These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: War, Modules & Super Friends

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#41 - 2012-05-14 15:20:36 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Quote:
Trial accounts are not counted when counting corp membership.

That's good, but what about same-account blank alts? If every member of an alliance puts only one of their alts in a special alt corp in the alliance, the cost of a wardec against said alliance nearly doubles. Are the alts rare enough that they do not realistically have an impact? Even if that is true, I have heard rumors that E-Uni is already trying to pad its membership with alts; do you expect alts to remain non-problematic?

(not trolling, legit question)


We're looking into also not counting inactive accounts (i.e. gathering data, etc.). If we decide to not count them (which right now is more likely than not), it won't make it in for Inferno, but in one of the post-Inferno patches.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about alt characters on the same (active) account as my main. For example, my corp CEO (Petria Benoit) is in fact my alt, dedicated to holding the corp, but otherwise completely inactive and useless. I do not have statistics, but I would say that from what I've seen, most people in my corp have 1-2 free character slots that they could use to create worthless alts and have them join my corp, bloating the membership from the current 20-ish into the 50s or 60s range, and making wardecs against us far less feasible.

Do you plan to do anything against this sort of gaming of the system?

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#42 - 2012-05-14 15:20:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
CCP SoniClover wrote:
gfldex wrote:
Quote:
Trial accounts are not counted when counting corp membership. We considered extending this to inactive accounts too, but as this is a fairly low percentage overall, decided to not exclude them. Note also that members in corps/alliances allied to the defender are never counted.


That means I can start a trial, untrial it with a PLEX and leave the char in my corp forever? I would go so far to say, that this is the most easy to game system in EVE then. Could you explain to me why T2 BPO holder are pretty much immune from wardecs while the 3-RL-friends-corp is not?


Trial accounts will never count, whether they are active or inactive. As for the inactive member count, that was initially based on a bit iffy data that we're looking into right now, it was my fault for not editing the dev blog better to explain this. Once we have more accurate data in we can make a better call for whether to exclude inactive members or not. Can't say for sure now, but it is likely we will adjust this post Inferno.


Under current buddy mechanics, someone can start a trial, buy a PLEX, get a month of time for recruiting a player, and thus create a month long player account for effectively zero additional cost. The problem isn't trial accounts, the problem is "fake" subscribers being used to inflate player corporation membership counts.
IceGuerilla
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#43 - 2012-05-14 15:21:07 UTC
If at all possible, could the TD changes be worked on and introduced in the month between Inferno and the Alliance Tournament? This would open up a lot of new setups and counters to old ones.
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#44 - 2012-05-14 15:23:01 UTC
Quote:
Also, as the thinking is to start to add modules on a regular basis, so we're looking into ways of how we can fight the potential issues associated with it, such as bloating the market too much and introducing power creep.
Please, resist the urge for shiny new things.

Some of us have been waiting for decent railguns, info-links, damps, etc for plenty long enough. With only 1.5 people on your balance team and just 5 t1 frigates able to be reviewed for the summer expansion, please reconsider improving existing assets & long-suffering modules rather than just crazy new ones which are having uses shoe-horned into the gameplay (e.g. these 100km micro-jump-drives. do they have a non-niche use-case & demand?).

Seriously, rail-guns are terrible. Check them out some time. Heavy missiles, Beams/Tachs and Arties are all useful in PvP. Rails blow even on bonused ships.
T'san Manaan
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-05-14 15:24:06 UTC
Alx Warlord wrote:
2nd =D

Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II: This doesn't sounds good, as a drone boat user, most of the drone boats use low slots as tank, ( except for the rattlesnake that will be overpower with lots of tank, torpedo dps and drones dps) so the gallente ships will not be that good again.... my sugestion was to make this a Hi-Slot module (since this is a drone augmentation module, not a ship dps module), so most of drone boats could really use it, removing the guns and replacing with it...


I like this idea. Please do this.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#46 - 2012-05-14 15:24:17 UTC
Quote:
Also, as the thinking is to start to add modules on a regular basis, so we're looking into ways of how we can fight the potential issues associated with it, such as bloating the market too much and introducing power creep. Seeding through loot drops gives us better control over where and when and how much to seed, which is an important feature for us to have for the future.

what happened to the mantra of a player-run economy?

.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#47 - 2012-05-14 15:25:21 UTC
Grady Eltoren wrote:
Max Teranous wrote:
Cool new modules are cool. However I disagree with your method of seeding some of them as BPC drops. Mainly, because it breaks eve's consistancy of meta levels and where they respectively come from. T1 is freely player craftable, Meta 1 to 4 is normal NPC drops, Meta 5 is craftable, Meta 6+ is faction drops. This is clear to the playerbase, makes sense to everyone, and is consistant. Creating these mods as special cases adds confusion and inconsistancy for no good reason.

Bloating the market is a terrible reason, we all know it. There's probably 50,000 unique item slots on the market by now, a handful more BPO's either way means nothing. And if market bloat was a reason not to do something, you best have a strong word with one of the other teams who just seeded every officer and faction mod to the market. Lol Your other reason, control of where mods drop, well you already have that system in place, so why not use it? If you want these mods to be faction level supply limited, MAKE THEM FACTION MODS. If you want them NPC drop supply limited, make em meta 2 or 3 or whatever! Tech 1 should always be the base level of mod, freely and easily craftable for new manufacturing players, and fittable and costed availability isk wise for new players. Making T1 mods that have a supply restriction at the BPO/BPC level breaks this (currently) consistant approach.

Also i can see this screwing yourselves up in the future, as if at any point to want to make named Meta 1 to 4 versions of these mods, they'd be more freely available than the T1 version!

Max Cool

P.S. Extra points for spotting how many times i said consistant to get the point across :)



Yep exactly my thoughts. Why ruin a good thing, make the game more confusing for players and make more work for yourselves later. We finally have a unified naming structure in EVE for Missiles for the same reason as well as other changes.

P.S. I see the responses are fast and consistent among players in the first two pages echoing this sentiment CCP. Just a thought - you might want to reconsider!


Good points all, I'll look into making them meta level 1 instead of 0
darmwand
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#48 - 2012-05-14 15:25:27 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Seriously, rail-guns are terrible. Check them out some time. Heavy missiles, Beams/Tachs and Arties are all useful in PvP. Rails blow even on bonused ships.


Not sure about larger ones, but small rails seem to work quite well.

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."
Kyr Evotorin
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#49 - 2012-05-14 15:25:50 UTC
Statistically, unsatisfied people complain more than satisfied people :)


But really... someone was complaining about the war cost scaling. This was covered in the devblog. They mentioned harassment of smaller entities doesn't happen so much that CCP is unsatisfied. the playerbase that gets harassed either doesn't complain enough, or there simply aren't enough of those players in the first place. in mmo games, majority complaints will always have a higher calling. Best Regards. This guy.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#50 - 2012-05-14 15:29:12 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Quote:
Trial accounts are not counted when counting corp membership.

That's good, but what about same-account blank alts? If every member of an alliance puts only one of their alts in a special alt corp in the alliance, the cost of a wardec against said alliance nearly doubles. Are the alts rare enough that they do not realistically have an impact? Even if that is true, I have heard rumors that E-Uni is already trying to pad its membership with alts; do you expect alts to remain non-problematic?

(not trolling, legit question)


We're looking into also not counting inactive accounts (i.e. gathering data, etc.). If we decide to not count them (which right now is more likely than not), it won't make it in for Inferno, but in one of the post-Inferno patches.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about alt characters on the same (active) account as my main. For example, my corp CEO (Petria Benoit) is in fact my alt, dedicated to holding the corp, but otherwise completely inactive and useless. I do not have statistics, but I would say that from what I've seen, most people in my corp have 1-2 free character slots that they could use to create worthless alts and have them join my corp, bloating the membership from the current 20-ish into the 50s or 60s range, and making wardecs against us far less feasible.

Do you plan to do anything against this sort of gaming of the system?


Not at this point. We do anticipate alt bloating, but as it is a one-time thing, and limits some alt behavior, we don't consider it a huge issue. Beside, the rise in cost only starts applying at the 130 member range or thereabouts.
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#51 - 2012-05-14 15:29:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
Kyr Evotorin wrote:
Statistically, unsatisfied people complain more than satisfied people :)


But really... someone was complaining about the war cost scaling. This was covered in the devblog. They mentioned harassment of smaller entities doesn't happen so much that CCP is unsatisfied. the playerbase that gets harassed either doesn't complain enough, or there simply aren't enough of those players in the first place. in mmo games, majority complaints will always have a higher calling. Best Regards. This guy.


How is providing any increase in benefit to any organization that already enjoys the effects of the single most consistently potent power multiplier in the game - raw numbers - an even greater advantage for having those numbers a good idea for game mechanics?
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-05-14 15:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
CCP SoniClover wrote:


Not at this point. We do anticipate alt bloating, but as it is a one-time thing, and limits some alt behavior, we don't consider it a huge issue. Beside, the rise in cost only starts applying at the 130 member range or thereabouts.


Why are you placing a low estimate on the lengths to which players will go for a competitive advantage? What?
Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#53 - 2012-05-14 15:31:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Daneel Trevize
darmwand wrote:
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Seriously, rail-guns are terrible. Check them out some time. Heavy missiles, Beams/Tachs and Arties are all useful in PvP. Rails blow even on bonused ships.


Not sure about larger ones, but small rails seem to work quite well.
Small hybrids have always fared much better because tackle modules don't scale with hull size. Medium rails are especially screwed as they don't have enough range to keep a sub-BS at a reasonable distance while dealing damage.

Even the smallest mediums have abysmal tracking and yet still only ~7km optimal, they're crippled. IIRC arties on a Muninn out-track them and have more optimal.
For the tracking-bonused Talos vs sniper Oracle, shield fits, Tachs were almost exactly equal for tracking, range & dps to 425s @100km. Tachyons (the-oddball tier4 sniper guns), on an unbonused Oracle, tracking as well as a bonused tracking ship of the exact same class using hybrids. Broken.

I tried to make a rails Brutix/Astarte/Deimos to hit at long point range, even edge of web range (a bit like Gamon's bleeder Zealot), isn't viable. Far better off shield-tanked ffs.
Kadesh Priestess
DEMONS OF THE HIDDEN MIST
TRUTH. HONOUR. LIGHT.
#54 - 2012-05-14 15:31:38 UTC
You didn't mention Small Targeting Amplifier I. Will they be released on may 22th, are they just postponed like missile TDs / MJD, or completely off the drawing board already?
darmwand
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#55 - 2012-05-14 15:37:09 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
I tried to make a rails Brutix/Astarte/Deimos to hit at long point range, even edge of web range, isn't viable.


Have you tried longer-range ammo?

"The pen is mightier than the sword if the sword is very short, and the pen is very sharp."
Castor II
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#56 - 2012-05-14 15:37:14 UTC
Quote:
The Extrinsic Damage Amplifier, the CPU rig and the web drones will be seeded directly on market. Also note that to get the T2 drone damage module, you need to invent it using T1 BPCs.


This means you'll be seeding their BPO's right?
Callic Veratar
#57 - 2012-05-14 15:37:15 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
We're looking into also not counting inactive accounts (i.e. gathering data, etc.). If we decide to not count them (which right now is more likely than not), it won't make it in for Inferno, but in one of the post-Inferno patches.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about alt characters on the same (active) account as my main. For example, my corp CEO (Petria Benoit) is in fact my alt, dedicated to holding the corp, but otherwise completely inactive and useless. I do not have statistics, but I would say that from what I've seen, most people in my corp have 1-2 free character slots that they could use to create worthless alts and have them join my corp, bloating the membership from the current 20-ish into the 50s or 60s range, and making wardecs against us far less feasible.

Do you plan to do anything against this sort of gaming of the system?[/quote]

Considering your corp has 24 members at the moment, not only would you have to add ALL of the alts (assuming each is a unique account, which you've said is not true already) that gets you up to 72. You're still 58 members (20 PLEX of dummy accounts) short of increasing your wardec cost by anything.

I'd say that 10B is a reasonable price to allow you to start gaming the system.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#58 - 2012-05-14 15:37:37 UTC
darmwand wrote:
Daneel Trevize wrote:
Seriously, rail-guns are terrible. Check them out some time. Heavy missiles, Beams/Tachs and Arties are all useful in PvP. Rails blow even on bonused ships.


Not sure about larger ones, but small rails seem to work quite well.

Larger railguns are technically good (low damage, extreme range) but suffer from the fact that their range is so extreme that enemies can just warp right to them. Anything operating at higher than ~120 km range is very vulnerable since the minimum warp-in range is 150 km. A 200 km Eagle sniping gang is useless if all it takes to counter them is a single scanning ship and 20 seconds. Increase minimum warp range to 300 km. Boom, railguns fixed.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#59 - 2012-05-14 15:39:11 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
I'd say that 10B is a reasonable price to allow you to start gaming the system.


So since they're 20 billion each, we can go back to the old balance state for super capitals, right?
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#60 - 2012-05-14 15:39:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincent Athena
War dec costs multiply if you declare more than one. But what if you get multiple decs by having corps join your alliance? That is:

5 small corps each make one war dec. Those 5 corps then join one alliance. Everyone in the alliance now gets 5 sets of targets and they did not have to pay the multiplied costs.

CCP, is that how it works?

If so, you may want to consider fixing it. For example:

A corp that has declared war cannot join an alliance until said war is over.

Or (and better in my option, as it leaves control in the player's hands):

If your corp has declared war and joins an alliance that has declared war, there is a joining fee: You got to pay the extra costs as though the alliance had declared two wars.

Edit: Other questions:

I dec once: 50 mil.
I dec another, 100 mil for #2. But does that also increase the cost of #1 to 100 mil? Does it increase it immediately, or for the second week, or not at all?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction