Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Derkata
12
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:41:00 -
[151] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Derkata wrote:Micheal Dietrich wrote: I'm not talking about your choice on becoming a miner, I'm talking about your choice on being defenseless. You can be anything you want in this game that you so choose, including helpless and at the mercy of others. The choice is yours.
If there was a way for indy corps to declare "war" on a merc corp or a nullsec corp that forced them to mine or log off for a week, you know people would be up in arms and the "lul you chose to pvp and I support that, soz u dont want to mine" would never fly. This is without a doubt an anti indy move and anyone who can't see that is likely going to be shooting miners. I don't see why war decs are needed in the first place, there are plenty of people who want to pvp in low sec and null sec. That's true too, they can get all the PvP they want in lowsec and nullsec, why do they need to PvP in hisec? Derkata - There is a way for you to declare 'war' on a merc corp, which is by hiring another merc corp to go after them. True that this wouldn't force them to mine, but then a war of the miners sounds like one of those silly game shows like survivor or something. But back to the point, hiring armed forces of your own can put a serious dent in the aggressors plans, and could force them to quit the war against you quickly. Luckily for the both of you, the ability to hire such mercs will become much easier in the coming installment. There is no one answer to your other question. People fight in high sec for various reasons. Perhaps because they enjoy the cap on ships. Maybe they enjoy small scale over large alliance duties. Maybe they just enjoy being near a trade hub. Or dare I say, some aren't equipped well enough to handle people who actually know pvp. My group is usually hired to go after a target. What they do is of no concern, and I don't ask, I just put a track on them. If they run to low or null sec, I follow. If they hide in a wormhole, I'll find them. We don't discern between Mining barges or HAM Drakes. When we aren't contracted by another entity we look for people who we feel are poorly running their corporation. If we feel we have sufficient evidence, we open up a Concorde approved investigation letting us to delve further into their corporate matters and allow us to write up a report to present to them on what they can do to improve their status as a corp and hopefully help prevent future transgressions against those looking for a target. We usually have more success with individual corp members than we do CEO's. I hope this has helped answer some of your questions.
Shockingly, it does. Thank you for taking the time to write that up. While I am still against forcing miners to pvp but not forcing pvpers to mine, you are correct, there are ways around it. I'm mostly just shocked that this is considered a fix to a broken dec system (and that it is actually going to make it harder to go after blocs and large hi-sec alliances like the uni.
Anyways, thanks again for your post. |
Dirk Culliford
Aliastra Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:41:00 -
[152] - Quote
Add a factor to the cost for the size difference between aggressor and defender.
That way, small entity wars cost little with big powerblocks sinking large amounts. The extra factor prevents an alliance war deccing a 1 man corp for pennies. Not sure what the issue is with small corps deccing large ones but the factor could penalize this as well if you needed. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
378
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:42:00 -
[153] - Quote
Can we also include victory conditions for those who would like the tools to determine what constitutes a victory or loss? Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:43:00 -
[154] - Quote
Micheal Dietrich wrote: This is also a misconception. There are quite a few larger corporations in high sec, including alliances, that are not only understanding and flexible with pilots outside affairs, but they also sport a wider range of pilots including solo'rs and pvp'rs.
That is a point, and eventually I really should look into them again. Though it quickly brings up the 'what does a corp offer?' other then a chat room? I am assuming such casual-friendly corps do not give random people the ability to set up POSes (since that is a corp wide ability), which is one of the few mechanical things a player corp can do that the NPC one can not, at least from an indy perspective.
I guess I could see a preferred trade/price network within the corp too. Hrm... |
Dubaschu
BJ TitsnEvE
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:44:00 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Besbin wrote:Cosmetic suggestion:
Change the term "Killmail" to "Kill Report" to reflect the new setup.
It will no longer be just a mail and it will then be analogous to the "War Report". I like this idea <3 I wish I came up with it myself
YES PLS...That is alot better |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
788
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:45:00 -
[156] - Quote
Possible pricing:
if (defender is larger) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 - diff_fee * diff_size^1/5 if (defender is smaller) = base_fee + totalsize_fee * totalsize^1/4 + diff_fee * diff_size^1/5 Minimum size for attacker/defender is calculated as 20 on each side.
Base Fee = 40M Multiplier based on total size = 80M Multiplier based on size diff = 40M
20 attk 20 = 241M 20 attk 1000 = 334M 20 attk 8000 = 556M
1000 attk 20 = 651M 1000 attk 1000 = 575M 1000 attk 8000 = 584M
8000 attk 20 = 1038M 8000 attk 1000 = 1054M 8000 attk 8000 = 940M
It does mean that wars are more expensive at the low-end of the scale, but the N^1/4 scaling means that wars never get ridiculously expensive.
There should also be some sort of multiplier that additional wardecs on top of what you have are more and more expensive (just like now).
Size difference may also be better calculated as a ratio of attacker/defender, with a minimum of 20 for each.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
607
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:46:00 -
[157] - Quote
Hey CCP are you going to be making sure these new wardec mechanics apply equally to NPC corps? |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
206
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:47:00 -
[158] - Quote
I have a suggestion for If the war is mutual, it could be free... until it is no longer mutual... that would be great for corps like RvB and perhaps other corps will do the same thing |
gfldex
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:47:00 -
[159] - Quote
Arrs Grazznic wrote: They are not going to do that because it would mean privateers would come back. Those fellow highsec pirates had simply to much fun blowing folk up in Jita. (And they where not really fighting for anythign but the lolz.)
I have no problem with the 10 man corp having to pay the 4b isk to dec the large origanisation. For me the problem is the cost to the large alliance is so small it is irrelevant. A large corp / alliance could effectively perma-dec many smaller 10 man corps for ***** and giggles and not notices the cost. [/quote]
So if you have 100 folk decing 10x10 folk it's going to be less pricy then if 100 go for 100 directly? I don't think so. And don't forget the ally thingy. If you dec 10 folk and they get 1000 waiting in their backyard (Some ppl have friends who like to fight in highsec. Even the MC fabricated halve of their "contracts".). That's a free war for the 1000 folk against 100.
With the new system wardecs can backfire big time. Something that requires alliance forgery right now.
Goons are the 3%. |
El 1974
Bendebeukers Green Rhino
61
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:49:00 -
[160] - Quote
Basic conclusion: you're trying to fix a few loopholes, but in the proces create new loopholes. The wardec changes only make things complicated without solving anything. The basic problem is that if people don't want to pvp they will find ways to avoid it. CCP should learn to live with that and move on. |
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:51:00 -
[161] - Quote
I was worried about this change, since there's a fair number of ways it could go wrong, but I think you guys have gotten it right. Everything looks good to me - well done. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
393
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:51:00 -
[162] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:gfldex wrote:PLAY MY WAY OR GO AWAY! Words of wisdom never heard before... If would be nice if you could refrain from putting words into my mouth. What I sayed is: PLAY SOMEBODYS WAR OR GO TO NPC CORP (or 0.0 for that matter). This false quoting is an offense in any decent country for a reason.
That is, people must play the game the way you tell them, or must go away.
What about people choosing how do they want to play the game, for a change? What about CCP smartasses listening to players each now and then?
Are wardecs broken? NO.
Would the changes harm a lot of people currently not involved in wardecs? YES
Well then, don't bloody "fix" them!
It's like when they "fixed" Lvl 5 missions so they couldn't spawn in hisec. Did it do any good to anyone? No. Did it harm mission runners? For sure.
Non consensual wars should end up authomatically or get a scalating upkeep cost. And ideally they should not exist at all, the game already provides a hundred venues to PvP w/o a need to shove it down the throat of people who choose to play the game their way and not some smartasses' way. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
607
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:53:00 -
[163] - Quote
El 1974 wrote:Basic conclusion: you're trying to fix a few loopholes, but in the proces create new loopholes. The wardec changes only make things complicated without solving anything. The basic problem is that if people don't want to pvp they will find ways to avoid it. CCP should learn to live with that and move on. Then remove the ability to effect the economy while in highsec (wallet freeze, forbid freighters in highsec, disable mining turrets) because last i checked market pvp was still pvp. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:54:00 -
[164] - Quote
"Reverse" the formula. Make it relatively cheaper for a small entity to wardec a large one and relatively expensive for a large entity to wardec a small one.
Of course, if the cost of a one man corp to wardec goons is like 10-20M, the formula is fine, even if the cost goons to wardec a one man corp is 10 ISK. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
607
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:56:00 -
[165] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Are wardecs broken? NO. Yes.
Suicide ganking has replaced the wardec for a reason. |
spanner man
Hexxed Warriors Hexxed Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:57:00 -
[166] - Quote
looks like ccp has caught some kind of head cold for want of a better word ? wtf are you messing with the wd'ng system to help thoes O.O numpty's no dought LEAVE THE BLOODY THING AS IS . or lets all go to o.o thats what they want o.o sucks for blobing pussies |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
27
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 17:57:00 -
[167] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: It's like when they "fixed" Lvl 5 missions so they couldn't spawn in hisec. Did it do any good to anyone? No. Did it harm mission runners? For sure.
Not sure I would really call it 'hurting' mission runners. They added a new carrot to get people into low sec. Granted it would be cool if L5s spawned in high sec, but we are not actually 'hurt' by not having the higher reward missions not available unless we take the additional risk of venturing into low sec....
Though I think it would have worked better if PvE and PvP fits were not so out of sync.... It always seemed odd that you could set up a ship capable of tanking a dozen or more battleships at once, but a single PvP fit ship can come in and blow you to pieces. Kinda immersion breaking.... |
gfldex
425
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:02:00 -
[168] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:2) Put a strict limit on the number of allies a defender can bring into the war. I'm thinking three (3) is a pretty fair number.
If you do that players will be moved between corps to game the system. Goons are the 3%. |
SlaveNo A3157
Imperial Mechanics
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:03:00 -
[169] - Quote
Idea idia!
Make the war mechanism so that you can start a war but you don't need to extend it to empire. In other words. 0.0 corps could make wars and choose empire fighting as an option (this would naturaly cost).
This way the new fancy war tracking mechanism would show the results of bigger wars fought in 0.0 and low sec. |
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:05:00 -
[170] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: That is, people must play the game the way you tell them, or must go away.
Stop repeating that lie like a goddamn dumb parrot.
Nobody is telling you to do anything. If you want to mine - go mine. If you want to blow up ships - go blow up ships. If you want to do missions - go do missions. If you want to do something I haven't thought of - go do that thing I haven't thought of. |
|
Skye Aurorae
No Bull Ships
224
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:12:00 -
[171] - Quote
If a wardec is cancelled and the cooldown is initiated there needs to be the opportunity for the other side to extend the wardec uninterrupted (for a cost of course).
* Corp A declared was against B, A is losing so cancels wardec, B now has 24 hours to pay up and become the agressor. * Corp A has declared war agains Corp B's Alliance, Corp B leaves alliance, corp A has opportunity to extend wardec immediately.
I've seen attempts to save POS towers by escaping wardecs such that the POS comes out of RF immediately after the cooldown. Skye Aurora is a 7 year old Girl Who Wants to be on the CSM! Unfortunately, the Lawyers say you have to be 21, so..
|
Karim alRashid
Aliastra Gallente Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:18:00 -
[172] - Quote
Just make highsec into lowsec and be done with it. Keep it simple, stupid.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Standards and Practices
168
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:18:00 -
[173] - Quote
Nekopyat wrote:Micheal Dietrich wrote: This is also a misconception. There are quite a few larger corporations in high sec, including alliances, that are not only understanding and flexible with pilots outside affairs, but they also sport a wider range of pilots including solo'rs and pvp'rs.
That is a point, and eventually I really should look into them again. Though it quickly brings up the 'what does a corp offer?' other then a chat room? I am assuming such casual-friendly corps do not give random people the ability to set up POSes (since that is a corp wide ability), which is one of the few mechanical things a player corp can do that the NPC one can not, at least from an indy perspective. I guess I could see a preferred trade/price network within the corp too. Hrm...
Back in my Bear days, one of the corps that we ran in started a small alliance with our training corp and a few other small corps. The biggest requirement that was put on us when we wanted to go ahead with some plans was that we had to get up to a 5.0 sec rating for a pos installation in a 0.6. This lead to some major group mission running. Now you are correct that each corp will vary. My friend and I were allowed to put up a second station along with some manufacturing plants in a neighboring system for our own use but we had to supply our own fuel and whatnot. Other corps may have restriction where a pos can go. Other than that our alliance was mainly tied together to reduce chances of a war so there wasn't much communication there. our corp would run little 2-3 man mission ops (more ships, faster op) or sometimes we would combine trades so that one person would run a mission, clear the rooms, and then our miners would enter and mine in a relatively more secure area than they would a belt. If we set up for ice mining our mission runners may run guard though admittedly looking back at it we weren't the best equipped plus we honestly wouldn't be able to stop someone if they really wanted a kill that bad, the best we would be able to hope for is to scare away canflippers or grab loot after a suicide gank.
Edit: Forgot to add, those that could manufacture usually sold to members at cost of minerals, or if you bought the materials yourself they would do the work for free. |
Katarina Reid
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:19:00 -
[174] - Quote
Cost for war should be done by active members loged in last week or month. It should only add 1 character per account so 500 man corp cant get members to use all char slot to make it 1500 members. |
gfldex
426
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:20:00 -
[175] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:What about people choosing how do they want to play the game, for a change? What about CCP smartasses listening to players each now and then?
Like with Incarna? Can you name me one game where anybody can play the game as he pleases? You request is silly. Any MMO will have restrictions for certain playerstyles and in pretty much all of them most playstyles are simply impossible. For years CCP was listening to carebears and the only thing they got out of that was rampant botting. With the changes we now get EVE will go back to a state where it used to be and had the biggest growth.
Goons are the 3%. |
KanashiiKami
96
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:20:00 -
[176] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote:Quote: the same goes for the aggressor - entering a war is now more of a commitment and not something you can hop in and out of at a whim's notice. While I applaud changes to the broken war dec mechanics, the above quote shows CCP still does not quite understand the reality of (some) wars in Eve. The proposed changes are a halfway fix at best, and only change part of what is wrong. As a result, this system might actually result in a worse player experience than the current system. I feel that it does not do enough to change it from a griefing tool into a tool to resolve inter-corp disputes through military means. If, of course, CCP intended for wardecs to simply be a griefing tool I would prefer that they state this clearly. The main issue I see with this is that you're now effectively locking corps and alliances into a war, even if they do not enjoy playing like this, without giving them an effective way to get out of it. "Oh but you can fight back, even get your friends to help out!" you might say, but this is not always effective. Sure you can fight back, but there is no guarantee that that will end the war (even with help from your friends). Especially when plenty of high sec wardeccing corps are made of up alts, who can easily 'escape' to their mains to play elsewhere, or consist of players who specifically seek out pvp. As defender, you're essentially resigned to waiting (hoping) for the aggressor to get bored of the war. Now I do admit the ease of getting out of wars currently is a big issue, one only justified by the broken system we currently have. But forcing players into a war they didn't chose should come with an ability for the defender to take control of the wardec, and giving them the direct ability to end the war and enforce a temporary peace.Not only will this give corporations a real reason to fight (on both sides of the war), rather than sit in stations or AFK cloak in local, it will also give a real incentive to use mercenaries. Afterall, if your own forces or your hired guns are effective, YOU take control of the war completely. As such I'd suggest the following changes/additions to the system proposed in the devblog:1) The attacking corp/alliance starts with an 'ISK deficit' equal to the cost of the wardec. 2) In order to keep control of the wardec, they need to inflict at least that much damage on their target corp/alliance (and any friends they might have). ISK damage is already being tracked in the new War Reports. 3) At the end of each war week, when the new bill is due, the system evaluates if the attacking corp is ahead on ISK damage and if they met or exceeded their ISK deficit. If so they keep control of the war. If not, control of the war transfers to the target corp/alliance, who then effectively become the attacker. They can decide to renew the war (and pay the fee), or cancel it. 4) Any wars that are not renewed are followed by a period of peace between the two entities equal to the length of the war. This change would still allow people to fight unilateral wars, it will still allow people to take down high sec posses and still allow them to beat their enemies into submission. But it will also allow corporations who are being attacked to fight back and give them a chance to end the war they were forced in to, turning a griefing mechanic into a more balanced tool to resolve inter-corp conflicts. And as a big added bonus, it's a much better incentive for mercenary gameplay because 'winning' a war means taking control! Overall it makes the wardec system a lot more dynamic and interesting. Quote: Joining as an ally is a formal contract and can involve transfer of ISK. Once youGÇÖre an ally, youGÇÖre committed to the war until it ends. This, combined with the fact that youGÇÖre dependent on the aggressor getting bored of the war, means some mercenary corps might find themselves stuck in a war/contract for much longer than they planned, with no way of getting out. This in turn will lead to less corps going the mercenary route. Better would be that merc corps take on one week, or otherwise time limited, contracts? Quote:Q: War dec cost, target corp member modifier? A: The war dec cost formula will not take aggressor size into account and will not count trial account members in target corp. But the formula is constantly being revised, so nothing is set in stone. This formula has to take into account only active accounts. It is far, far too easy to fill up a corp with inactive non-trial accounts.
i really like your suggestions
i disapprove of CCP's intentions on proposed changes on war mechanics, they are tentamount to allowing larger corps to beat down ALL smaller corps. it is saying i allow some one to bully anyone smaller. imagine tomorrow cash rich null sec coalitions move half of all thier military spares into hisec, and cast a war dec on every corp that has less than 50 man ...
WUT ??? |
May O'Neez
Flying Blacksmiths
1
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:21:00 -
[177] - Quote
Merc contracts is a great addition, that will add ISK sinks and incitate new ways of playing.
Regarding the prices and mechanisms, I'm not pretty sure of the effect, but at the end probably they won't be more wars than currently, so people are afraid a bit too early I think.
Regarding avoiding wars (or rather their effect), going to 0.0 or joining NPC corps is no-go. If people don't want to do PvP, they must have ways to walk around. Travel, Mercs, special fits, ... but docking game is boring (IMHO both for attacker and attacked). |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
670
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:21:00 -
[178] - Quote
Quote:Q: What about corp-hopping? A: We're adding tracking in the backend to track this. How we will then display it in game is undecided, but we do have stories in the backlog (todo list) for the character war history to show if the character left a corp at war. We also want to have it cost a little to corp-hop during a war. We're also looking into not allowing you to join a corp you've left during a war while that war is still ongoing. We're also exploring some limitations to joining and leaving a corp on the fly. My biggest concern is the ability to leave a corporation because it is at war, then re-join that corporation as soon as the danger is over. This is a rampant problem with wars as it currently stands; many corporations will completely abandon ship with all their members just to prevent the war from accomplishing anything, and this is currently rendering many wars meaningless.
My second biggest concern is the cost scaling with wars you did not choose to start. If a corporation leaves an alliance and you choose to continue the war against that corporation, it should exist as a subsection of the alliance war; it should fall under the same bill and add only its member count to the war cost. If an alliance were to entirely break up and all its corporations were to leave to avoid the consequences of a war (which happens with disturbing regularity), it should not cost a quadratic amount of isk to continue those 10 or 20 wars as if they were all separate. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
670
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:22:00 -
[179] - Quote
May O'Neez wrote:Merc contracts is a great addition, that will add ISK sinks and incitate new ways of playing.
Regarding the prices and mechanisms, I'm not pretty sure of the effect, but at the end probably they won't be more wars than currently, so people are afraid a bit too early I think.
Regarding avoiding wars (or rather their effect), going to 0.0 or joining NPC corps is no-go. If people don't want to do PvP, they must have ways to walk around. Travel, Mercs, special fits, ... but docking game is boring (IMHO both for attacker and attacked). Giving money to another player is not an ISK sink. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Syekuda
Blaze Flag
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.29 18:27:00 -
[180] - Quote
Opinion on the wardec changes: I vote for you guys to complete the new system and look at all the requests of all users and what you have on your todo list. Even if it takes more than your june deadline or the inferno expansion, I'm willing to wait for the new system to be ready 100% if you take all matters into considiration rather than releasing a new change that is 50% complete... especially when the wardec system is a big part of eveonline gameplay. That's my opinion though as I've seen to many features and changes not complete and I don't want this one to be part of the "I hate this change" list because it's incomplete or feels like it
That said here are some thoughts on those 2 questions a dev posted a few pages back
Quote:Q: Price of war? A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.
I find 20 for a corp and 50 mil for a corp to be supercheap especially the per member too. A small corp can make millions very easily. I don't have the numbers for the miners but for mission runners 100-350 per week is what they can make super easy. Some do more and some do worse but this is to say that 20m is not high enough.
Why should it be higher, well war should be costly so with this 20m it's not. One level 4 mission can have that payout you know. This is the reason it's too cheap.
By the way, why not make the wardec system pay your members who fights... think of a weekly allowance or something. Soldiers ain't free afaik
Quote:Q: Take fights further from stations? A: We're not doing anything for this in Inferno
Please do before releasing it, this is a big problem on both sides. I seriously don't know how to fix this myself but station games are freek'n boring and the current system doesn't do anything so in other words, its not encouraging fights... as it doesn't discouraging fights too. but if you ask me, if it's in a wardec shouldn't station camping be discouraged in some way ? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |