want to fight.

One war was very funny because I spent hours in space in my covops. Never saw other ships on same grid. I thought they wanted to fight, but I guess I was wrong.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but for your benefit I'm going to describe what happens when you sit cloaked in a covert ops ship during a war.

1. Locator agent comes back saying you are in space.
2. Neutral scout is sent to your location.
3. Scout confirms that you aren't docked in any of the stations, aren't on grid at any of the celestials, aren't sitting at a POS, aren't mining and aren't running missions or anoms.
4. It is decided that you're cloaked most likely several hundred kilometers off a gate.
5. Your war targets intentionally avoid the system you are in so that you don't report their location to your corp/alliance mates.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#33 - 2012-03-31 22:13:15 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
It's more like these griefers don't want to fight.

One war was very funny because I spent hours in space in my covops. Never saw other ships on same grid. I thought they wanted to fight, but I guess I was wrong.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but for your benefit I'm going to describe what happens when you sit cloaked in a covert ops ship during a war.

1. Locator agent comes back saying you are in space.
2. Neutral scout is sent to your location.
3. Scout confirms that you aren't docked in any of the stations, aren't on grid at any of the celestials, aren't sitting at a POS, aren't mining and aren't running missions or anoms.
4. It is decided that you're cloaked most likely several hundred kilometers off a gate.
5. Your war targets intentionally avoid the system you are in so that you don't report their location to your corp/alliance mates.

Hey shut up man, he's winning.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Arrs Grazznic
Poena Executive Solutions
#34 - 2012-03-31 22:16:10 UTC
I quite like this suggestion / solution that balances aggressor and target numbers from the official thread on proposed changes:

Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Possible pricing:

if (defender is larger) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 - diff_fee * diff_size^1/5
if (defender is smaller) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 + diff_fee * diff_size^1/5
Minimum size for attacker/defender is calculated as 20 on each side.

Base Fee = 40M
Multiplier based on total size = 80M
Multiplier based on size diff = 40M

20 attk 20 = 241M
20 attk 1000 = 334M
20 attk 8000 = 556M

1000 attk 20 = 651M
1000 attk 1000 = 575M
1000 attk 8000 = 584M

8000 attk 20 = 1038M
8000 attk 1000 = 1054M
8000 attk 8000 = 940M

It does mean that wars are more expensive at the low-end of the scale, but the N^1/4 scaling means that wars never get ridiculously expensive.

There should also be some sort of multiplier that additional wardecs on top of what you have are more and more expensive (just like now).

Size difference may also be better calculated as a ratio of attacker/defender, with a minimum of 20 for each.
Dead Loss
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-03-31 22:21:00 UTC
Why do you guys need to go and find some new possibilities for the wardec fee system ?

I agree that lots of things need to change, nearly everything that CCP has proposed in that new system looks pretty great, they made huge work on the killboard concept, etc.

But what is not broken or not destroying the game does not need to be changed.

And in this case, 25 mil per week for a corp, 50 mil per week for an alliance, is fine. There is literally no reason behind changing it.
Destiny Corrupted
Deadly Viper Kitten Mitten Sewing Company
Senpai's Afterschool Anime and Gaming Club
#36 - 2012-03-31 22:22:28 UTC
Dead Loss wrote:
Why do you guys need to go and find some new possibilities for the wardec fee system ?

I agree that lots of things need to change, nearly everything that CCP has proposed in that new system looks pretty great, they made huge work on the killboard concept, etc.

But what is not broken or not destroying the game does not need to be changed.

And in this case, 25 mil per week for a corp, 50 mil per week for an alliance, is fine. There is literally no reason behind changing it.

You missed the part where the fee also adds on 500,000 ISK per member in the defender corporation.

I wrote some true EVE stories! And no, they're not of the generic "my 0.0 alliance had lots of 0.0 fleets and took a lot of 0.0 space" sort. Check them out here:

https://truestories.eveonline.com/users/2074-destiny-corrupted
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#37 - 2012-04-01 05:05:38 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Hey shut up man, he's winning.

I just thought that I'd explain why sitting perfectly still for hours in an invisible non-combat ship that is impossible to catch is not a super effective way to get a fight.

You'd think it would be obvious, but hey we are talking about highsec.
Revolution Rising
Last-Light Holdings
#38 - 2012-04-01 05:09:47 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Gank'aho wrote:
Point 1- If you attack freighters then you should have isk to continue a war.
Point 2- Real Pvp'ers will pay whatever is needed to pvp.
Point 3- I support the war dec changes.


1. Assumption
2. Assumption
3. Opinion


Yeah how abouta 1 week old REAL PVPer in a rifter, he's not gonna be able to afford it. Neither will many others.

What a stupid argument.

.
Dead Loss
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2012-04-01 07:09:08 UTC
Destiny Corrupted wrote:
Dead Loss wrote:
Why do you guys need to go and find some new possibilities for the wardec fee system ?

I agree that lots of things need to change, nearly everything that CCP has proposed in that new system looks pretty great, they made huge work on the killboard concept, etc.

But what is not broken or not destroying the game does not need to be changed.

And in this case, 25 mil per week for a corp, 50 mil per week for an alliance, is fine. There is literally no reason behind changing it.

You missed the part where the fee also adds on 500,000 ISK per member in the defender corporation.


No I got that, I was talking about the current system in the game which is fine and does not need to be changed. In regards to the fees.
Previous page12