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) |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
505
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 18:58:00 -
[181] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Large alliances are going to get decced alot less... smaller corps is going to suffer more. Make that mid-sized corps. With the minimum of 50 million, and the multiplier, then smallest corps are not worth it unless you are after their POS or something. 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 |
Bart Starr
Aggressive Structural Steel Expediting Services
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 18:59:00 -
[182] - Quote
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
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
140
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:02:00 -
[183] - Quote
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. The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Ager Agemo
Radiant Technologies The House Of Cards.
69
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:07:00 -
[184] - Quote
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
Praetorian Cannibals
361
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:09:00 -
[185] - Quote
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. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
407
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:10:00 -
[186] - Quote
FoF Drake Blobs? No locks required. Though primary might be hard to arrange FuzzWork Enterprises http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Blueprint calculator, invention chance calculator, isk/m3 Ore chart-á and other 'useful' utilities. |
Ager Agemo
Radiant Technologies The House Of Cards.
69
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:14:00 -
[187] - Quote
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
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:18:00 -
[188] - Quote
The Devs who came up with these silly moduals should go back to their old jobs at Blizzard |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
981
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:22:00 -
[189] - Quote
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! 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! |
Sho neeta
Hedion University Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:22:00 -
[190] - Quote
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
Redeemer Group Joint Venture Conglomerate
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:23:00 -
[191] - Quote
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
530
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:32:00 -
[192] - Quote
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
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:40:00 -
[193] - Quote
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
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:41:00 -
[194] - Quote
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
1058
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:45:00 -
[195] - Quote
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.
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1881
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:47:00 -
[196] - Quote
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/iC031As 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. 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. TL;DR Click the link above
When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
181
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:51:00 -
[197] - Quote
Both the Lock Breaker and the Cap Battery neut immunity/reflection are a terrible idea, sorry. |
Echo Mande
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:54:00 -
[198] - Quote
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? |
Gort Thud
Wandering Spartans
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:59:00 -
[199] - Quote
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
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:06:00 -
[200] - Quote
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
1882
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:08:00 -
[201] - Quote
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 a war to begin with. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Ashrun Dir
Love for You Broken Toys
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:10:00 -
[202] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: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/iC031As 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.
Very good point, Active Characters in X time window would be a better representation of viable targets.
Someone also suggested that the war dec stick to the player (corp) for 7 days if they drop corp (alliance), I think this would also be a good suggestion.
I also liked the idea someone had about N being the difference in size between the two corps/alliances. |
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:21:00 -
[203] - Quote
I have a question for the Dev Team working on the Wardecing system:
If/When the number of active wars drops from the increased fees, is there a point/line that once crossed you will rework the new system?
While I feel this new system is going to have a negative impact on how wars are conducted in High-Sec, as well as not covering the the basic guidelines listed at FanFest (Null Powerblocks using Wardecs instead of third party sources to keep track of kill records), I understand the desire to change things and try something new. And I guess the current wardec system has been deemed broken and this is an attempt to fix it. Or the more likely, wanting to add new features to it (thank you for the new features) and decided to rework the basics of a war to adjust for the current state of EvE. However, there's a lot of EvE based on cost and returns, so anything that effects any costs or return on investments is going to have a chance of backfiring.
Basically, I look wanting some form of reassurance that if this system does backfire the Dev Team already has an out to fix the problem instead of the players having to wait ten to fifteen months. Nohb Oddy likes you. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:23:00 -
[204] - Quote
Quote: We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.
Is this a bad joke or are you just silly? Tracking Disruptors against missiles? Since when do missiles have tracking? Do not come live with this dull idea! |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
981
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:26:00 -
[205] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Quote: We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.
Is this a bad joke or are you just silly? Tracking Disruptors against missiles? Since when do missiles have tracking? Do not come live with this dull idea! Missed the discussion, did you? I think the idea was that Tracking Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers would instead become Weapon Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers, affecting both turrets and missiles (so, being able to bonus/penalize explosion velocity and missile velocity just as they can bonus/penalize weapon tracking and range). 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! |
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:30:00 -
[206] - Quote
Well, Guess Team Superfriends just Confirmed for us the BLATANT ignoring of the universal arguement against Cost escalation! Even though "Reduced" in escalation, it's still plenty large enough to provide a CCP Dec Shield, WAY TO FAIL HARD. But, We all knew it was a bull leading this charge.
Take note as Wars drastically get reduced. Ironic how the "War Expansion" Kills the amount of Wars in Eve. Gee, ya think You Devs did something Wrong here? Do you need engraved Concrete to see the Writing on the Wall? How Does Cost scaling Improve War interactions? IT DOESN'T!
OH, and on the Mods:
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.
Cool, Where's the Mod for Shields like this?
Small/Medium/Large Overclocking Processor Unit I & II - A rig that increases the CPU output of your ship, at a cost of reduced shield recharge rate.
HUH... More dissadvantage towards shields. Why does this Rig impact Shields (Only)? I'm seeing a great Biased development against shields and in favor of Armor ships. Do you people even play Eve? Do you just pull disadvantages out of a hat or do you purposely hate and nerf certain ships and Races?
EVE Inferno = The rekindling Hate of Incarna, except to Large Corps, Alliances and the CSM they Elect in, misrepresenting all of EVE community. eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:32:00 -
[207] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Quote: We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.
Is this a bad joke or are you just silly? Tracking Disruptors against missiles? Since when do missiles have tracking? Do not come live with this dull idea! Missed the discussion, did you? I think the idea was that Tracking Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers would instead become Weapon Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers, affecting both turrets and missiles (so, being able to bonus/penalize explosion velocity and missile velocity just as they can bonus/penalize weapon tracking and range). But Why? Only to nerf missiles to death? |
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:37:00 -
[208] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Quote: We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.
Is this a bad joke or are you just silly? Tracking Disruptors against missiles? Since when do missiles have tracking? Do not come live with this dull idea! Missed the discussion, did you? I think the idea was that Tracking Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers would instead become Weapon Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers, affecting both turrets and missiles (so, being able to bonus/penalize explosion velocity and missile velocity just as they can bonus/penalize weapon tracking and range). But Why? Only to nerf missiles to death?
Coupled with the Rig drawback and the Adaptive Damage mod for Armor Buff, It's Clear they hate Caldari and Shield ships... why not cripple the missiles as well, right?
FYI, I can fly everything race subcap, but this trend is so blatant it's ridiculous. eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
644
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:37:00 -
[209] - Quote
CCP: Someone testing on Sisi reported that if a pilot dropped from a decced corp to a NPC corp they would not be at war, but would be "marked". If they made or joined a new corp that mark would cause the new corp to come under the same war dec (unless the war had ended).
Is it going to be that way on TQ? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Beledia Ilphukiir
Proffessional Experts Group
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 20:37:00 -
[210] - Quote
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
Why would that be an improvement? Because it forces more "fair fights"? I get what CCP is doing, but I don't like it or your idea, since both are lacking from my perspective. They both suffer from trying to fit every type of wardec under the umbrella of silly initial overarching premises. For CCP it's: wardecs are about getting targets to shoot at, and you want to enforce some concept of fair fights. My problem with this is, that the aggressive wars I've participated in have largely been about resource denial or shooting people(not corps or alliances, but specific people within them) we don't like and both proposals fit these war goals badly.
Let's take a simple situation as an example. Our corp is grinding a static complex in highsec, since it's near our staging area and provides good steady income for little effort. Members of another entity starts using the same complex. We dec them to force those complex farmers out of the system, so we can get all the loot. A simple example, but it doesn't really fit in with the initial premises for wardecs people have presented. We aren't looking for fights, fair or otherwise, or prey. We just want the few guys who came to farm our site out of there. If they leave without fighting, that is just fine with us.
The problem is that the numbers of members in their corp/alliance is irrelevant from our perspective. We aren't trying to wage total war or gank soft highsec targets. We just wanted to be able to try to leverage our superiority in that tiny corner of space in order to get rid of a few competing pilots and stop their operations there. Suicide ganking isn't good enough for this, so it needs to be a wardec. It really shouldn't matter if they were members of a small corp or a huge alliance. In CCPs proposal and yours we are forced to pay according to the ridiculous member count number instead of the practical amount of targets we are actually engaging.
From my perspective CCPs proposal is good, but only as a framework. It can propably deal with the meat and potato wardec cases fairly well with some tweaks. The problem is, that it's a one-size-fits-all -solution, so it doesn't work well in some cases. Your solution isn't really an improvement, since it's another type of one-size-fits-all -solution, that just caters to a different audience. I think a better solution would be to bring additional wardec tools to the table, instead of trying to get everything to fit under one ruleset.
Personally I would like to see additional wardec options to fill those niches. I'd be much happier with a wardec option, that entirely ignores member numbers in the cost and instead bills me a static wardec cost and then extra by the number of targets I've actually killed. This way I wouldn't have to pay half a billion to dec a huge alliance, if I only wanted to drive a few of their highsec members/assets away from a specific system. You know, pay for actual agressions I've committed, instead of getting billed by some maximum theoretical number of aggression violations, that I could have potentially committed, but not really. |
|
|
|
|
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 |