These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
#181 - 2012-05-14 18:59:45 UTC
No, suicide ganking is still the only way forward.

Wardeccing was pointless due to corp hopping/dropping.
Wardeccing is still pointless - due to corp hopping/dropping, except now the aggressors get to waste even more ISK.
Targets worth killing will simply shelter in an NPC corp and continue unimpeded.

The mission runner will laugh, drop corp, and keep grinding.
The miner will laugh, drop corp, and keep mining.
The hauler will laugh, drop corp, and keep hauling.

Only way to fix this?
Wardecs need to 'stick' to all corp members until the next wardec bill arrives.
A player can drop corp, but the war remains in effect for at least the 7 days that were paid for.
The would-be 'corp dropper' would be forced to alter his playstyle during that time. (Dock up the Marauder, freighter, etc)
If that player wanted, they could avoid further aggression simply by remaining in the NPC corp.

But with both the old and new system - there is still no 'cost' to dropping corp. And its clear the CCP is not planning on fixing it.
'Not being able to rejoin for 7 days' isn't a cost at all - as that was likely the corp-droppers intention - wait 7 days and rejoin after the wardec ends.

So, wardecs got significantly more expensive, yet are just as trivially easy to avoid.
They went from 'cheap and useless' to 'expensive and useless'. Don't see that as an improvement.

Suicide ganking will remain the irreplacable gold standard in high-sec aggression for the forseeable future.
Don't sell those Orca and -10 suicide alts.
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#182 - 2012-05-14 19:02:33 UTC
I like this idea of non market introduction of modules. even though it will mean I won't see them for a year it ads to the players market with a increasing availabilty of a product that speculators have to play around with

Personally in the Future - in the next Player design a ship contest - that the chose model, the player that designed it get 500 runs of that ship a month a head before they start becoming available on the market, allowing that player to be rewarded with some major isk because everyone want to be the first to have it on the market.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#183 - 2012-05-14 19:07:37 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Awesome, a new toy that brings all the fun game play of ECM to every ship.

no, actually this means blobs get ****** up and encourages small ganks and better pvp :D
Cannibal Kane
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2012-05-14 19:09:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Carton Mantory wrote:
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Ah well..

So that means I will now only dec corps where I don't need to pay more than 50mil.

Why keep they stacking charges though? Sometimes I wonder if the devs actually play this games.

Large alliances are going to get decced alot less... smaller corps is going to suffer more.


Soo you think nobody will dec large alliances anymore. I guess we will have three alliances then...Reminds me of 2004



Reading seems to be a challenging subject for you. I said alot less.

I dec alliances... why must it cost more to dec people who are able to defend themselfs compared to the smaller corps?

They have affectively made it harder to dec the very people, who should be capable of defending themselfs.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#185 - 2012-05-14 19:10:29 UTC
FoF Drake Blobs? Blink No locks required. Though primary might be hard to arrange

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Ager Agemo
Rainbow Ponies Incorporated
#186 - 2012-05-14 19:14:29 UTC
as mentioned, i believe not allowing you to lock either is sort of broken on the locksheat module, but it sounds like an awesome module for flagships, and stuff like marauders, or ewar boats
Shani Mukantagara
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
#187 - 2012-05-14 19:18:30 UTC
The Devs who came up with these silly moduals should go back to their old jobs at Blizzard
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#188 - 2012-05-14 19:22:04 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
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.

Alright, thanks!

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Sho neeta
Doomheim
#189 - 2012-05-14 19:22:44 UTC
Quote:
(log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27, where N is the number of corp members


Wrong... Wrong wrong wrong.

Don't you get it this will mean that that big alliances and corps can attack small corps and alliance cheaply. The issue is with different sized groups attacking each other it should be

WHERE N IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF CORP MEMBERS.

Big vs Big CHEAP
smal vs small CHEAP
Big vs Small Expensive
small vs Big Expensive
Malice Redeemer
Kenshin.
Fraternity.
#190 - 2012-05-14 19:23:51 UTC
More crap to learn where is comes from, w/e lets just keep adding different ways to do things until every item has its own unique method to acquire it
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#191 - 2012-05-14 19:32:39 UTC
Guys, we have a game mechanic that is vastly underutilized and we want to make it more useful and accessible to players.

I know, let's increase the base cost by 2500% and keep all of the cost stacking mechanics that made it prohibitively expensive to maintain multiple wars at once.

I think that CCP marketing Inferno as being a "war fueled" expansion is about as disingenuous as you can possibly get as almost all of the changes to war mechanics are focused on making wars less attractive to people who would instigate them.
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#192 - 2012-05-14 19:40:50 UTC
I think it's about time CCP listened to the players who actually use the features they're modifying in an upcoming expansion, rather than the nullsec power bloc/carebear friendly CSM. If they want to discourage wars for the fulltime wardeccer, fine, but don't try and sell it to us as a wardec buff. Plenty of people who gave up on wars ages ago (myself and several friends included) have fixed their sec and come back from lowsec to take advantage of the promised wardec revamp. It's starting to look like that was a waste of time.
Captain Thunk
Explode. Now. Please.
Alliance. Now. Please.
#193 - 2012-05-14 19:41:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Captain Thunk
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Guys, we have a game mechanic that is vastly underutilized and we want to make it more useful and accessible to players.

I know, let's increase the base cost by 2500% and keep all of the cost stacking mechanics that made it prohibitively expensive to maintain multiple wars at once.

I think that CCP marketing Inferno as being a "war fueled" expansion is about as disingenuous as you can possibly get as almost all of the changes to war mechanics are focused on making wars less attractive to people who would instigate them.


In addition, lets tack on another mechanic that relies on the former. Mercenaries.

2 failures for the price of 1.
stoicfaux
#194 - 2012-05-14 19:45:47 UTC
Ager Agemo wrote:
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Awesome, a new toy that brings all the fun game play of ECM to every ship.

no, actually this means blobs get ****** up and encourages small ganks and better pvp :D

Maybe, maybe not.

Sisi shows the Target Breaker as having a Scan Resolution Bonus of -80% and a 20s cycle time. (It also has "Can be fitted to" attributes of Cruiser, Battleship and Black Ops.)

The time it takes a lock breaker equipped Tempest to lock another Tempest (340m sig) goes from 7.5 seconds to ~30 seconds.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#195 - 2012-05-14 19:47:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Ashrun Dir wrote:
CCP Phantom wrote:
Inferno is burning towards New Eden, impacting on May 22nd, shaking up the Universe with improved war mechanics and a multitude of completely new modules, never seen before.

Read all about these changes and the new modules in this exciting dev blog by CCP SoniClover!


Additonal information:
It seems that The Scope news reporters are never asleep, they already have picked up rumors of our upcoming new modules! Read their story here.


Looks good.

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before; but, I'd like to reiterate this suggestion. For the formula you've determined:

Quote:
The refined formula is: (log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27, where N is the number of corp members (see also comments below). The minimum is 50 million.


I think it might be more reasonable to make N the number of accounts in the corp/alliance.

Let's take a look at this graph I made that shows the dec costs if you have 1 character from your account in the corp/alliance, and the cost if you have all 3 characters from your account in the corp/alliance:

http://imgur.com/iC031

As mentioned above, the black curve is the cost to war dec a corp/alliance having N members, in this case it is assumed that each member has only 1 character in the corp/alliance. The red curve is the cost to war dec that same corp/alliance when each member has all 3 of their characters available on their account in the corp/alliance. The Y axis is in isk, please note the 10^6 multiplier.

The bottom plot shows the ratio of Red Curve / Black Curve. Here we see that the war dec cost is increased by a factor of 2.0-1.9, and falls similarly to 1/x, and then approaches an asymptotic limit of ~1.5-1.6.

The reason I think the above is a problem is that if I have three characters in my corp/alliance (One is my main, and two are alts) the current formula treats me as contributing three viable targets to an opposing corp/alliance. But in actuality, the number of viable targets I represent for an opposing corp/alliance is only 1.

I imagine some corps/alliances might take advantage of this fact. This cost increase is definitely not negligible. I feel this is not in the spirit of Eve (i.e. to inspire conflict, not evading).

Thanks for your time.


TL;DR
Click the link above



Figuring out how many players from a specific account are in a given alliance is a lot more difficult that simply only counting active characteers. Active characters in this case meaning characters that have logged on in the last 30 days.

We already have this information available to corp management, which means it is already tracked.

A handly add on would be to have on the corp info page (for those with appropriate roles) a readout that shows Total Members / Active Members.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Aineko Macx
#196 - 2012-05-14 19:51:16 UTC
Both the Lock Breaker and the Cap Battery neut immunity/reflection are a terrible idea, sorry.

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Echo Mande
#197 - 2012-05-14 19:54:51 UTC
Sho neeta wrote:
Quote:
(log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27, where N is the number of corp members


Wrong... Wrong wrong wrong.

Don't you get it this will mean that that big alliances and corps can attack small corps and alliance cheaply. The issue is with different sized groups attacking each other it should be

WHERE N IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF CORP MEMBERS.

Big vs Big CHEAP
smal vs small CHEAP
Big vs Small Expensive
small vs Big Expensive


Hmm. How about making N the sum of members in deccing and decced corp/alliance?

Wallet remarks everywhere
Gort Thud
Wandering Spartans
#198 - 2012-05-14 19:59:57 UTC
War costs pricing as planned is still broken - CCP is heading straight for a credibility loss on this one.

There is no need to make the richest entities in the game the most expensive to declare war on - this is not how the mistakes of the past will be fixed but I guess marketing is all geared up now to tout this release as a war-centric enhancer.

Gort
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#199 - 2012-05-14 20:06:44 UTC
I have a suggestion on the wardec fees to prevent exploit in price bloat of wars: Only count one toon per account. Otherwise it would be a simple matter of having all three toons on an account join the same corp to increase the wardec fee.

Nohb Oddy likes you.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#200 - 2012-05-14 20:08:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Gort Thud wrote:
War costs pricing as planned is still broken - CCP is heading straight for a credibility loss on this one.

There is no need to make the richest entities in the game the most expensive to declare war on - this is not how the mistakes of the past will be fixed but I guess marketing is all geared up now to tout this release as a war-centric enhancer.

Gort


Nuisance decs are discouraged at all levels, from large to small.

For those that actually have a reason to declare war, the results are easier to track and the consequences a bit more severe.

The only part where I see that the dropped the ball a bit was the 7 day or war ends delay on rejoining a decced corp. As pointed out, this does nothing to stop the problem of corp hopping to avoid a war dec.

At least make it 7 days after the war dec ends, although frankly that is little more than a nuisance. If you really want to discourage corp hopping to avoid a war dec, either make it a longer delay to rejoin... or better yet don't allow leaving a corp at war to begin with.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.