You don’t need to. Map the ids of the aggressors to the amount of time they are aggressor, then sort by value, and keep the amount of aggressors required to reach the % required. Now that depends on the % required, the limitation on wars (mutual ? with kill ?)
Same issue as before. If you are outnumbered in caps, you still have to drop caps to either match theirs or to simply neuter the enemy. Then we have 20 useless bricks on grid.
These ideas may spread out fights a bit. But i don’t think it makes caps any less important.
what about
1 - making titans act as a support, with eg removal of cynosural immobility effect, and correct refit/clone facility. IMO a fleet of 100 ppl should be able to refit subcaps 5 times from a titan (so the room to have 500 battleships - and the possibility for people to dock in the titan, and refit, as well as set their clone inside it)
2 - remove guns from titans, so only one DD, smartbombs. With increased range on smartbombs. In effect they become a mix of artillery and support.
3 - remove the support figthers from supercarriers, so that only carriers can have a support role. That is, the supers are here to bombs titans/structures off, the carriers are here to bring support to supers. The titan is mostly here to DD supers and bring fleet.
4 - fax are the logis of the titan/super/carrier, nothing changes.
5 - dreads are here to bring heavy firepower, like the titan DD, but without the fleet support role. their max DPS should be lower than a DD DPS, yet their local rep in siege should outperform one fax.
1 Like
Last columns are the 5 and 10 most aggressive ids total number of wars in non-mutual wars
| MONTH | TOTAL | NON_MUTUAL | NM_WKILL | NM_WAKILLED | NM_WDKILLED | NM_ATOTLOSS | NM_DTOTLOSS | NM_5MOSTAGR | NM_10MOSTAGR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-10 | 4273 | 4242 | 1567 | 221 | 1507 | 9,61e+10 | 9,49e+11 | 1543 | 2170 |
| 2015-11 | 4071 | 4028 | 1550 | 216 | 1481 | 9,24e+10 | 8,81e+11 | 1183 | 1740 |
| 2015-12 | 4452 | 4411 | 1636 | 260 | 1564 | 1,41e+11 | 1,09e+12 | 1221 | 1778 |
| 2016-01 | 6638 | 6547 | 1955 | 306 | 1882 | 3,24e+11 | 2,62e+12 | 1981 | 2695 |
| 2016-02 | 5491 | 5453 | 1885 | 262 | 1823 | 1,91e+11 | 1,72e+12 | 2164 | 2940 |
| 2016-03 | 5535 | 5485 | 1852 | 214 | 1790 | 2,79e+11 | 1,77e+12 | 2158 | 3174 |
| 2016-04 | 5958 | 5897 | 1554 | 198 | 1508 | 2,97e+11 | 1,44e+12 | 2014 | 2914 |
| 2016-05 | 5302 | 5256 | 1579 | 254 | 1522 | 2,79e+11 | 1,10e+12 | 1680 | 2440 |
| 2016-06 | 5159 | 5111 | 1614 | 222 | 1563 | 4,17e+11 | 1,79e+12 | 1821 | 2609 |
| 2016-07 | 4481 | 4419 | 1381 | 176 | 1334 | 1,07e+11 | 1,48e+12 | 1771 | 2405 |
| 2016-08 | 5059 | 4985 | 1386 | 142 | 1340 | 8,73e+10 | 1,18e+12 | 1967 | 2779 |
| 2016-09 | 4051 | 3965 | 1336 | 168 | 1291 | 8,96e+10 | 8,56e+11 | 1502 | 2274 |
| 2016-10 | 3942 | 3878 | 1258 | 181 | 1197 | 1,12e+11 | 9,31e+11 | 1389 | 1941 |
| 2016-11 | 4563 | 4512 | 1451 | 175 | 1408 | 9,02e+10 | 1,25e+12 | 1818 | 2579 |
| 2016-12 | 5104 | 5047 | 1579 | 178 | 1537 | 1,38e+11 | 1,09e+12 | 1990 | 2804 |
| 2017-01 | 5923 | 5769 | 1741 | 264 | 1673 | 2,50e+11 | 1,70e+12 | 1892 | 2736 |
| 2017-02 | 4754 | 4703 | 1420 | 228 | 1374 | 1,15e+11 | 1,45e+12 | 1846 | 2474 |
| 2017-03 | 5627 | 5502 | 1539 | 227 | 1473 | 1,07e+11 | 1,41e+12 | 2080 | 3194 |
| 2017-04 | 5025 | 4900 | 1531 | 202 | 1491 | 1,75e+11 | 1,30e+12 | 2032 | 3034 |
| 2017-05 | 5374 | 5266 | 1510 | 199 | 1442 | 1,28e+11 | 1,34e+12 | 2010 | 2802 |
| 2017-06 | 4747 | 4651 | 1195 | 138 | 1165 | 8,98e+10 | 1,25e+12 | 1579 | 2299 |
| 2017-07 | 3249 | 3180 | 1096 | 163 | 1049 | 1,18e+11 | 1,49e+12 | 1444 | 1788 |
| 2017-08 | 3426 | 3356 | 1064 | 169 | 1020 | 9,53e+11 | 2,69e+12 | 1519 | 1906 |
| 2017-09 | 4249 | 4175 | 1116 | 144 | 1078 | 1,14e+11 | 1,53e+12 | 2112 | 2750 |
| 2017-10 | 3846 | 3798 | 1087 | 148 | 1048 | 9,38e+10 | 1,39e+12 | 1937 | 2461 |
| 2017-11 | 3609 | 3505 | 1118 | 173 | 1071 | 1,81e+11 | 1,68e+12 | 1788 | 2137 |
| 2017-12 | 3998 | 3866 | 1200 | 164 | 1162 | 1,45e+11 | 1,48e+12 | 1461 | 2011 |
| 2018-01 | 4120 | 3826 | 1160 | 159 | 1117 | 1,25e+11 | 1,26e+12 | 1415 | 1928 |
| 2018-02 | 4316 | 3991 | 1062 | 125 | 1019 | 1,41e+11 | 1,38e+12 | 1239 | 1754 |
| 2018-03 | 4457 | 4155 | 1140 | 170 | 1086 | 1,42e+11 | 1,50e+12 | 1205 | 1752 |
| 2018-04 | 6958 | 6112 | 1042 | 181 | 983 | 1,29e+11 | 2,22e+12 | 1607 | 2276 |
| 2018-05 | 5673 | 5202 | 1101 | 173 | 1040 | 1,31e+11 | 1,55e+12 | 1504 | 2649 |
| 2018-06 | 3750 | 3380 | 1000 | 144 | 959 | 1,12e+11 | 1,92e+12 | 1140 | 1538 |
| 2018-07 | 3142 | 2902 | 860 | 100 | 831 | 8,00e+10 | 1,34e+12 | 1245 | 1465 |
| 2018-08 | 3973 | 3767 | 1179 | 199 | 1100 | 2,24e+11 | 2,99e+12 | 1246 | 1699 |
| 2018-09 | 4302 | 3949 | 1095 | 197 | 1024 | 1,82e+11 | 1,87e+12 | 1066 | 1474 |
| 2018-10 | 4250 | 3927 | 1083 | 203 | 1009 | 1,23e+12 | 3,34e+12 | 1298 | 1677 |
| 2018-11 | 3556 | 3050 | 954 | 180 | 892 | 2,08e+11 | 1,72e+12 | 1069 | 1329 |
| 2018-12 | 3476 | 3024 | 982 | 149 | 940 | 7,82e+11 | 1,75e+12 | 1143 | 1440 |
| 2019-01 | 2757 | 2444 | 940 | 212 | 871 | 8,96e+11 | 2,01e+12 | 783 | 1064 |
| 2019-02 | 3409 | 3125 | 802 | 154 | 762 | 4,67e+11 | 1,65e+12 | 759 | 1075 |
| 2019-03 | 3052 | 2924 | 851 | 180 | 792 | 2,48e+12 | 4,21e+12 | 1005 | 1316 |
| 2019-04 | 4080 | 3907 | 864 | 318 | 788 | 1,77e+12 | 2,90e+12 | 1162 | 1412 |
| 2019-05 | 2778 | 2720 | 680 | 154 | 630 | 1,04e+11 | 1,13e+12 | 1399 | 1605 |
| 2019-06 | 1767 | 1762 | 517 | 130 | 492 | 1,59e+11 | 1,53e+12 | 983 | 1130 |
| 2019-07 | 1526 | 1522 | 515 | 114 | 494 | 1,68e+11 | 1,35e+12 | 779 | 918 |
| 2019-08 | 2514 | 2513 | 636 | 129 | 604 | 1,05e+11 | 1,42e+12 | 1555 | 1764 |
| 2019-09 | 1612 | 1611 | 531 | 88 | 512 | 9,64e+10 | 1,25e+12 | 680 | 957 |
| 2019-10 | 752 | 752 | 106 | 26 | 97 | 2,95e+10 | 1,40e+11 | 342 | 537 |
you can copy the data from the forum, open it as a csv file your spreadshet and make the data you want
yellow is the ratio of wars with a kill from the defenser vs number of wars with a kill
blue and red are the ratio of war declared by the 5/red higest aggressive entities vs the total number of NM war declared.
1 Like
I have to admit this is true.
1 Like
Hey, can you help me with locator agents?
Being some kind of support/command ship or a ‘mother ship’ would be an interesting role for titans. The details however i don’t know.
The doomsday is likely part of the problem though. When we have massive fights with titans, the way to win is to combine doomsday fire to volley titans/fax off the field until one side has ‘titan superiority’. After that it’s gg.
And the same with carriers. Where titans destroy anything capital sized. Carriers are effective at killing sub caps.
Many people may like that, but i feel it has the same problems as a ‘top down’ economy. Where the game revolves around leadership and vets rather than line members.
There doesn’t seem much for subcaps to do.
1 Like
Looks like a plausible graph. The top 5 touch 50% as CCP reported and declined some before almost doubling after the war changes. Also, fraction of wars with a kill spiked up and then stabilized almost double the pre-war baseline. And there are about half as many wars as before.
So we can conclude war groups are much more concentrated, and more productive in that these wars have more things exploding, but these few remaining war groups are declaring much less wars. What that doesn’t say is how this relates to the OP and what effect that is having on new player retention, or more generally the activity in highsec.
Perhaps CCP will give us some insight at some point, but I’m kinda expecting them not to. Given the general metrics, I think we can conclude now these changes didn’t cause players to flood into the game as some were promising. Maybe they “set the stage” for some renaissance, but on their own, they seem to just have pushed aggressors to consolidate and be more choosy of their targets, exactly as everyone with real knowledge of the highsec war meta predicted.
Wars certainly don’t seem healthier, more diverse, or more used, but less clear whether nerfing wars had the desired effect of making more space elsewhere in the game for new players and players who are less interested in direct fighting. I really do think there should be a social space for players to form groups in highsec free of wars, but until CCP decides to stop making highsec safer, richer, and less competitive, I don’t see activity or retention rates improving. I think they are trying some with these new NPCs making them the competitors, but so far they haven’t really cracked the code of making highsec both engaging for new groups, and allow new groups/players to be competitive with the veterans.
Until they do make space for new players to at least feel like they are able to do meaningful things against a backdrop of min/max-obsessed veterans, I predict the slow decline of EVE will continue.
Stop making it easy. Literally that.
Longetivity flourished through hard work and dedication, investment, passion and often a desire for revenge. It was personal, the risk of loss was greater and made you think, it made you play the game.
Less really is more.
2 Likes
In other words:
When people were playing to achieve satisfaction the game was better off than when the game changed towards people playing for fun.
The difference between fun and satisfaction is that the former is short time, low effort and the latter is long time, high effort, but more emotionally rewarding. It’s as if people who actually care about achieving something are better long time customers than those who suffer instant gratification syndrome and constant boredom.
Man, who would have thunk!
Your ‘logic’ wanders all over the place.
“Numbers are down, so it must be the wardec ‘nerf’! I don’t have data, but a guy I know does. So there. The game is totally overfarmed by PvE farmers, but hunters are starving because they have no prey. We gave hunters what they wanted (blackout) but this led to drastically reduced numbers. But let’s ignore all that, and say that the reduced numbers in the game are because we aren’t making things easy enough for the hunters.”
Seriously, get a grip. You’ve been arguing these and similar points for years with hardly a shred of real data.
- Correlation is not causation.
- You’ve no data linking wardec changes to reduced player count, other than a semi-correlation.
- The population has been dropping steadily for 6 years, but somehow the latest drops are due to ‘wardec nerfs’.
- There is such a thing as a ‘tipping point’ - when EVE has been boring enough, long enough, and population gets low enough, you can expect player number loss to accelerate.
The issues with the game are massive, and obvious. Poor NPE. Misalignment of what the game offers / advertises vs. what it delivers. A slow and boring “levelling up / skilling up” process. Too much reward for passive activity vs. active gameplay. Too much botting, farming, boring repetitive PvE. Too little PvP and too little incentive for engaging in it. Primary game systems so broken that nobody even plays them.
These (and other design problems) are the issues that have virtually destroyed EVE and will continue to destroy it until CCP wakes up and learns some basic game design.
It’s not about multi-boxing Orcas. It’s not about fat safe Farmville in Null. It’s not about wardecs, griefing, or ganking in high sec.
Stop begging for weak easy targets in high sec for the crap ‘hunters’ who need hobbled victims. Jetcans won’t fix EVE.
Basic game design change is required.
“I read something I didn’t agree with, so it must be HateSpeech”
“Only discussion that agrees with me is intelligent. Only my agenda is progress. There can be only one!”
“I don’t have any facts or useful information to add here, so instead I will just ad-hominem attack the person behind the arguments.”
“I do this thing I complain about a lot lately, but it’s actually all you guys fault. Stop making me be irrational!”
Seriously, Solecist… get a grip. All this drama you’re pouring out lately achieves nothing. Get some facts and some data and some ideas to add to the conversation, then maybe you’ll have something worth posting.
3 Likes
Tricky at this stage. But I can’t see what else they can do about it other than invent a new paper. It really doesn’t work to nerf capitals/supers, you can’t take away the ones out there, and as you say, if you limit the next generation then the people who are capital-rich now become king of the hill.
You could give them each a weakness to create new rock vs. paper but that will scream ‘nerf’ I think.
Or they could look at that humungous gap between Battleships and the lowest capitals and stick an entirely new ship class in there of ‘Capital hunters’, seems like a pretty big job for CCP’s current resources. Might be interesting to have a whole new set of ships in play though.
However, as said, I think fine-tuning current gameplay issues that mostly apply to high end players or minority populations (pretend PvPers) are a red herring. We can argue those details for months and EVE will steadily bleed players every week while we do so.
EVE needs a major change in the process of attracting and integrating new players into the game, and possibly something to pull older players back and keep them around for more than a couple weeks before they walk away in disgust/boredom/disappointment again.
This, completely. You can’t keep putting restrictions and nerfs and limits on a dying game and pray that somehow you will hit the right combination of disabling features that what is left behind is now somehow magically ‘better’.
CCP desperately needs to make the game more interesting and more interactive and more varied. Not keep whittling things down until there is only a toothpick left.
1 Like
What is that supposed to mean ? I don’t care what is plausible or not. I just took the data from the ESI and I let you do you own kitchen work with it. It was just an example.
You can do the same. Maybe you’ll find different data and thus one of us will have a bug, and I’ll be fine with fixing mine.
More concentrated than what ?
last month was like …42% of the wars from the 5 most aggressive, and 60% from the 10 most aggressive. use the median value if you want, you’ll notice the 5 most got from 40 to 35 % of the wars after 2018.
What this graph shows is that the proportion of wars with the defender being active has increased, and that’s all.
The top5 / top10 are just too varrying to make a trend.
It’s up top the choice of players how they play.
I had a friend that was making ded sigs HS. His goal was to probe someone doing the sig, go in, and snatch the commander - then let the other person doing the site go suspect, and kill him. Of course that means he could not do the site alone. He also needed an alt to warp fast around the system he was watching, in order to find if someone was doing the site and scan new sigs. Just from the site loot he could do 1B isk/hour. Plus the loot of the preys, when they took the bait.
When he left the game, there was no more people taking the bait, and people left the site when his alt was in local.
I don’t see how CCP made the game less competitive. Other than by adding the red loot.
I was okay with you until this point.
I believe that ganking is a very important part of HS, because otherwise the economy would switch towards “all built in HS” and that would be bad. You must have the ability to destroy your opponents.
My only issue, is that’s it’s too cheap ATM, because of the game mechanisms. When one player can multibox 20 destroyers he can remove 150k EHP with 20 accounts, for the price of 28M.
What’s the point of having EHP ? You just need the gankers to “have more”.That’s literally “pay CCP more accounts to win”.
Where are you buying 20 fully fitted gank destroyers for 28M?
20 Catalyst hulls are about 15M for a start.
So when you say this:
It seems like we are talking about the same thing. On the one hand you say the game is too farm friendly, but then criticise players looking for easy prey…but the farmers are the easy prey…and the farmers are as much a threat to this game if left unchecked as much as hunters are.
Wardecs, ganking and ninja-salvaging are deterrents/counters to botting/farming/afk play. The nerfs to wardecs and ganking are also costs (reverse rewards) for doing pvp.
Wardecs are the most intuitive form of pvp for the most populated area in eve. They were once also a great way for players to get into a fairly safe and familiar form of pvp. They are far more important than you (and ccp) give them credit for.
Indeed.
373 DPS * 20s * 20 accounts = 149 200 ehp removed.
20 * 1.36M = 27.2M which I rounded up.
A captial hunter seems like a straight forward idea. Occams razor and all.
I had hoped void bombs would be more effective…but now buffer fit caps are a thing.
Perhaps. Primarily, I criticize certain players for seeking ‘easy prey’ as a solution to EVE’s problems, or a factor in player retention. Really, all they are seeking is easy and safe gratification of their desire to victimize others for personal gain. I critique this primarily because IMO this behaviour pattern is bad for the long-term population of the game, and I believe I have references and logic to back that up.
I also criticize game design that rewards too much passive activity: boring, repetitive, bottable farming; setting up skill training queues, PI, AFK farming, bot-or-AFK trading, etc. etc. The list is long. This is an indirect criticism of the players who do these things, and while it is true these behaviours have long term effects on the economy, I do not believe the economic effects lead to lower game population.
The process of indulging in boring, repetitive PvE/farming and never learning or being incentivized to play actively… now that definitely hurts player population IMO as players get bored and leave.
Opinion, unbacked by facts. They are tools that certainly could be used as counters, in some instances, but there is no evidence I’ve seen that they actually were effective for that purpose.
Again, opinion, unbacked by facts. Stating your opinion is fine, declaring it as a fact is BS. If you have numbers to back this, go ahead. Otherwise, I will use CCPs statistics that wardecs are nearly useless griefing tools used by the powerful against the weak, with nearly no ability to fight back, and a detriment to game population.
EVE is far too oriented towards tools that allow the powerful to exploit and abuse the weak. All the “but weak players used this to ease into PvP!” arguments in the world won’t change that.
EVE needs tools that encourage, teach and incentivize newer players to engage in PvP and to find enough reward/entertainment in doing so that they continue to engage in PvP. PvE won’t drive this game, ever. It’s a support role. But the PvP that has always existed in EVE is not a player population growth driver. It’s always been a “attract 10 players, drive away 100” type of setup and that is not long term sustainable.
Perhaps something like the way there are BCs which are bonused for large/battleship weapons, we could get smaller, faster mini-capitals that are bonused for capital-hunting weapons.
The rock/paper/scissors balance would be:
- Capital hunters are like destroyers/attack BCs to capitals - a heavy damage weapons loadout of anti-cap weapons with less tank/survivability
- Capital hunters weapons loadout/tracking etc. would make them capable against sub-caps but not overwhelming
- Some of the ‘in-between BS and caps’ would be balanced for combat against sub-capitals
- Capitals would be balanced towards fighting other capitals, supers, and structures. Some application against Capital hunters, weak application against sub-caps.
I’m absolutely not a capital balance person so these are just ideas to toss out. The combat balance would then be:
- Sub-caps/BS do things like tackle, scout, bomb, cyno - niche roles, plus shoot down Capital Hunters.
- Capital Hunter/Capital Defense class are cheaper and more numerous and used to both apply firepower to capitals as well as provide some sub-cap defense.
- Capitals shoot down Capitals, Supers, Structures and with less effectiveness, Capital Hunters/Defenders. Reduced application against sub-caps.
- As suggested above, Titans/Supers take on the anti-capital, DD, fleet support roles.
(Hopefully people with more knowledge of the sub-cap/cap/super interplay and their uses in various game mechanics could find more/better roles for a Capital Hunter class of ships.)
Something like that, I don’t have more specifics sorry, as said I’m not really a capital combat person, nor do I think balancing capital combat is significant to stopping the current player decline - except as a way to entice some veterans back to the game and hold their interest long enough for other improvements to be made.