These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#221 - 2012-05-14 20:54:31 UTC
Wow there are a lot of changes coming out! We're really going to have our work cut out for us. Seems like it'll be fun. Nice work CCP looking forward to crimewatch changes still though! Big smile

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#222 - 2012-05-14 20:56:30 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
Hyperforce99 wrote:
i would rather see something that makes more sense instead of making tracking disruptors effect missiles.

such as a high slot module that acts as an automated point defense turret.
It could intercepts a certain mount of missiles / rockets per cycle.
This means that swarm style missiles will be more effective compared to single high damage missiles.
If this is tied to the new missile effects it would be pretty awesome.


The missile version of this exists already and it's called defender

And is completely nonfunctional and useless in most PvP situations.


Well, as far as I know missiles already suck at PvP.
So, with that change they will suck even more at PvP and they will start to suck at PvE
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#223 - 2012-05-14 21:00:37 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Callidus Dux wrote:

Yeah! Because all missile ships are the best available PvP ships now. So they need to be nerfed more. Roll

I didn't say they were. There is no "best available PvP ship".

However, you can't reasonably get "under" the missiles of a Hookbill, Hawk, Drake, or Tengu (all popular ships) using almost any ship. Hell, I've seen HMLs blow up Warrior IIs, which just doesn't happen with any medium turret weapon system. And yet... they are exempt from tracking disruption? That just doesn't make sense.


Oh, you forgot about Sacrileg and Legion

Noticed that there is only 1 T1 ship (Drake) in the list.
Now, take your time and figure out that list for the different turrets
TheSpyInCorp
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#224 - 2012-05-14 21:02:56 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
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


I would prefer Inferno to set a fire of chaos upon the universe.

I am in agreement to seeding the new module BPCs in piratefaction archaeology and hacking sites, but surely the Empires are aware of such technology and the apparent value they pose to capsuleers.

It is fair to give the archaeology and hacking professions a head start at claiming these technologies, but I beg you, do not forsake the Empires in this acquisitioning endeavor, let them fight over mainstream access to these blueprints in their own controlled domain through factional warfare. Let the militias fight for this, if they so desire it. Seeding new modules should be a big deal for all of the New Eden universe with certain perks aimed towards the professions.
Shpenat
Ironman Inc.
Transgress
#225 - 2012-05-14 21:08:07 UTC
One important question. Is this way of seeding going to be permanent or just temporal? Will it be switched to standard system once other meta levels are introduced?

As mentioned before, right now we have pretty consistent system.

Meta 0 items have BPO
Meta 1 - 4 can only be obtained as module drop from NPCs
Meta 5 are accessible through invention
Meta 6+ are faction, deadspace and officer mods.

If you dont plan introducing new modules BPOs please go all the way and introduce meta 1 BPCs for all other modules that are in game.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#226 - 2012-05-14 21:12:27 UTC
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
missiles already suck at PvP.

Which rock have you been living under?
Vanessa Vansen wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Callidus Dux wrote:

Yeah! Because all missile ships are the best available PvP ships now. So they need to be nerfed more. Roll

I didn't say they were. There is no "best available PvP ship".

However, you can't reasonably get "under" the missiles of a Hookbill, Hawk, Drake, or Tengu (all popular ships) using almost any ship. Hell, I've seen HMLs blow up Warrior IIs, which just doesn't happen with any medium turret weapon system. And yet... they are exempt from tracking disruption? That just doesn't make sense.


Oh, you forgot about Sacrileg and Legion

Noticed that there is only 1 T1 ship (Drake) in the list.
Now, take your time and figure out that list for the different turrets

The comparison in the number of missile boats vs the number of turret boats is unbalanced because there are fewer missile ships. Also, I was listing prominently popular ships, not "good" ships.

Good missile ships: Kestrel, Inquisitor, Merlin/Tristan (half-missile), Hookbill, Hawk, Vengeance, Malediction, all bombers, Caracal, Sacrilege, Huginn/Lachesis (sort-of missile), Tengu, Legion, Drake, Nighthawk, Typhoon, Raven, Golem.

Bad missile ships: Breacher (utter ****), Cerberus (missiles not great for sniping), Phoenix/Leviathan (can't do tracking bullshit like XL turrets can)

Just because a ship is not popular does not mean it's bad. In fact, it may even be better than expected, because people don't expect it. T1 missile ships aren't on that list because... well... there just aren't that many of them.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#227 - 2012-05-14 21:13:09 UTC

Large Cap battery

Reflects 25% Energy Vampire amount

Reflects 12.5% Energy Neutralizer amount

Is there any logic in the amounts?

It still feels that you would be better off with a NOS or Cap Booster. especially given they are easier to fit.

Has any consideration been made to reducing the fitting requirements? I still struggle to fit them without make big sacrifices with fitting mods or downgrading guns.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#228 - 2012-05-14 21:14:07 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Mangala Solaris wrote:

What if, there are two corporations (A & B for example) in a mutual war and along comes some dumb 3rd party who decs one or both sides, does the 7 day rule then kick in for players in corps A & B?


I'm not sure that the 7-day rule should apply to the defenders. And that's a key reason why.

(Which might also be why the timer needs to be shortened to 3-days instead of 7-days.)

I am absolutely opposed to a reduction in the cycle time of wars. They are 7 days for a reason: It covers all players' habits, it is short enough to not be forever, and it is long enough to be significant. A 3 day war would seem like a meaningless, passing, and frivolous affair and would not ever be taken seriously by the defenders until at least the second cycle because it simply has no weight to it.

Wars should have meaning and require a real investment of time and money.

I think he was referring to the timer to rejoin a corp at war: make it 3 days vs 7. Not the war cycle time.

Fair enough.

I think it would also be good to incur a 15 minute delay after acceptance to join any corporation that is at war, mutual or not.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Eternal Error
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#229 - 2012-05-14 21:24:10 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Vincent Athena wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Scrapyard Bob wrote:
Mangala Solaris wrote:

What if, there are two corporations (A & B for example) in a mutual war and along comes some dumb 3rd party who decs one or both sides, does the 7 day rule then kick in for players in corps A & B?


I'm not sure that the 7-day rule should apply to the defenders. And that's a key reason why.

(Which might also be why the timer needs to be shortened to 3-days instead of 7-days.)

I am absolutely opposed to a reduction in the cycle time of wars. They are 7 days for a reason: It covers all players' habits, it is short enough to not be forever, and it is long enough to be significant. A 3 day war would seem like a meaningless, passing, and frivolous affair and would not ever be taken seriously by the defenders until at least the second cycle because it simply has no weight to it.

Wars should have meaning and require a real investment of time and money.

I think he was referring to the timer to rejoin a corp at war: make it 3 days vs 7. Not the war cycle time.

Fair enough.

I think it would also be good to incur a 15 minute delay after acceptance to join any corporation that is at war, mutual or not.

If you're worried about neutral alts jumping in and immediately shooting, that was declared an exploit a long time ago.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#230 - 2012-05-14 21:29:08 UTC
If missiles can be affected by Tracking Disrupters (presumably interfering with their tracking computers that guide them to their target), this opens the door to them being assisted by Tracking computers and such.

Just sayin'.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#231 - 2012-05-14 21:33:26 UTC
Ranger 1 wrote:
If missiles can be affected by Tracking Disrupters (presumably interfering with their tracking computers that guide them to their target), this opens the door to them being assisted by Tracking computers and such.

Just sayin'.

The thought of TC'd/TE'd Drakes shooting my frigate scares me to death. Which is why I will be flying Sentinel a lot once the change drops Big smile

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2012-05-14 21:36:19 UTC
Woot - they implemented my idea from Fanfest regarding not letting war dodgers back into the corp!!!
betoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2012-05-14 21:41:42 UTC  |  Edited by: betoli
Tippia wrote:

Make it a relative measure: you pay for number imbalance.

abs( ln( attacker size / target size ) / ln( size multiplier ) ) × imbalance cost + base cost.



YES THIS

An even fight is a cheap fight.

(I'd even go as far as to suggest imbalance based on total SP rather than numbers)
POS Trader
Merchants of Lore
#234 - 2012-05-14 21:46:12 UTC
Quote:
Griefing on small entities is not rampant now, and with the cost increasing from 2 million to 50 million


If the purpose is to prevent griefing, then the cost should not be increased from 2 => 50. Instead, lower the cost base cost back to 2m ISK (or even 5m ISK), increase the scaling factor of the curve and set N to,

N = max( 1, # of players in your corp/alliance - # of players in war dec'ed (target) corp/alliance)

So,

if someone wants to war dec their own sized or larger entity, they pay 2m ISK
if someone larger wants to war dec someone smaller, they pay proportionally more

In effect, if PL wants to war dec Goons, they can for 2m ISK. If goons want to war dec PL, they have to pay more.
If some small alliance wants to war dec PL, they pay 2m ISK, etc. etc.

Heck, increase the base cost to 5m ISK. But don't scale it with the idea that "it is all about ganking". All the current changes seem to be geared to protect large alliances in high sec, while the opposite should be true.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#235 - 2012-05-14 21:49:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
POS Trader wrote:
Quote:
Griefing on small entities is not rampant now, and with the cost increasing from 2 million to 50 million


If the purpose is to prevent griefing, then the cost should not be increased from 2 => 50. Instead, lower the cost base cost back to 2m ISK (or even 5m ISK), increase the scaling factor of the curve and set N to,

N = max( 1, # of players in your corp/alliance - # of players in war dec'ed (target) corp/alliance)

So,

if someone wants to war dec their own sized or larger entity, they pay 2m ISK
if someone larger wants to war dec someone smaller, they pay proportionally more

In effect, if PL wants to war dec Goons, they can for 2m ISK. If goons want to war dec PL, they have to pay more.
If some small alliance wants to war dec PL, they pay 2m ISK, etc. etc.

Heck, increase the base cost to 5m ISK. But don't scale it with the idea that "it is all about ganking". All the current changes seem to be geared to protect large alliances in high sec, while the opposite should be true.


The focus is on stopping nusiance decks on large corps because according to the numbers (despite what I would have thought based on the level of whining on the forums) griefing of small corps with war decs from larger corps is not very common.

However, I agree that it should be based on the difference in active membership size.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Barbie D0ll
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#236 - 2012-05-14 22:13:26 UTC
wrote:
Armor Adaptive Hardener I - Low slot. Armor Hardener that adjusts its resistance based on the damage received. Only one can be fitted. Just the tech I version now, but others will follow if this turns out well.

this strikes me as a meta 0 tech 3 module or sleeper tech, wouldn't this be more appropriate to have this drop out of sleeper hacking and archeological sites as something you have to research to build?
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
#237 - 2012-05-14 22:21:22 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Taryn Porter wrote:
The CPU rig sounds like a boon for Armor Tankers, but a bane for Passive Shield Tankers. Why should a CPU rig affect a non-related system, especially one that some people don't even care about? Amarr and Gallente ships can use these without any reservations. Caldari (especially) and Minmatar ships might need CPU too.

Jamming (and other EW) rigs reduce shields, which some, but not all, EW ships care about (Rook cares, Lachesis doesn't).
Drone rigs reduce CPU, which some, but not all, drone ships care about (Vexor cares, Arbitrator doesn't).
Astronautic rigs reduce armor, which some, but not all, fast ships care about (Malediction cares, Stiletto doesn't).

I fail to see how the CPU rig is out of line.


Honestly at this point as a Caldari Pilot, I'm used to us getting crapped on ... the current Drake Nerf that is on the table frankly is going to destroy it's usefulness in High / Low-Sec while leaving it completely unaffected in Null-Sec.

Honestly if the Power Grid (Ancillery Current Router) has no drawback, why should the CPU have one?

Either add a drawback to the ACR, or remove it from the CPU Rig. As it stands I feel like every enhancement / change that gets made to the game in the name of "Balancing" really just means "Stay in High-Sec Caldari Pilots, we don't want you PvPing!"

Still I will rant about this with offering some real solutions in a seperate thread.


WarDecs...

I love the new War Reports and Kill Reports.
As for how Costs are Calculated, honestly the Number of Players is the wrong route imo.

What this will encourage is larger numbers of throw-away alts to avoid WarDecs, which I agree with CCP is only a stop-gap measure anyway. The real issue that I have is Corporations like my own, are no longer simply just a weekend target; but we actually become financially the only real viable targets from aggressors we cannot hope to defend ourselves from.

As it stands Wars are relatively cheap, this I think we all agree on. Will also agree that they are too easy to simply hand them off to be another Alliance / Corporations problem.

There is no disputing these facts, as such right now they are used whenever anyone has a disagreement to grief each other.
What changes however is that you're limiting what is IMO one of the BEST improvements made to EVE behind a wall of cash that shows a clear and obvious favouritism towards large entites.

They do not need these "ISK Shield" mechanics... to me they are already in a better position simply because they have larger numbers of players, with a larger earning potencial. THAT is their protection!

I saw a post a few pages back of a Pandemic Legion guy saying "\o/ This means our Jump Frieghters are now safer!" ... Sorry but you dug the hole you guys current sit within, either step up and protect your assets or find another means for your logistical needs.

Warfare shouldn't be a case of bribing the damn police to look the other way while you shoot rival gang members, it should be about Corporations being able to settle differences.

To me a War Declaration should be FREE
More over Corporations / Alliances who wish to participate within a War should be allowed to freely Join / Resign from said War within a 24 hour Period

What SHOULD be paid for weekly are Hostility Rights within Sovereignty.
High-Sec (1.0 - 0.7) • 1 Billion / Week / Faction
Med-Sec (0.7 - 0.5) • 250 Million / Week / Faction
Low-Sec (0.5 - 0.1) • 50 Million / Week / Faction
Null-Sec (0.0) • Free

This would be a shared cost issued to all of the participants who signed up to the War.
Alliances (Executor Corp) / Corporations would count as a single participant, they would also have a single vote / vote proposal to expand or contract Warzone areas that affect the overall total cost of the War.

Mercenary Allies could still be drafted, but their contracts should be 7 Days and they would be condsidered Ally Participants making them immune to the Hostility Rights... they also should not be granted Hostility Rights either, as it should be the job of Mercenary Corporations to Register themselves and pay a seperate Weekly / Monthly fee for this.

It would be a lower cost (perhaps 25% / week) but the flipside is they cannot initiate Wars themselves, only participate as Allies. They would not be immune to being WarDec'd themselves.

Defenders in a war would not be allowed to initiate combat, but would be allowed to fight back.
Those who aren't participants within the War but who are within a Fleet with the Attackers / Defenders, or participate via passive means (Remote Rep / Remote Cap) would become eligable War Targets until the next War Bill.

Mutual War Agreements, occur when 2 sides choose to fight in the same area.
Each Mutual War Agreement Area, the War Bill is reduce 75%.

A Mutual War cannot be backed out of until Surrender / Cease-Fire Terms are reached and Agreed upon.
An Aggressor War can only be ended by the Aggressor or the Surrender of the Defender.

Upon Surrender / Cease-Fire all parties involved in the War enter a 14 Day Cooldown Period, where they can start new Wars against each other. Any side that Resigns from a War, would be treated as if they Surrendered... only Mercenary Allies may enter and leave Wars without this penalty.

Corporations are free to Join Alliances during a War, however these Alliances are also added as Active Participants.
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#238 - 2012-05-14 22:33:20 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Quote:
We’ve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first.

How is this a fix for corp hopping? People leave the corp to avoid the war, so why would they want to rejoin before the war is over?

This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot).
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2012-05-14 22:37:27 UTC
Just to confirm - locks only get broken between your ship and the person targetting you right? Any other lock they have will still hold?
Is breaking a lock considered a "hostile" act. E.g. someone is yellow boxing me in high sec and I activate my module. Will this get me concorded since I have not attacked them or aggressed them - just potentially broken the lock. An argument on if it should/shouldn't count as an aggressive act can technically be made both ways. No harm done to them and they can relock vs ECM counts as an aggressive act.
TD should not effect missiles. They are a different platform and have issues like time to apply DPS as their disadvantage AND the DEFENDER missile is already the counter. Note that a TD effects the SHIP and therefore the weapons. How can a TD effect MULTIPLE missiles in a volley???
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#240 - 2012-05-14 22:40:45 UTC
Har Harrison wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Quote:
We’ve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first.

How is this a fix for corp hopping? People leave the corp to avoid the war, so why would they want to rejoin before the war is over?

This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot).


Whether you suggested it with that intention or not, it's still a problem. What's the point in declaring war on people in order to disrupt their operations if all they have to do is jump out of corp and mine/run missions in a NPC corp for a week?