Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
643
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:39:00 -
[61] - Quote
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? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:40:00 -
[62] - Quote
darmwand wrote: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? Yes, I was using a range of ammo, so Jav & AM for close range, iirc 2 mid-range options for the different tackle optimals, and possibly some spike just in case. Feel free to plot them using any ammo vs arties, beams or Scorch-using Pulses. They cannot compete.
I forgot, that's with at least 1 tracking enhancer for optimal, falloff & tracking. On hulls with bonuses to falloff (that which rails have more of for ~half of all in-tackle-range ammo choices). |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:42:00 -
[63] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote: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?
We tested this a bit and didn't feel it added a lot of value, so it's shelved for the time being. |
|
darmwand
Repo.
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:43:00 -
[64] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: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.
Ah, interesting point, hadn't thought of that. darmwand Repossession Agent http://www.repo-corp.net/ Recruitment is OPEN |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:43:00 -
[65] - Quote
Castor II wrote: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?
Yes, BPOs |
|
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
225
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:44:00 -
[66] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote: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?
Here's the flaw in your logic. The wardec mechanics go out unchanged, so people start making tons of alts; some even buying PLEX to make 3 pilots on a trial. After spending several billion to pad their numbers, inactive accounts are removed from the wardec cost. Benefit for CCP as more people buy PLEX. |
Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:44:00 -
[67] - Quote
perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't this multiplier make it excessively easy to make large alliances immune to wardecs by small entities?
Let's say I've got an alliance of 3k people --> 320M per week war cost We'll pretend there's 4 weeks in a month and say that this means 1.28B per month cost
In my alliance of 3k, I find 4 people to make 1 man corps All corps then declare war on my alliance, and I pay the bills.
By my count then that's 4 people all having to pay 5 B (give or take) per month, so a cost to my alliance of some 20B per month. Then, if anyone else wants to wardec me, they have to now pay 6.4B per month for the honour (1.6B per week). Ok, sure other big alliances can do this and try and suppress my actions, but I only need to drop wars as needed to maintain the shield at the level I desire. Anyone small on the other hand would be completely shut out from being able to declare war on me, and for the most part all of this should be pocket change for my alliance.
Unless, like I said, I missed something. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:45:00 -
[68] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote: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?
You can't join an alliance if you're an aggressor in a war.
The war cost multiplier will apply to all your wars equally, but only when a new bill comes up.
|
|
Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy In Tea We Trust
120
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:46:00 -
[69] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Here's the flaw in your logic. The wardec mechanics go out unchanged, so people start making tons of alts; some even buying PLEX to make 3 pilots on a trial. After spending several billion to pad their numbers, inactive accounts are removed from the wardec cost. Benefit for CCP as more people buy PLEX.
It's not as though the person initiating this scheme would not get something in return; the players involved still get an additional month of game time added to their regular player account for engaging in alt generation fraud. |
Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:46:00 -
[70] - Quote
ECM burst, is a poorly designed, and therefore under-utilised, module. Why did you not simply iterate upon this module rather than make it wholly superfluous? |
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
970
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:47:00 -
[71] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:I'd say that 10B is a reasonable price to allow you to start gaming the system. My corp was probably a bad example as we are small enough that we are in the 50 mil plateau. Some sample numbers of people gaming the system without extra accounts, and only dedicating one character slot to the gaming:
- 200 members (67 mil) -> 400 members (104 mil)
- 400 members (104 mil) -> 800 members (150 mil)
- 2000 members (258 mil, Eve Uni size) -> 4000 members (371 mil)
- 8900 members (554 mil, Goonswarm size) -> 17800 members (774 mil)
The possible abuse gets more and more egregious with larger corp size. I do not expect Goonswarm to do this (they typically do not give enough fucks) but E-Uni, RvB, and other hisec/lowsec entities will. This will lead to artificially inflated membership counts, obnoxious "my corp is safer than yours because it's bigger" peen-waving, some corps requiring mandatory alt joining, and other nasties. My question to CCP SoniClover is whether this is intended and expected, or whether it's going to be addressed. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
225
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:47:00 -
[72] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote: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?
Reductio ad absurdum is unbecoming. |
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:48:00 -
[73] - Quote
Are the module bpcs for the non-seeded mods racial, or will they drop from all mag/radar sites? |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:48:00 -
[74] - Quote
Foolish Bob wrote:perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't this multiplier make it excessively easy to make large alliances immune to wardecs by small entities?
Let's say I've got an alliance of 3k people --> 320M per week war cost We'll pretend there's 4 weeks in a month and say that this means 1.28B per month cost
In my alliance of 3k, I find 4 people to make 1 man corps All corps then declare war on my alliance, and I pay the bills.
By my count then that's 4 people all having to pay 5 B (give or take) per month, so a cost to my alliance of some 20B per month. Then, if anyone else wants to wardec me, they have to now pay 6.4B per month for the honour (1.6B per week). Ok, sure other big alliances can do this and try and suppress my actions, but I only need to drop wars as needed to maintain the shield at the level I desire. Anyone small on the other hand would be completely shut out from being able to declare war on me, and for the most part all of this should be pocket change for my alliance.
Unless, like I said, I missed something.
The war multiplier only applies the number of wars you have declared, the number of wars the target is in does not affect the cost. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:48:00 -
[75] - Quote
VagabondAlt wrote:Are the module bpcs for the non-seeded mods racial, or will they drop from all mag/radar sites?
They'll drop from all. |
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
503
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:49:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:The war cost multiplier will apply to all your wars equally, but only when a new bill comes up.
What's the logic behind this multiplier? Why should it be so much more expensive to go to war with 2 100 man corps than a single 200 man corp? What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy In Tea We Trust
120
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:50:00 -
[77] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Evelgrivion wrote: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? Reductio ad absurdum is unbecoming.
It's usually a pretty good technique for pointing out poor arguments; perceived expense is not what I would consider a good justification for this kind of meta-gaming. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
405
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:52:00 -
[78] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:The war cost multiplier will apply to all your wars equally, but only when a new bill comes up.
What's the logic behind this multiplier? Why should it be so much more expensive to go to war with 2 100 man corps than a single 200 man corp?
You're bribing Concord to ignore you attacking 2 names is harder for them to remember than 1 FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:52:00 -
[79] - Quote
Congratulations CCP SoniClover, you official encoded favoritism into a game mechanic. Not that I have a problem with larger Corps having the in game advantage of more manpower, more money, more ships, and a bigger brian trust than smaller corps, that's the game. But it's the extra concord protection you just gave them in the form of escalating war cost that steps outside of player created benefits, and regardless of what you think, screams favoritism.
And the worst part is how you justify it by painting all large entities as passive victims that don't shoot back (I hate to break this to you but many small corps are taking a "risk" as it is declaring war on large ones as it is), and declaring that since small corp grieving doesn't occur now, putting in a huge finical incentive to do so is not a problem.
You know at this point I'd say just give Eve Uni the damn war exception NPC corps have, and treat the rest of the players corps the same! |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:52:00 -
[80] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:The war cost multiplier will apply to all your wars equally, but only when a new bill comes up.
What's the logic behind this multiplier? Why should it be so much more expensive to go to war with 2 100 man corps than a single 200 man corp?
It's a relic from the Privateers 'fix'. It's not needed at all anymore.
|
|
Steijn
Quay Industries
46
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:54:00 -
[81] - Quote
Hmm, so previously missiles etc get renamed so as to avoid confusion and bring clarity/everything onto the same page as it where, and yet you are now releasing new modules which are not on the same page eg. some on the market and some only via dropped BPCs.
Dont you think after your previous changes your new implementation is rather, er, contradictory and to put it bluntly, stupid? |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
225
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:55:00 -
[82] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:Evelgrivion wrote: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? Reductio ad absurdum is unbecoming. It's usually a pretty good technique for pointing out poor arguments; perceived expense is not what I would consider a good justification for this kind of meta-gaming.
This meta gaming is only effective for the corps that want to try to reduce wardecs, and to do so, require massive expenses, and it doesn't stop anyone from wardeccing them anyway (since cost shouldn't be balancing, the price of a wardec is no more effective than the cost of adding alts to a corp). Yes it should be discouraged, but to compare it to a super cap that, even in small numbers, were extremely effective against everything is absurd. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
643
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:56:00 -
[83] - Quote
Foolish Bob wrote:perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't this multiplier make it excessively easy to make large alliances immune to wardecs by small entities?
Let's say I've got an alliance of 3k people --> 320M per week war cost We'll pretend there's 4 weeks in a month and say that this means 1.28B per month cost
In my alliance of 3k, I find 4 people to make 1 man corps All corps then declare war on my alliance, and I pay the bills.
By my count then that's 4 people all having to pay 5 B (give or take) per month, so a cost to my alliance of some 20B per month. Then, if anyone else wants to wardec me, they have to now pay 6.4B per month for the honour (1.6B per week). Ok, sure other big alliances can do this and try and suppress my actions, but I only need to drop wars as needed to maintain the shield at the level I desire. Anyone small on the other hand would be completely shut out from being able to declare war on me, and for the most part all of this should be pocket change for my alliance.
Unless, like I said, I missed something. I think the number of wars against an alliance is not relevant to your cost in deccing that alliance. What matters is how many wars you have declared.
So the original E-Uni dec shield method of having 10 fake wars against them will not work. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:59:00 -
[84] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Foolish Bob wrote:perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't this multiplier make it excessively easy to make large alliances immune to wardecs by small entities?
Let's say I've got an alliance of 3k people --> 320M per week war cost We'll pretend there's 4 weeks in a month and say that this means 1.28B per month cost
In my alliance of 3k, I find 4 people to make 1 man corps All corps then declare war on my alliance, and I pay the bills.
By my count then that's 4 people all having to pay 5 B (give or take) per month, so a cost to my alliance of some 20B per month. Then, if anyone else wants to wardec me, they have to now pay 6.4B per month for the honour (1.6B per week). Ok, sure other big alliances can do this and try and suppress my actions, but I only need to drop wars as needed to maintain the shield at the level I desire. Anyone small on the other hand would be completely shut out from being able to declare war on me, and for the most part all of this should be pocket change for my alliance.
Unless, like I said, I missed something. I think the number of wars against an alliance is not relevant to your cost in deccing that alliance. What matters is how many wars you have declared. So the original E-Uni dec shield method of having 10 fake wars against them will not work.
At the cost now they are immune and dont need a 'dec shield', they can continue blobbing lowsec unimpeded.
|
Evelgrivion
Gunpoint Diplomacy In Tea We Trust
121
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:59:00 -
[85] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:This meta gaming is only effective for the corps that want to try to reduce wardecs, and to do so, require massive expenses, and it doesn't stop anyone from wardeccing them anyway (since cost shouldn't be balancing, the price of a wardec is no more effective than the cost of adding alts to a corp). Yes it should be discouraged, but to compare it to a super cap that, even in small numbers, were extremely effective against everything is absurd.
Even if you think the comparison goes too far, the creation of dec-cost-bloating alts is something that obviously reeks of trouble, the cost scaling is a blatant display of favoritism towards organizations that are large, and I haven't seen any active interest in mitigating these potentially serious problems in advance from CCP. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
947
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:00:00 -
[86] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: You can't join an alliance if you're an aggressor in a war.
Good change. It prevents one of the possible exploits.
I'm not sure that the '7-day' lock out for corp member changes is completely good. It's probably too draconian when 3-day limits would have sufficed just as well.
But it doesn't solve the problem of: - declare war - scout out a target in a neutral alt - join wardec, blow up target - repeat with another neutral alt
And if you wardec the target from multiple shell corps, your neutral alts can: - hop into corp #1, blow up target, leave corp #1 - find another target, hop into corp #2, blow up target, leavel corp #2 - repeat until your 7-day waiting period is up, rejoin corp #1
In fact, smart attackers will merely setup half a dozen different shell corps. Each shell corp will wardec a different target. All of the fighters stay in NPC corps until they have found a vulnerable enemy. They then insta-join the correct shell corporation which allows them to attack said enemy, then leave right away.
There needs to be a delay on joining an aggressor corporation - such as not being able to join the aggressor corporation until downtime. Which nips the "scout out target, insta-join, pop target" exploit in the bud. |
Taryn Porter
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:00:00 -
[87] - Quote
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. |
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
68
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:03:00 -
[88] - Quote
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.
There may not be that many alts like that now, but with this change, the number would explode. You can get a literally infinite amount of alts into inactive accounts for free trough the buddy invite system. If it goes trough unchanged, people will simply send buddy invites to themselves and choose PLEX as the reward if the "buddy" activates his account, then send the "buddy" account the isk needed for a plex to activate that account with. Create 3 alts on the account and put them in corp, then use the plex you got as a reward to do it again until you reach the desired member count and then sell the last reward plex again.
End result: However many alts you want for 0 cost.
This can be done even if you exclude inactive accounts by simply repeating once every 51 days (when the 21 day trial+30 days from a plex expire), but at least that's better then only having to do it once. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
970
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:04:00 -
[89] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:This meta gaming is only effective for the corps that want to try to reduce wardecs, and to do so, require massive expenses, and it doesn't stop anyone from wardeccing them anyway (since cost shouldn't be balancing, the price of a wardec is no more effective than the cost of adding alts to a corp). Yes it should be discouraged, but to compare it to a super cap that, even in small numbers, were extremely effective against everything is absurd. Even if you think the comparison goes too far, the creation of dec-cost-bloating alts is something that obviously reeks of trouble, the cost scaling is a blatant display of favoritism towards organizations that are large, and I haven't seen any active interest in mitigating these potentially serious problems in advance from CCP. Some favoritism towards larger entities is acceptable, especially if CCP wants to encourage hisec small corps to band together more often (which is a good thing because of increased player interaction). This encouragement coming at the cost of more metagaming and weird mechanics is the unacceptable part. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:07:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
The war multiplier only applies the number of wars you have declared, the number of wars the target is in does not affect the cost.
well that makes me feel better. I must say, though, that I rather like the idea of including the ratio somehow, so that small corps can easily declare war against large alliances for comedy and targets, but the opposite is not true - perhaps something like
k*max(1,log10(m*A/D)^p)*log10(q*A)*W^r
where A is Aggressor size, D is defender size W is number of extant wars the Aggressor holds k,m,p,q,r are tuning constants
I don't know for sure - I'm at work, so I'm just writing functions that should multiply roughly in the right shapes with the right properties, but I hope you get the idea. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |