These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

CSM - Can we get an official response to this question...

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#21 - 2012-05-09 19:09:40 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
It was suggested in the forums and I've brought it to CCP that no only should the size of the target be part of the cost but the difference in the size of the organizations needs to be figured in.

Big groups dec-ing little guys should be very expensive.

Little groups dec-ing big groups should be pretty cheap...




So the 5-man wardec corp should pay essentially nothing to wardec eg: EVE University?


I am sure there needs to be discussion about what the costs end up being. The point is that there is a point where the war dec costs seem to get crazy at the extremes, as pointed out using the goons as an example. I'm not sure that letting pure numbers become a dec shield is a good thing.

I'm offering the idea to start some discussions about how the new dec system could be refined.

Issler
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#22 - 2012-05-09 20:19:18 UTC
Whilst goons are expensive to Dec, you get 8000+ war targets for your money. This seems fair to me, at least superficially. It "feels" right that CONCORD need a smaller bribe to look the other way for a little back-street hit job than they would to ignore massive-scale warfare.

Perhaps Tippia's suggestion - a ln(n) scaling based on the difference in size between the two parties - would be best. That would make wardecs between similar sized groups very cheap, and extreme differences very expensive - which still gives "protection" to very large alliances like goonswarm, but much less than the current proposal.

It would also encourage larger groups to coalesce in hi-sec which might, I think be a good thing.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-05-10 01:38:26 UTC
easy solution: make it cheap to wardec alliances big and small, remove decshield exploits, ban NPC corps
DeBingJos
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2012-05-10 09:49:32 UTC
Why the hell would you want to wardec a nullsec corp/alliance?

IT IS NULLSEC YOU DO NOT NEED A WARDEC TO SHOOT THEM!!

/doublefacepalm

Ungi maðurinn þekkir reglurnar, en gamli maðurinn þekkir undantekningarnar. The young man knows the rules, but the old man knows the exceptions.

Vile rat
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#25 - 2012-05-10 10:10:46 UTC
DeBingJos wrote:
Why the hell would you want to wardec a nullsec corp/alliance?

IT IS NULLSEC YOU DO NOT NEED A WARDEC TO SHOOT THEM!!

/doublefacepalm




Mostly to kill our dumbdumbs who blackscreen on the Jita undock.
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2012-05-10 22:04:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Tarsus Zateki
Instead of posting a near-whining conspiracy post like this why don't you instead implement the same systems and programs that we do in your alliance(s)? Its not our fault that we're better at internet spaceships than everyone else is. If every 0.0 alliance started showering love and attention on newbies the game would be a better place.

God I love newbies... almost as much as I love taking CCP employees out to drinks and strippers and leaving Benjamins and design documents in their briefcase while they're on the crapper.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Tarsus Zateki
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-05-10 22:06:26 UTC
Ah crap I said the quiet part loud and the loud part quiet.

You asked me once, what was in Room 101. I told you that you knew the answer already. Everyone knows it. The thing that is in Room 101 is the worst thing in the world.
Gloomy Gus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#28 - 2012-05-11 15:49:35 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
I am sure there needs to be discussion about what the costs end up being. The point is that there is a point where the war dec costs seem to get crazy at the extremes, as pointed out using the goons as an example. I'm not sure that letting pure numbers become a dec shield is a good thing.

I'm offering the idea to start some discussions about how the new dec system could be refined.

Issler


That's what is going. A discussion. People are discussing it. In this thread. Right here. The guy you just replied to? He's discussing it. You? You just stopped "discussing it" by saying "there needs to be discussion" implying that discussing it here in this thread with your fellow players isn't worth your time.

CSM status isn't an immunity to debate, if you want a chance of garnering enough votes to show a modicum of support next year you should try actually discussing your ideas with the people who play this game rather than just throwing them out (granted not your idea but still having your support on it would be nice if you'd actually deign to discussing it) and running off when others seek to refine them.

"DIE N***ERS1 DIE!!!" - EVENEWS24's Riverini "Gloomy Gus is literally a pocket" - Krixtal Icefluxor (former EVE Online player)
Easthir Ravin
Easy Co.
#29 - 2012-05-15 11:29:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Easthir Ravin
evereplicant wrote:
I would like to point out (and thank you for your responses so far good and bad) that thius isnt just about the war dec changes, i mean i hear it would cost around 7 bill to war dec goons...!!! i mean seriously... the only people who would want to spend that is a 0.0 alliance ( who would do it for free anyway as its 0.0)

However the whole concept about goons and ccp and eve worries me, may be i should explain myself better.

Overall size of goons is just enormous, should we really be allowing alliances to be this big? Not just goons but anyone.
The also take all the new players, I mean wiht an 8000 player base, riches of 0.0, and ultimate protection why wouldnt you go to goons? I mean i dont agree with their new player scamming but people are obviously not put off by it. In fact the alliance that is notorious for scamming just seems to bet bigger and bigger and more and more powerful.

Tech moons - bascially a ton load of the entire eve supply of tech moons belong to goonswarm, every location of every moon in eve is now known, and taken up, is this really right? its not in all seriousness. No one WILL EVER be able to take these, and lets be serious gentlemen without the get an alliance an take it BS response. Even uber pvp alliances like evoke, NC. have failed in doing this. I mean its the same as the russian alliances like Solar too being far too powerful. But goons are a very special case in eve, and seem to get alot of support from CCP. (devs in goons perhaps?)

Goons are able to single handedly control everybodys game whenever they feel like it. Is it really right that one alliance can pretty much control and own eve? Becuase this is where its at guys, try to bury your head in the sand if you want but its a plain and simple fact and eve is becoming saturated. This is one reason why other mmos have multiple instances so that no one group can control and entire game, or the game of other players too. And this is where eve has got to.

Can you honestly believe and say this is right for the game? its not it really isnt, its very very wrong and eve is going down a black hole if nothing seriously changes.

Goons control everything, they control my game and your game and EVE, and that to me sends alarm bells and cannot be good for the game.



Greetings

Let me get this correct. Basically you don't like the fact that some people are really really good at this game and think it unfair? I rather enjoy the idea that a single organization could theoretically control the galaxy. It is one reason I started playing the game in the first place. EVE is fun because players drive much of the content.

Although I have never seen it I have read in many forum posts of a game that might be more suitable to you. I believe it is called Hello Kitty or something of the kind.

If you don't like something in EVE, you have choices! I mean it is not as if Goons have a small gang in every system watching your every move....or do they?

vr
East

IN THE IMORTAL WORDS OF SOCRATES:  " I drank WHAT?!"
JinSanJong
Doomheim
#30 - 2012-05-15 11:46:57 UTC
Easthir Ravin wrote:

Greetings

Let me get this correct. Basically you don't like the fact that some people are really really good at this game and think it unfair? I rather enjoy the idea that a single organization could theoretically control the galaxy. It is one reason I started playing the game in the first place. EVE is fun because players drive much of the content.

Although I have never seen it I have read in many forum posts of a game that might be more suitable to you. I believe its is called Hello Kitty or something of the kind.

If you don't like something in EVE, you have choices! I mean it is not as if Goons have a small gang in every system watching your every move....or do they?

vr
East


Cool, so the only responses I see in here are from Goons or Goon Alts or in your case Goon pets.
to the op - sadly goons are here to stay, why becuase CCP builds the game aorund them, every other player can go f*** themselves as for as CCP goes. True Story Bro

IB - My attempting to use profane language if though its masked - BAN
Aron Croup
Incompatible Protocol
#31 - 2012-05-15 12:37:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Aron Croup
Issler Dainze wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
It was suggested in the forums and I've brought it to CCP that no only should the size of the target be part of the cost but the difference in the size of the organizations needs to be figured in.

Big groups dec-ing little guys should be very expensive.

Little groups dec-ing big groups should be pretty cheap...




So the 5-man wardec corp should pay essentially nothing to wardec eg: EVE University?


I am sure there needs to be discussion about what the costs end up being. The point is that there is a point where the war dec costs seem to get crazy at the extremes, as pointed out using the goons as an example. I'm not sure that letting pure numbers become a dec shield is a good thing.

I'm offering the idea to start some discussions about how the new dec system could be refined.

Issler


It seems fairly simple to me. What CCP is implementing with Inferno is a system that scales the cost of war declarations to the size of the defending organization. The objective of your proposal, as you stated it in your first post, is to scale the cost of war declarations to the resources of the aggressing organization.

The solution is to make the two relative to one another:

  • The closer in size your organizations are to each other, the cheaper it is to war-dec.
  • For each x-amount of members difference between organizations, a cumulative cost multiplier is applied.
  • Cost multiplier for larger organizations declaring war on a smaller is more than 0
  • Cost multiplier for smaller organizations declaring war on larger is less than 1


Let's use EVE uni as an example. They have around 2000 players and with such a system a war-dec against them would function like this:

  • 5 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.9975
  • 100 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.9500
  • 1500 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.2500
  • 8000 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 4.0000
  • 5 man corp wardeccing 10 man corp. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.5000

Cost multiplier for small vs large is calculated by 1 - (size of wardeccing corp) / (size of wardecced corp)
Cost multiplier for large vs small is calculated by 0 + (size of wardeccing corp) / (size of wardecced corp)

Fair, balanced and easy.

[Edit]: simplified formula
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#32 - 2012-05-15 20:10:56 UTC
So early comments were made to suggest the the difference in the size of the organizations should affect the cost.

The bottom line is I expect the cost formula to go in similar to what we've seen so far as CCP has to be heads down getting Inferno out the door. Once we've seen it live we should see how it really works and expect CCP will look at any needed tweaks.

We should have a good opportunity to provide ideas to improve the formula.

Issler
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#33 - 2012-05-15 20:12:46 UTC
Aron Croup wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
It was suggested in the forums and I've brought it to CCP that no only should the size of the target be part of the cost but the difference in the size of the organizations needs to be figured in.

Big groups dec-ing little guys should be very expensive.

Little groups dec-ing big groups should be pretty cheap...




So the 5-man wardec corp should pay essentially nothing to wardec eg: EVE University?


I am sure there needs to be discussion about what the costs end up being. The point is that there is a point where the war dec costs seem to get crazy at the extremes, as pointed out using the goons as an example. I'm not sure that letting pure numbers become a dec shield is a good thing.

I'm offering the idea to start some discussions about how the new dec system could be refined.

Issler


It seems fairly simple to me. What CCP is implementing with Inferno is a system that scales the cost of war declarations to the size of the defending organization. The objective of your proposal, as you stated it in your first post, is to scale the cost of war declarations to the resources of the aggressing organization.

The solution is to make the two relative to one another:

  • The closer in size your organizations are to each other, the cheaper it is to war-dec.
  • For each x-amount of members difference between organizations, a cumulative cost multiplier is applied.
  • Cost multiplier for larger organizations declaring war on a smaller is more than 0
  • Cost multiplier for smaller organizations declaring war on larger is less than 1


Let's use EVE uni as an example. They have around 2000 players and with such a system a war-dec against them would function like this:

  • 5 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.9975
  • 100 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.9500
  • 1500 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.2500
  • 8000 man corp wardeccing EVE uni. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 4.0000
  • 5 man corp wardeccing 10 man corp. Cost = (pr. member wardec price) * cost multiplier of 0.5000

Cost multiplier for small vs large is calculated by 1 - (size of wardeccing corp) / (size of wardecced corp)
Cost multiplier for large vs small is calculated by 0 + (size of wardeccing corp) / (size of wardecced corp)

Fair, balanced and easy.

[Edit]: simplified formula



I like it!

Issler
Asheru
Perkone
Caldari State
#34 - 2012-05-16 06:46:00 UTC
When you pay to declare war, you are in effect buying targets. Paying off Concord. If you declare war on a corp of 5000 people, you are paying Concord to ignore 5000 pilots. If you declare war on a corp of 50 people, you are buying the rights from Concord to kill those 50 people.

The planned system is not only fair, but simple. A linear curve that cannot be misinterpreted.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#35 - 2012-05-16 07:44:40 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
easy solution: make it cheap to wardec alliances big and small, remove decshield exploits, ban NPC corps


Just rollback Wardecs to pre P. Alliance Wardec Nerf and add additional penalties for being in NPC corps would be a good start.

I'm still waiting to see what justifies calling this expansion Inferno? Seems Very Small Campfire would be more appropriate.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#36 - 2012-05-16 20:02:00 UTC
Asheru wrote:
When you pay to declare war, you are in effect buying targets. Paying off Concord. If you declare war on a corp of 5000 people, you are paying Concord to ignore 5000 pilots. If you declare war on a corp of 50 people, you are buying the rights from Concord to kill those 50 people.

The planned system is not only fair, but simple. A linear curve that cannot be misinterpreted.



I think there is more to it than just target per isks. So that is why I think the difference in the sizes of the parties of the war should matter. But I'm going to say I'm assuming this is going to be a classic example of the "Waffle Theory" of software engineering. The first one never comes out right.

CCP is right to finally look at war and I also think they are definitely heading in the right direction. Now the question remains once we see this all for real, is it correct? If not, what should be tweaked and how? Inferno changes a lot of things we've come to accept about the 'verse and I think we will have to see it from the other side before we can get too trapped in the micro-detail of the initial implementation.

I think the fundamentals look solid, we can sweat the small stuff once we get there.

Issler
Shobon Welp
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
#37 - 2012-05-16 20:02:26 UTC
Gloomy Gus wrote:
That's what is going. A discussion. People are discussing it. In this thread. Right here. The guy you just replied to? He's discussing it. You? You just stopped "discussing it" by saying "there needs to be discussion" implying that discussing it here in this thread with your fellow players isn't worth your time.

CSM status isn't an immunity to debate, if you want a chance of garnering enough votes to show a modicum of support next year you should try actually discussing your ideas with the people who play this game rather than just throwing them out (granted not your idea but still having your support on it would be nice if you'd actually deign to discussing it) and running off when others seek to refine them.


What Issler means is there needs to be a discussion started by her personally, so she can bask in the glory of being the OP in a thread where her name is at the top of it and make herself look like she's doing something useful with her alternate CSM seat. Discussions started by other people don't count since they can't be exploited in the same way
ThisIsntMyMain
Doomheim
#38 - 2012-05-17 05:20:04 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
stuff


or you could ....

Read the dev blog that CCP told us was coming at least 2 weeks ago, and not fall for the idiot trolls.

Scare-mongering that "war deccing Goons will cost 7 Bill" RollRollRollRoll
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#39 - 2012-05-17 06:19:02 UTC
ThisIsntMyMain wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
stuff


or you could ....

Read the dev blog that CCP told us was coming at least 2 weeks ago, and not fall for the idiot trolls.

Scare-mongering that "war deccing Goons will cost 7 Bill" RollRollRollRoll


Or I could say, like I have said several times, it is in flight, there really is no opportunity to change fundamentally what we are going to get and once we have it, which it is soon, we will really understand it more and know better how it can be made better.


You can continue to ignore that, but that is what I have said.

Maybe you should consider other ways that have been more historically popular in attacking things I say, I like the space paints thing! Or maybe the "politics" claim, or better yet, I sign my post thing!

So many to choose from.......

Issler
Previous page12