|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
73
   |
Posted - 2012.05.14 14:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
With the war mechanic, why has the multiple wars escalator been kept in? It was only ever put in to exclude Privateers from attacking many 0.0 alliances, that surprisingly were nowhere near as 0.0 as they wanted to people to think. With the exorbitant costing as it is, there's no need to keep the escalator as well.
PS. PL would like to express their thanks for the immunity provided by CCP, 250mil a week should be enough to put people off and we do keep losing JFs with these wars  |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:52:00 -
[2] - 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.
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:59:00 -
[3] - 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.
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:12:00 -
[4] - Quote
Manssell wrote:
The actual logic behind the increasing of fees is that they are giving more protection to larger corps from "nuisance" wars. Now They can't openly admit this, but i'm convinced it's being done to give larger alliances easier logistics movement, and a war dec protection for Eve uni.
The 'dec shield' exploit eve-uni currently use was explained to them in detail by a dev. Wouldn't mind, but they're actually fun to fight, used to love their fleet of 50+ roaming around during privateers against my gang of 5. But thats not what Eve-Uni want to teach, instead they just go round and round low sec interfering with faction wars.
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I don't know why everyone thinks this makes it impossible to dec E-Uni. It will cost, what, 200-300 mil? So get your corp of 5 members to each run a few L4 missions one afternoon, and you get one week vs all of E-Uni.
CCP: I heard a rumor that if the target corp of a dec makes the war mutual, then the war can no longer be terminated by the aggressor, but only by a surrender. Is that true?
Eve-Uni is irrelevent, they will use the exploit already detailed earlier in this thread anyway.
The problem is why would anyone pay 200-500mil for a war which typically most defenders will just wait out. This will cause the war dec system to fail except for alliances wishing to take other alliances low sec tech moons or basic high sec alt corp tower removal. This in turn will cause the mercenary system to never take off. Without wars there's no demand for mercenaries and those that are going to try will regret it when they discover actually its just endless pos defence for private empires of already rich individuals most likely in one of the key 0.0 alliances.
So all in all, sounds like people at CCP have gone to a lot of effort for nothing.
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
I see that in the last 4 weeks Eve University has gone from 1,500 members to 2,200 members. 
Source |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:37:00 -
[7] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:
Also: Number of wars the aggressor can declare no longer artificially limited to 3, but can be as high as the aggressor is willing to pay for.
For alliances it was always unlimited. Its already started, alliances are filling their ranks with numbers just to raise the price beyond reason. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:41:00 -
[8] - 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. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
85
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 05:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
This blog just shows a fundamental failure to understand the reasons behind wars, the mechanics they operate in, why some people might prefer not to be hotdropped in low/null sec from across the universe at any moment and most importantly, how the war dec system ended up as it is now in the first place.
I even went out of my way to explain in length what the events leading to the current situation here. With none of the underlying issues addressed nothing will change other than people being disuaded by the ridiculous pricing scheme. High sec war deccers have to pay ISK as it stands for what is essentially low quality content that revolves around being in or near Jita which is unusual as most professions don't, raising the price by 1000% will just make them give up entirely.
SoniClover and team superfriends clearly have no clue about the evolution of EveOnline warfare. These changes bring nothing to the table that could restore what was once an enjoyable part of the game. CCPs only success here is to protect the 0.0 alliances that need protection the least and to look after alts in 0.0 running private highsec pos empires - they will afterall, be able to have their main alliance + whatever mercenaries join their war - team superfriends amirite?
Still, it's not the end of PvP quite yet, there's still 0.0 where no-one does anything unless a timer tells them too, where alpha and numbers are king. Or there's lowsec, where bored 0.0 alliances hotdrop their full super cap fleet because there isn't a timer for them that night and people camp gates with impunity thanks to CCPs lack of fundamental understanding of how Ship Maintenance Bays work - looking forward to the fix in 2016, which is around how long it took them to fix neutral remote reppers.
Another blog, more rapidly diminishing content. Looking forward to the coming blog on the mercenary interface that relies so heavily on war dec mechanics. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 06:32:00 -
[10] - Quote
POS Trader wrote:Har Harrison wrote:Just to confirm - locks only get broken between your ship and the person targetting you right? Any other lock they have will still hold?
Is breaking a lock considered a "hostile" act. E.g. someone is yellow boxing me in high sec and I activate my module. Will this get me concorded since I have not attacked them or aggressed them - just potentially broken the lock. An argument on if it should/shouldn't count as an aggressive act can technically be made both ways. No harm done to them and they can relock vs ECM counts as an aggressive act.
TD should not effect missiles. They are a different platform and have issues like time to apply DPS as their disadvantage AND the DEFENDER missile is already the counter. Note that a TD effects the SHIP and therefore the weapons. How can a TD effect MULTIPLE missiles in a volley??? The entire point of a module is to break away from the "primary, secondary" target calling PvP is in 0.0. Also very useful for command ships and stuff like that. Defenders are not used at all because they suck and don't work against blobs. I hope this works against missiles too as otherwise we'll just get drake blobs. I think the Great Hope for this module is to break up blobs into a large number of small PvP battles, like squads vs. squads instead of the stupid blobs we have today.
Won't have a significant effect when there's 100+ maelstroms that have you locked and firing. This module is useless in traditional 0.0 warfare. |
|
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
96
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 12:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:Skogen Gump wrote:As it stands with this graph, a 2000 man alliance can wardec a very small corp for practically nothing; OK, so you as a small corp get decced by this '2000 man alliance' Whats stopping you from putting up free ally contracts for people that want to shoot at this '2000 man alliance' I'm sure you will get plenty of takers, and the war might not last as long as you think Its this small fact that is being forgotten about.
That never happens and SoniClover went and stated that with the current mechanics there are extremely few 'grief' wardecs which means this is solely about protecting large alliances so they can do level 4 missions in peace when they're supposed to be in nullsec. Team ~superfriends~ indeed. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 16:32:00 -
[12] - Quote
Salpun wrote:As long as goons are at war with someone its actually cheaper now. As long as the corp goons are attacking asks for allies for a very cheap price any one can join in and help defend. Goons will have to be very carefull with their wardecs or all high sec corps that want to help defend will be able to join in the fun for close to free.
The details have yet to be published in the forthcoming Mercenary Marketplace blog, but it's a reasonable assumption that in future declaring war on someone will be nothing more than inviting all corps in the game that wish to participate in high sec wars to fight you. I don't think it'll be very long until the panel will show that there are no active wars in progress in New Eden.
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
108
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 16:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Dread Nanana wrote:
2. Remove standing from local (as per Captain Thunk's posts few days/weeks ago)
Do you understand why standings were added to local? Because players were already distributing custom "packs" of pilot's avatar pictures, done up with manual standings markers on them and installing them into their cache folders. Needless to say, this gave an unfair advantage to those who were willing to do this and risk CCP's wrath. So, no, standings are not likely to be removed from local. Not unless CCP majorly changes how pilot portraits are stored in the client or doesn't rely on caching the pilot images. (Which would cause them to be downloaded from the server again for every new play session.)
Simple solution is to enforce compact mode when not in Null or low sec, if the character is at war. (no portraits)
I'd wager that the majority of active players already have compact mode on. |
|
|
| |
|