open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked War
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Staggler
Caldari
Einstein a go go
Posted - 2007.04.24 13:41:00 - [1]
 

Okay reading the first post on the patch notes -

PLEASE NOTE: Concord war fees have changed to the following, please see this Dev Blog and forum thread for further information and discussion-

* Fees for starting and maintaining wars are directly proportional to either the number of wars your corporation or alliance is engaged in, or the number of wars the victim is engaged in. Previously only the number of wars the victim was engaged in was taken into consideration.
* If the victim is involved in wars they did not initiate, those wars are counted towards the number influencing the cost of this war. If the instigator is also involved in wars they initiaged, those wars are also counted.

The higher of the two is used to determine the multiplier to the base cost, for example: if your corporation is involved in two wars your corporation initiated, a third war declaration will cost 3 times as much.

The same criteria applies to continuing wars: War are billed weekly based on the number of active wars at the time of billing. An example:

* Alliance A starts a war with alliance B: 50M.
* It then starts a war with with alliance C: 100M.
* Then next week it is billed for 200M, 100M for wars with both B and C (two outstanding wars).
* If C receives war declarations from two other alliances before the week is over, the bill will be 150M.

I get the first 3 examples.

And to follow on the third war that alliance A declares will cost it 150m, and the following week it will be charged 3x150m.

However I don't get the last thing about Alliance C receiving another war dec reducing the billing cost for A ?

Jayne Tamm
Posted - 2007.04.24 13:44:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Jayne Tamm on 24/04/2007 13:40:59
WAR!! huh.....good god y'all...wot is it good for!!

absolutely nothing!! Very Happy


sorry...was just too tempting LaughingVery Happy

Sydonis
Posted - 2007.04.24 13:49:00 - [3]
 

Staggler: it's not going down - the first week it cost 100 mill - the second it costs 150. The 200 mill quoted was for both the wars in the first week.

The total for the second week would be 250 mill assuming nothing happened to affect the second war.

I hope this helps.

Gaven Blands
Caldari
Cosmic Fusion
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2007.04.24 15:03:00 - [4]
 

Sydonis Sig Should Get A Memorial Outside Jita 4-4.

Callthetruth
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.04.24 15:10:00 - [5]
 

less wars more focused targets

Staggler
Caldari
Einstein a go go
Posted - 2007.04.26 09:45:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Sydonis
Staggler: it's not going down - the first week it cost 100 mill - the second it costs 150. The 200 mill quoted was for both the wars in the first week.

The total for the second week would be 250 mill assuming nothing happened to affect the second war.

I hope this helps.



That's not what the information I cut and pasted says though?

I thought :

1 War = 50m
Next war declared "5 minutes later" = 100m
Next war declared "5 minutes later" = 150m

?

Then what happens in the following week if you have 3 wars running? I thought it was 3 x 150m, to keep them going?

Gaven Blands
Caldari
Cosmic Fusion
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2007.04.26 10:11:00 - [7]
 

Theoretically it reads as though a large group of carebear alliances can protect themselves from wardecs by simply mass wardeccing each other and making it mutual, enough of those and nobody would be able to make good on the CONCORD costs of wardeccing them.

But CCP would have thought of that already and I just read it wrong.

Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
Posted - 2007.04.26 11:16:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Gaven Blands
Theoretically it reads as though a large group of carebear alliances can protect themselves from wardecs by simply mass wardeccing each other and making it mutual, enough of those and nobody would be able to make good on the CONCORD costs of wardeccing them.

But CCP would have thought of that already and I just read it wrong.


It would be beneficial to roleplaying entities fighting eachother though, deadlocked eternally to eachother.

Nicholas Barker
Deez Nuts.
Posted - 2007.04.26 11:20:00 - [9]
 

Edited by: Nicholas Barker on 26/04/2007 12:24:31
Originally by: Jayne Tamm
Edited by: Jayne Tamm on 24/04/2007 13:40:59
WAR!! huh.....good god y'all...wot is it good for!!

absolutely nothing!! Very Happy


sorry...was just too tempting LaughingVery Happy


the sport is war, total war
When victory's a massacre
The final swing is not a drill
It's how many people I can kill

Staggler
Caldari
Einstein a go go
Posted - 2007.04.26 11:30:00 - [10]
 

What are the costs though? I'm not really interested in the politics side of things, I'm afraid.

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.04.26 12:27:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Druadan on 26/04/2007 12:25:48
Originally by: Staggler
--snip--
An example:

* Alliance A starts a war with alliance B: 50M.
* It then starts a war with with alliance C: 100M.
* Then next week it is billed for 200M, 100M for wars with both B and C (two outstanding wars).
* If C receives war declarations from two other alliances before the week is over, the bill will be 150M.


I am sketchy on this too.

If I understand correctly, A>B costs 50M, and then A>C costs 100M as it is the second war so 50M * 2. That's simple.
Next week each war is billed at 50 * 2 so that's 200M, still simple.
During the following week, D>C and F>C happen, so C is at war with three entities and thus the cost of A>C rises to 150M, and since that is bigger than the 100M calculated by A having two wars running, that figure is used for A>C instead of the 100M, making the bill 100M for A>B, and 150M for A>C.

So, for each war paid for by A, the cost = 50M * n where n is the number of wars declared by A. Wars with entities already wardecced by a number of entities m, where m>n, cost 50M*m instead of 50M*n. Or you could rephrase that to say that Wars with entities already wardecced by a number of entities m, where m>n, cost 50M*n + 50M*(m-n).

Please correct me if I'm wrong as I would like to understand this system entirely.

Flash Landsraad
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2007.04.26 12:49:00 - [12]
 

Erm...why are wars being changed?

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2007.04.26 12:51:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Druadan on 26/04/2007 12:47:48
Originally by: Flash Landsraad
Erm...why are wars being changed?
They've been changed. Because Privateers touch themselves at night.

Flash Landsraad
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2007.04.26 14:28:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Druadan
Edited by: Druadan on 26/04/2007 12:47:48
Originally by: Flash Landsraad
Erm...why are wars being changed?
They've been changed. Because Privateers touch themselves at night.


Riiiiiiight.

I'm at war with Privateers and I don't want the war system changed. People need to learn to stop travelling solo in haulers full of stuff.

Talon Aidian
Interstella Fleet
Posted - 2007.04.26 14:42:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Talon Aidian on 26/04/2007 14:38:51
Riiiiiiight.

I'm at war with Privateers and I don't want the war system changed. People need to learn to stop travelling solo in haulers full of stuff.


Or maybe you need to learn that the whole point of an open system is to allow players to play the game as they see fit. Trying to explain a game mechanic as an instructional aid is just another way to impose your own game preferences on other players.

If a person is a solo gamer, they don't have the option of travelling with others (the code of behavior EVE encourages makes running freighters with random gangs an impossibility as every player is encouraged to infiltrate such groups to allow them to be attacked).

If they -prefer- to run solo, then that is their choice, but having someone say 'People have to learn not to do <fill in the blank>' smacks of someone who thinks there should only be one way to play the game....theirs.

Flash Landsraad
coracao ardente
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2007.04.26 15:56:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Talon Aidian
If a person is a solo gamer, they don't have the option of travelling with others (the code of behavior EVE encourages makes running freighters with random gangs an impossibility as every player is encouraged to infiltrate such groups to allow them to be attacked).

If they -prefer- to run solo, then that is their choice, but having someone say 'People have to learn not to do <fill in the blank>' smacks of someone who thinks there should only be one way to play the game....theirs.


If they prefer to run solo why do they join a war decable corporation in the first place? There are plenty of other ways to hang out with friends such as creating their own player channels. Why do they run solo freightors too and fro in the middle of a war afk?

What I meant by my comment was that in war time you cannot expect to afk travel a hauler 30 jumps in high sec without coming back to you PC to see the station walls. I simply do not understand the mentality behind whining after doing something stupid that could easily have been avoided.

And before you retort with the fact that it's easier to run multiple accounts when they're in a corporation I am pretty sure that even the Privateers do not stoop so low as to war dec 3 man corporations unless they have a good reason to do so or if it turns out that the smaller corporation is an industrial sister corp to a larger one, a freightor pilot corp for instance.

High sec ganks of freightors are easily avoidable with support and if you run solo and have been war deced, why do you still continue to solo run freightors? Surely the very nature of a war dec would discourage anyone with half a brain from doing such a thing.

Yes it is not very nice to gank solo freightors but this is EVE and fair play doesn't exist.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only