| 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) |
M0therSky
Yarrbear Inc.
P O D
0
   |
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:54:00 -
[121] - Quote
Sorry but i'm completely in opposition with your vision of wardec.
The larger the alliance is the lower the price for wardec this entity should be.
|
Khadanne
First Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:01:00 -
[122] - Quote
Why chaning the T1 seeding method for these new modules?
This kind of decisions add only complexity to the game and will be changed back in 2 years time in a revamp...
"At the time we assumed that... we wanted to..." |
Hyperforce99
LoneStar Development Corp
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:04:00 -
[123] - Quote
i would rather see something that makes more sense instead of making tracking disruptors effect missiles.
such as a high slot module that acts as an automated point defense turret.
It could intercepts a certain mount of missiles / rockets per cycle.
This means that swarm style missiles will be more effective compared to single high damage missiles.
If this is tied to the new missile effects it would be pretty awesome. |
leich
Nocturnal Romance
Fall From Heaven
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:06:00 -
[124] - Quote
Why are the T1 not going onto the market.
This is r_tarded.
ALL T1 items should have a T1 BPO seeded onto the market. Otherwise how are people going to be able to produce BPC's and T2 variants in the future.
CCP how can you be doing so well to drop the ball at the last hurdle. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1881
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:06:00 -
[125] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: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.
Petrus, I don't think you can effectively stop people from putting as many of their alts from an active account into whatever corp they like... but there are two things to consider.
1: Those alts often have legitimate reasons for being in the same corp for multi boxers, however quite often those alts will be left outside of the corp the main character is a member of, because in the event of a war dec it is far more handy to have them operating in safety.
2: There is no way for CCP to determine who is a main and who is an alt character. Nor should they be able to.
3: CCP likely can (and should) look into not counting ANY character (main or alt) that has been inactive for over 30 days.
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. |
Iam Widdershins
Diq Holdings
685
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:08:00 -
[126] - Quote
Excellent devblog, lots of really great stuff in here.
I especially liked your implementation of war cost, and I think that's an excellent solution. I like how much math goes into it to give that nice curve.
I have a serious concern about this though: Until this point, there has never been any major advantage to using the buddy invite system as often as possible to give yourself short-term alts. However, with the advent of increased war costs per corp member, I see no reason not to:
- Use the buddy invite as often as possible using PLEX, up to once per month, to pay for as much of your main subscription as possible
- Create three characters with these now non-trial accounts and put them into a player corporation to inflate war declaration costs
- Let the new 'buddy' accounts lapse without any intent to continue their use past paying the subscription
This mechanic has several serious drawbacks, both for the players at large and for CCP.
- It allows a large and well-coordinated player organization to easily add upwards of 20,000 characters, all in non-trial accounts, to its ranks every year
- It represents an abuse of the buddy invite system that is very difficult to combat without severely limiting the usage of the buddy system, one of the game's better recruitment avenues
I believe that it would be very wise not to count inactive accounts. This would not represent any really usable disclosure of subscriber information, especially since the difference would not be visible until there are at least 113 members in the target alliance.
Oh, and what happened to wars against corporations only costing 20,000,000 ISK? I think war costs increasing when they are against alliances rather than corporations is an important mechanic. Why not simply subtract 30,000,000 ISK from the cost if it is a corporation?
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:10:00 -
[127] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
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.
To be fair to us in RvB, the majority of us like 3rd party war decs as it means MORE targets for us, we are all about the explosions, inside and outside of our little community.
Mangala is not FC, yet another randomly updated EVE blog.
http://mangala.rvbganked.co.uk/ |
Carton Mantory
Occassus Republica
Trade Wind Commodities
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:12:00 -
[128] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: Stuff about exploit
Very soon CCP says trial buddy system is now over!
|
Carton Mantory
Occassus Republica
Trade Wind Commodities
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:14:00 -
[129] - Quote
leich wrote:Why are the T1 not going onto the market.
This is r_tarded.
ALL T1 items should have a T1 BPO seeded onto the market. Otherwise how are people going to be able to produce BPC's and T2 variants in the future.
CCP how can you be doing so well to drop the ball at the last hurdle.
I dont think this is a permanent solution. I want the initial mods in bpc format then turned into bpo.
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
504
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:16:00 -
[130] - Quote
So, CCP, as part of your war-themed expansion you:
- Made wars 10 to 20 times more expensive for the aggressor.
- Allowed the defender, and the defender only, to bring allies into the war.
- Implemented a fix to corp hopping that doesn't penalize the defenders hopping corp.
- Added a new "get out of jail free card" module.
All that for the defender. The aggressor gets:
- Fixes for a couple exploits you knew about for years.
- Starting wars takes 24 hours less.
That's it? And to think I just fixed my sec status for the expansion...
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 |
|
|
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:22:00 -
[131] - Quote
leich wrote:Why are the T1 not going onto the market.
This is r_tarded.
ALL T1 items should have a T1 BPO seeded onto the market. Otherwise how are people going to be able to produce BPC's and T2 variants in the future.
CCP how can you be doing so well to drop the ball at the last hurdle.
this has been answered repeatedly
try reading |
MeBiatch
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
333
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:23:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: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.
guys soniclover is probs the best dev at ccp right now... i would say tied with the french guy and tallest...
this man needs more likes!
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
Comic Mischief
644
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:25:00 -
[133] - Quote
One way to prevent buddy system exploits to corp numbers is to not count lapsed members unless they have been subscribed at least 2 months in the past.
That way deccing corps do not get (much) free intel about true active corp membership, and your lapsed buddy accounts will not count unless you actually pay for at least one extra month. (The first is free due to the PLEX reward for inviting a buddy).
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:27:00 -
[134] - Quote
Does the magsheath break the locks of ships immune to electronic warfare (titans, supercarriers)? |
Sister Rhode
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
58
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:27:00 -
[135] - Quote
I like the changes. Shame the micro jump drive and salvage drones won't be ready though, I was looking forward to them the most.
Small/Med web drones are going to rock!
I really think the cap battery bonus needs to be carefully designed, or my alt will probably never fly a curse again :( |
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:29:00 -
[136] - Quote
Also does the magsheath scanres penalty apply only when trying to break locks, or does it apply whenever the module is fitted (like a cloak) |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:30:00 -
[137] - Quote
I see that in the last 4 weeks Eve University has gone from 1,500 members to 2,200 members. 
Source |
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:33:00 -
[138] - Quote
Does the magsheath break locking attempts as well, or only locks? |
VaMei
Meafi Corp
158
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:34:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Toy's 'R' Drop
I LOVE it! 
It's a needed buff to exploration, and it lets the new toys trickle into play rather than comming in a surge.
We need more of this. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
Comic Mischief
644
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:34:00 -
[140] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:So, CCP, as part of your war-themed expansion you:
- Made wars 10 to 20 times more expensive for the aggressor.
- Allowed the defender, and the defender only, to bring allies into the war.
- Implemented a fix to corp hopping that doesn't penalize the defenders hopping corp.
- Added a new "get out of jail free card" module.
All that for the defender. The aggressor gets:
- Fixes for a couple exploits you knew about for years.
- Starting wars takes 24 hours less.
That's it? And to think I just fixed my sec status for the expansion...
Just because they knew about the exploits does not reduce the advantage to the aggressor now that they are fixed. No matter how old an exploit is, fixing it is a good thing.
Defender cannot get out of the war by jumping into, then out of an alliance.
Defender cannot set up a bunch of fake war decs to up the cost to an aggressor.
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.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
Carton Mantory
Occassus Republica
Trade Wind Commodities
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:35:00 -
[141] - Quote
VagabondAlt wrote:Does the magsheath break the locks of ships immune to electronic warfare (titans, supercarriers)?
Really need to read the description a couple times...
Answered here |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
76
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:37:00 -
[142] - 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. |
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers
Ignore This.
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:38:00 -
[143] - Quote
Intresting. Nothing too game changing in there module wise yet its a good bast to start on.
I would olny ask for more information on the micro warp jump drive thingy. This is the module that had the potential to really change gameplay and a lot of us were intrested it the mechanics of it.
Would CCP share any more info on this? Also is this something you are planning to do every patch? (Test and add a couple of new modules each cycle?)
Ignore This.-á "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
handige harrie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:38:00 -
[144] - Quote
Will the new BPC's also get seeded in corresponding Drone officers and sites? as they are 'the same' as normal rats now? |
Thomas Kreshant
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:40:00 -
[145] - Quote
Carton Mantory wrote:VagabondAlt wrote:Does the magsheath break the locks of ships immune to electronic warfare (titans, supercarriers)? Really need to read the description a couple times... Answered here
Hmm, wrong answer linked there sir.
The question asked if I fit that mod to my battleship will that cause supercapitals that are immune to electronic warfare to lose lock  |
VagabondAlt
BUTTECORP INC
Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:40:00 -
[146] - Quote
Carton Mantory wrote:VagabondAlt wrote:Does the magsheath break the locks of ships immune to electronic warfare (titans, supercarriers)? Really need to read the description a couple times... Answered here
That description only talks about locks, yet given that the description of modules frequently omits important information I would like a clear answer. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1881
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:40:00 -
[147] - Quote
Aramis Lynx wrote:The ecm is an interesting anti-bob warfare module. This is the only way I see this being used is in fleet battles:
Everyone fits one, stays aligned, as soon as called primary hits the ecm and spams warp until warp out. Rinse repeat. Nobody in either fleet ever dies.
1: If a bubble isn't involved the target often has time to warp out anyway.
2: If the entire fleet targets one person all the time yes, but if smaller groups (squadron or perhaps wing) are targetting that person (and the rest of the fleet is doing the same to other people) then targetting functions normally for the most part. This encourages splitting up targeting or using smaller fleets hitting different area's.
3: The drawback to your targetting speed if you have this module mounted is slower targetting speed. I don't believe it has to be active for this to apply.
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. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6739
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:41:00 -
[148] - Quote
I still maintain that the GÇ£pay for number of targetsGÇ¥ logic is wrong-headed GÇö no matter the base cost and any diminishing returns, it only ever means that small targets will be picked on and that dec-shielding will become the standard.
Make it a relative measure: you pay for number imbalance.
abs( ln( attacker size / target size ) / ln( size multiplier ) ) +ù imbalance cost + base cost.
In other words, for every [size multiplier] times larger or smaller the target is than the attacker, the cost increases by a factor of [imbalance cost], with a minimum price tag of [base cost]. This gives you a lot of variables to play with: how cheap will any war be (base cost)? How much do I have to pay to bully a small guy or annoy a large guy at the Jita undock (imbalance cost)? And, most interestingly, what actually counts as having an GÇ£unfair numerical advantageGÇ¥ (size multiplier)?
E.g.
A size multiplier of 1.5, imbalance cost of 50M and base cost of 5M GÇö for every 50% larger or smaller the target is, the war becomes 50M more expensive with a minimum cost of 5M for perfectly equal sizes.
-+ A 10-man corp attacking a 1-man corp (or vice versa): 289M ISK.
-+ A 10-man corp attacking a 20-man corp (or vice versa): 90M ISK.
-+ A 3,500-man corp attacking a 5,000-man corp: 49M ISK.
-+ A 5-man corp attacking a 5,000-man corp: 857M ISK.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Find more rants over at Tippis' Rants. |
Thomas Kreshant
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
84
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:41:00 -
[149] - Quote
cBOLTSON wrote:
Would CCP share any more info on this? Also is this something you are planning to do every patch? (Test and add a couple of new modules each cycle?)
If you watch the fanfest footage one of the Devs (forgotten his name) stated they wanted to bring out lots more modules on a regular basis with various effects to mix up game play.
|
stoicfaux
1058
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:43:00 -
[150] - Quote
Woo! Some potentially very interesting modules! Oh wait, they're going to be in short supply since they're BPC drop only...
/shrug
You can tell me what is and isn't Truth when you pry the tinfoil from my cold, lifeless head.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |