|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 12 post(s) |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
9
   |
Posted - 2013.02.07 21:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:My last dev blog before I go on maternity leave (don't worry, I'll be back) so you better leave nice comments!!! 
Congrats! Nice to know some CCP employees have extra spirit. Enough to bud off a clone apparently :)
(Say is CCP putting that clone to work on EVE as soon as Maternity leave is over? Tuxford must feel threatened if so :) )
Two weeks for peace seems perfect. Long enough to mine and rebuild Dreadnaughts especially if you depend on hi sec commerce (hey not everyone has big null sec safe area where you can get all mats and build everything). Long enough to flesh out a few dings in corp/alliance fleets if you made a couple mistakes during wardec.
However, no corp nor alliance should be guaranteed to live and rule forever through a forced peace process. There still needs to be a way to put enough pressure on a corp or alliance to eventually force its dissolution or physical abandonment of all sovereignty over a wide area - ideally some mass POS abandonment. So longer breaks would get sort of pointless.
Maybe cease fire would be a better term than peace?
Also I sort of favor the idea that toons for inactive accounts should automatically get kicked to a special corp similar to deleted toons. Its really sort of an exploit to knowingly retain inactive accounts in a corp or alliance. I am sure some smaller miner corps buff up with trial toons to look bigger. PLUS really huge corps and alliance probably do not know how many active toons they have unless they put in a lot of administrative effort. Many corps would probably be grateful to know when important but somewhat anonymous toons of the grand fleet decide not to renew. LOL - and even if you kick inactives to holding corps -- there will still be huge numbers of paid up yearly accounts that go silent for most of a year.
In the end rejoining corps isn't that hard if inactives become active again....assuming corp wasn't half thinking of kicking them anyway. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 22:28:00 -
[2] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So if nobody has time for a 24 hour timer to be able to shoot at somebody, why is the timer for a war to start after it has been declared remaining 24 hours?
Remember that an ally joining a war is functionally identical to them declaring war on the corp that declared that war. Except it's totally free and now near-instant.
Don't get me wrong, shortening the times involved in wars is great, and this will only stand to benefit me as a merc, but it's dumb and makes war a less attractive tool for the average highsec joe to constantly stack the ally system to advantage the defender. It's yet another "If you declare war on someone you have to deal with this BS." feature.
I do have some questions similar to yours on the whole reinforce for free aspect -- but not on the time to join. And even my question about cost of allies bends toward reduced costs for allies both attackers and defenders -- just not sure how reduced.
But to be honest denying allies would continue to artificially favor the attackers since they choose the size of target and the initial timing. 20 hours delay of allies however doesn't seem worth arguing over. You must be great mercs if you can win most wars in 24 hours! Seriously what corp can't afford to hole up for 20 hours?
 If you are going to fight for delay in time of allies...I'd say fight for an entire weeks delay for allies coming in at greatest reduced costs.
But given that allies have always had the option to declare a separate wardec immediately, there should always be cost reduction proportional to entry delay. Maybe you want to fight for reduction in costs to come at price of declaring intent hours or days before actual entry -- though really CCP isn't going to favor something which tends to just extend the no action time as outclassed corp wait in station and stalls.
 Otherwise the CCP objective is clear -- bigger wars and bigger fleets -- more excitement (good marketing and player retention idea). CCP does not care who wins....except that maybe that the outcome of the war is not fixed by the aggressors choice of target.
A really good full service merc corp needs a diplomatic/political dimension too. CCP encourages some background diplomatic drama too. If such hotair antics are not your cup of tea...try teaming up with someone with patience to spy out informal allies and friends before you declare war. Actually you can mine some of that data by just bothering to look for past allies and former alliance corps. Allies do not have to be total surprise. And if allies are not surprise, well then you are asking for something that is not going to be guaranteed anymore...
LOL - the ideal wardec aggressor situation is obviously CONCORD enforcement of 1 wardec involvement per corp/alliance and no allies and no target surrender except via target players leaving corp. Select a much smaller corp then bludgeon them to death while CONCORD ensures everyone else is just spectator. Not very good for EVE player retention when growing from small corp/alliance option is supposed to be part of the appeal. If that is the only way you can have fun, seek another game and professional help in RL before you make the evening news in a bad way.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 23:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Don Swanson wrote:Callduron wrote:[quote=CCP Punkturis]War cost
Inactive characters don't count in war cost any longer. Can we get some clarity on this part, what is considered inactive?
Initially confusing - but as soon as someone mentioned inactive accounts, it was clear that toons connected to inactive accounts are the only thing CCP would likely be talking about. CCP has inactive account info as #1 most available pre-computed data. Almost zero CPU cost to use it and its 100% definitive without discussion.
I am sure CCP would have defined the length of time if they meant toons are considered inactive due to lack of activity despite being on paid up account.
Plus Tracking toons by last logon is slightly more complex than last account logon - possibly requiring actual second level hard drive look up if not accessed during current game day. Lot of optional data is not on SSD if it hasn't been used lately. Then too data for the current day on SSD may not yet be 100% synchronized with second level hard storage. What if the toon just logged on? And inactive toon by time would be a matter for debate both within CCP and in community
So yeah toon inactivity (over time) as opposed to inactive (unpaid) account can be done. But its not quite as easy and would have led to mention of time length.
|
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.07 23:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Thanks for the work. The 4 hours for an ally to join will help when it comes to POS defense. But I'm a little concerned that this
"Forced Peace
To make the surrender option in a war more meaningful, we've now made it so that if one entity surrenders to another, those two have a forced peace period of two weeks."
will not have the desired effect. Defending corps do not like to surrender as afterwards they are seen as ISK pinatas. All the attacker need do after accepting a surrender is set up a new corp and have most of their PvP pilots move to it. Then dec again to slurp up another surrender payment.
But I got no better ideas.
Depends on the type of aggressor. Most aggressors are out to build bad-ass wardec reputation for specific corop or alliance --- bragging rights that all can see. So they are unlikely to switch corp shells very much as a unit. True some individual players might if no other wardecs are going on. But you won't face the whole group or major portion as a unit again until peaces is over.
However, pure pirates funding other toons and game spoilers/vengeful types whose only fun is to drive selected players from game - will do whatever it takes to milk your ISK and destroy your assets. There is no mechanic that can stop this. If they can't swap corp they will bring in alts. These players tend to dump lots of PLEX to get started and then become extremely skill at PVP ambushes and rule bending -- quickly achieving multiple PLEX paid high skill accounts and maintain multitude of trial accounts for dirty deeds.
...and they are probably the BEST feature of EVE filling that niche between predictable NPC rats and inescapable CONCORD in hi sec. Without such evil minded players EVE would become static and boring. Spoilers and pirates force perfectly viable corps and alliances to break up and new ones to form in different locations. Get targeted by a relentless player pirate and get an opportunity to make new friends in a new corp far far away. |
Proddy Scun
Renfield Inc
9
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 00:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So if nobody has time for a 24 hour timer to be able to shoot at somebody, why is the timer for a war to start after it has been declared remaining 24 hours?
Remember that an ally joining a war is functionally identical to them declaring war on the corp that declared that war. Except it's totally free and now near-instant.
Don't get me wrong, shortening the times involved in wars is great, and this will only stand to benefit me as a merc, but it's dumb and makes war a less attractive tool for the average highsec joe to constantly stack the ally system to advantage the defender. It's yet another "If you declare war on someone you have to deal with this BS." feature.
Perhaps it would be more fair to aggressors to limit the defenders free allies to the size of war paid for by aggressor.
That is aggressors would pay fees by by whichever is larger -- their numbers or original wardec target corp/alliance numbers -- each week to sustain wardec. If defenders have fewer numbers they can add allies up to numbers matching aggressors for free.
But if defenders want to outnumber aggressors by adding allies they would have to pay difference in fees for increased size of wardec. Aggressors get to recruit free allies until equal in number to defenders increased numbers. Defenders being responsible each war dec period for fees to raise number of participants above last aggressor paid limits.
Of course defenders pay nothing if they outnumber aggressors without adding allies -- that was aggressors choice at beginning of wardec.
Either side could then continue expanding beyond current paid wardec size by paying for additional numbers of participants - the aggressor only becoming responsible for increased fees to sustain wardec after it makes an expansion (i.e. aggressor assumes responsibility for all prior expansions to number of participants by either side whenever it makes a further increase in numbers.)
Sort of a modified mutual war scheme. Defenders paying difference to raise participant ante unless defenders call that and raise number of participant ante again. |
|
|
| |
|