Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
2347
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:42:00 -
[1] - Quote
For as long as EVE has been around, players have formed alliances both formal and informal to fend off threats and defend space turf and honor. Inferno will completely revamp the whole framework that helps you manage your wars and will hopefully support you all in creating plenty of heart warming, violent memories <3
CCP SoniClover has written a blog about the new Ally System that will allow you to formally draft others to help crush your enemies. Check if out right here and be sure to leave us your feedback. CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |-á@ccp_guard |
|
Avila Cracko
357
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:43:00 -
[2] - Quote
first truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Metis Laxon
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:52:00 -
[3] - Quote
second |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2295
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:52:00 -
[4] - Quote
you're all my allies, true story! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Paradox
268
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
All the allies! CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
515
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
Quick , bring out more blue paint! Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Sgt Napalm
Veto. Veto Corp
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:59:00 -
[7] - Quote
Reserved
I dislike the poster above. |
ShadowMaster
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Just for some clarification.
Red Federation is in a mutual war with Blue Republic. Some crazy fool declares war on Blue Republic. Can Red Federation come to the aid of Blue Republic as an ally?
From what I can tell your rules section does not say anything against that, but I just wanted to make sure.
Quote:A corporation/alliance cannot join as an ally against a corporation/alliance they are already at war with. X is at war with Y X cannot join Z as an ally against Y
Quote:Similarly, if youGÇÖre already an ally against someone, you cannot declare a separate war against them or join as an ally against them again. Basically, ally status counts as being at war with the aggressor corp/alliance, so anything that would create a new war state between them cannot happen X is an ally of Z against Y X cannot declare war on Y
So yea, neither of those negates our situation. |
Ranshe
Blackwater Company Frozen Synapse
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:10:00 -
[9] - Quote
Now that we (will) have a functional ally system, could you please apply it to the Faction Warfare? It's weird that we're at war with the Minmatar *and* Gallente, but the Caldari remain as neutrals - and this is a perfect place to put this in. Of course this should be unbreakable, just like the war between factions is. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
80
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
"The only way for a mutual war to end is if one side surrenders."
A little, tiny bit worried about that. What if both sides want to end the war, but neither is willing to surrender to the other? I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
|
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:12:00 -
[11] - Quote
Pl0x get the crimewatch dudes to at least implement the RR docking aggression system ASAP, otherwise, why get allies when neutrals can help with no risk? We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
Mechael wrote:"The only way for a mutual war to end is if one side surrenders."
A little, tiny bit worried about that. What if both sides want to end the war, but neither is willing to surrender to the other?
Ask Israel and Palestine. We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
549
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:23:00 -
[13] - Quote
So defenders can bring in as many allies as they want for no cost other than the fee that the ally requests?
You realize that what this does is make it even less attractive for the Average Joe corp to declare war on people they have legitimate grievances with since they will be able to bring in an infinite number of allies and the attacker has no means to respond.
Rather than doing something to address the fact that wars are "underutilized" all this and the cost changes does is draw an even greater dividing line between people who do wars as their primary form of gameplay and everyone else in highsec by making starting a war so undesirable for anyone whose primary form of gameplay isn't wars that it will never be worth declaring war on someone who's done you wrong.
Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent. |
wallenbergaren
University of Caille Gallente Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:25:00 -
[14] - Quote
What happens if your corp joins an alliance you're allied against? |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
My biggest problem is that it doesn't cost a defender anything to bring allies into a war. What this will lead to is groups like mine joining wars as allies for free. All this will do is deter war decs and wreck the merc market.
What you really need to do is put in an ISK fee that goes to CONCORD for each ally, and increases for each ally you bring in (preferably, with the same mechanic/multiplier of war decs). This will encourage people to only spend allies that are worth the money (ie good mercs/dec corps) rather than bringing in any old corp off the street.
This also has the added advantage of limiting allies based on the ISK of the defenders, similar to how the ISK of the aggressors is the limit to the number of wars they can be in. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:26:00 -
[16] - Quote
Congratulations on killing off the war system in Eve Online. I don't know why I'm bothering to post since you seem to have completely ignored the feedback in the "War, Modules, and Super Friends" thread, but here goes.
There is no limit to the number of allies you can have. Given the new cost of war, every (large) high sec war deccing corp is going to be an ally in as many wars as possible for free. This will rapidly result in no one in their right mind war deccing anyone (and ruin the mercenary market). /thread
This expansion sucks, and is in no way "war themed." Please consider the mountains of legitimate feedback you are getting in these threads, and please take note of the fact that it is overwhelmingly negative.
EDIT: The solution proposed in the post above mine (essentially a concord tax on allies) is a good one, and also adds a new ISK sink to the game. Another one would be to limit a decced corp to calling one (or maybe two or three, or make it vary depending upon the size of the ally) ally per week that the dec is active. Additionally, unless you want the prices of mercenaries to nosedive towards zero, you should put some form of hardcap on the number of wars a corp can be called into as an ally. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
229
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:27:00 -
[17] - Quote
ShadowMaster wrote:Just for some clarification. Red Federation is in a mutual war with Blue Republic. Some crazy fool declares war on Blue Republic. Can Red Federation come to the aid of Blue Republic as an ally? From what I can tell your rules section does not say anything against that, but I just wanted to make sure. Quote:A corporation/alliance cannot join as an ally against a corporation/alliance they are already at war with. X is at war with Y X cannot join Z as an ally against Y Quote:Similarly, if youGÇÖre already an ally against someone, you cannot declare a separate war against them or join as an ally against them again. Basically, ally status counts as being at war with the aggressor corp/alliance, so anything that would create a new war state between them cannot happen X is an ally of Z against Y X cannot declare war on Y So yea, neither of those negates our situation.
Yes it does.
Red is at war with Blue Green declares war on Blue Red CANNOT ally with Blue as that's a new war state (ally) between Red and Blue However, Red can declare war on Green if they so choose |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
136
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
I think your estimate is a bit off. I think a large part of what the expansion's purpose was to correct a lot of the problems with the current mechanics. (except they forgot neutral RR cough cough)
If someone screwed you really hard, you'd pay the 50M+ to get get them anyway. If it isn't worth 50M they must not have pissed you off THAT bad. It's what, a couple level 4's? It shouldn't be that bad, unless the guy cleaned the corp wallet out and you used it as your personal wallet... then your prob screwed regardless.
We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:33:00 -
[19] - Quote
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
I think your estimate is a bit off. I think a large part of what the expansion's purpose was to correct a lot of the problems with the current mechanics. (except they forgot neutral RR cough cough) If someone screwed you really hard, you'd pay the 50M+ to get get them anyway. If it isn't worth 50M they must not have pissed you off THAT bad. It's what, a couple level 4's? It shouldn't be that bad, unless the guy cleaned the corp wallet out and you used it as your personal wallet... then your prob screwed regardless. And you will then be blobbed into station by the dozen corps that are called as an ally and are looking for good fights and free targets. The price IS an issue in my opinion, but the ally system is worse. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:36:00 -
[20] - Quote
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
I think your estimate is a bit off. I think a large part of what the expansion's purpose was to correct a lot of the problems with the current mechanics. (except they forgot neutral RR cough cough) If someone screwed you really hard, you'd pay the 50M+ to get get them anyway. If it isn't worth 50M they must not have pissed you off THAT bad. It's what, a couple level 4's? It shouldn't be that bad, unless the guy cleaned the corp wallet out and you used it as your personal wallet... then your prob screwed regardless.
It's not the ISK for the war that's the problem. The problem is that defenders can bring in unlimited allies for literally 0 ISK. So the only people who will actually declare wars are the full-time dec corps/mercs. Everyone else will either disregard or hire mercs for an offensive dec.
I can say that my alliance will be joining as many wars as we can, for 0 ISK, just for free targets. Many of the merc groups/dec corps/alliances will be doing the same thing for the free decs they'll get. |
|
leich
Nocturnal Romance Fall From Heaven
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:37:00 -
[21] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:first edit: And you know whats the funniest part about all this "war changes"? You did not solve anything. You even didn't implement the main thing that you talked about and that is commitment. Attacker can war dec without any consequence at all. And they dont have any commitment on that war, just don't pay and you are out. And defender have onle one option and that is to become ISK cow for an "Ally". Only consequence that attacker might have is that defender make war mutual (and they have only 24 hour window for that) and then look for ally to make some problems for attacker - and even that you want to remove. And easy way for attacker to remove and that problem is to quit/kill corp and make a new one. And we all know that that is no problem at all for them because 95% of attackers are griefers that grief on their alts. I don't see what you want accomplish. You only want to help griefers and screw other players?
I can't believe how ironic this post is.
it describes the exact opposite of what is wrong with current war mechanics.
For far to long they have made it easy for people to escape PVP.
CCP had the chance to fix it making it harder to avoid but the blew it with this. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:38:00 -
[22] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
I think your estimate is a bit off. I think a large part of what the expansion's purpose was to correct a lot of the problems with the current mechanics. (except they forgot neutral RR cough cough) If someone screwed you really hard, you'd pay the 50M+ to get get them anyway. If it isn't worth 50M they must not have pissed you off THAT bad. It's what, a couple level 4's? It shouldn't be that bad, unless the guy cleaned the corp wallet out and you used it as your personal wallet... then your prob screwed regardless. And you will then be blobbed into station by the dozen corps that are called as an ally and are looking for good fights and free targets. The price IS an issue in my opinion, but the ally system is worse.
The solution is easy for most situations. You put in a CONCORD fee for every ally that gets multiplied by the number of allies you bring in. This fee should be paid every week to keep them as allies in the war, and should be on the same order as a dec fee. That way, people will only pay for the groups they can afford to bring in, rather than the whole world jumping onto their decs. |
Lemming Alpha1dash1
Lemmings Online
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:43:00 -
[23] - Quote
Hope you don't have to pass a Mensa test to relearn hisec wardec/pvp rules agian
Thx for putting in the effort to update the mechanics, hope it all works out, else we still got ganking |
Hiram Alexander
Seraphim Securities
214
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
Just for clarification...
If "Mining Corp" (10 members) is wardec'ed by "Evil Corp" (10 members), then... "Mining Corp" allies with "Good Guys" (300 members)... is it possible for "Evil Corp"s 10 guys to create a 1 man alt-corp, say, "Sneaky Corp"... wardec themselves with it, then call in "Bad Guys" (2000 members) to 'defend' them from their own alt, then... use "Bad Guys" in their war against all the others...?
Just want to be sure... |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 19:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
Hiram Alexander wrote:Just for clarification...
If "Mining Corp" (10 members) is wardec'ed by "Evil Corp" (10 members), then... "Mining Corp" allies with "Good Guys" (300 members)... is it possible for "Evil Corp"s 10 guys to create a 1 man alt-corp, say, "Sneaky Corp"... wardec themselves with it, then call in "Bad Guys" (2000 members) to 'defend' them from their own alt, then... use "Bad Guys" in their war against all the others...?
Just want to be sure...
No, it is on a per-dec basis. Meaning if you have two wars, the allies would need to be called into both wars separately. If you are the aggressor in one of the wars, no allies can be brought in to help you. |
Burseg Sardaukar
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
136
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:00:00 -
[26] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Eternal Error wrote:Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
I think your estimate is a bit off. I think a large part of what the expansion's purpose was to correct a lot of the problems with the current mechanics. (except they forgot neutral RR cough cough) If someone screwed you really hard, you'd pay the 50M+ to get get them anyway. If it isn't worth 50M they must not have pissed you off THAT bad. It's what, a couple level 4's? It shouldn't be that bad, unless the guy cleaned the corp wallet out and you used it as your personal wallet... then your prob screwed regardless. And you will then be blobbed into station by the dozen corps that are called as an ally and are looking for good fights and free targets. The price IS an issue in my opinion, but the ally system is worse. The solution is easy for most situations. You put in a CONCORD fee for every ally that gets multiplied by the number of allies you bring in. This fee should be paid every week to keep them as allies in the war, and should be on the same order as a dec fee. That way, people will only pay for the groups they can afford to bring in, rather than the whole world jumping onto their decs.
Yes, I like that idea a ton. I missed part of the point of the original post, but I can absolutely see how this could be a problem with there being no minimum fee to accept aid (even in the form of an ISK sink). We have a blog, it is terrible. How to fix Bounty Hunting |
Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:00:00 -
[27] - Quote
war list: Evil Pair of Ducks vs. Pair of Ducks
ally offer: In War Evil Pair of Ducks vs Pair of Ducks
... are the Evil Ducks the aggressor? am i offering assistance to the non evil ducks?
"vs" doesn't exactly show "direction"... any chance of having the aggressor and defender clearer?
at the moment you have a clear "x declared war against Y" kind of deal on the war list...
and if it's always "the one of the left is the aggressor" how do you expect newbies to know that when they open the war list for the same time? Curiosity killed the Kata...
... but being immortal he wasn't too worried about keeping a count. |
ShadowMaster
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:03:00 -
[28] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:ShadowMaster wrote:Just for some clarification. Red Federation is in a mutual war with Blue Republic. Some crazy fool declares war on Blue Republic. Can Red Federation come to the aid of Blue Republic as an ally? From what I can tell your rules section does not say anything against that, but I just wanted to make sure. Quote:A corporation/alliance cannot join as an ally against a corporation/alliance they are already at war with. X is at war with Y X cannot join Z as an ally against Y Quote:Similarly, if youGÇÖre already an ally against someone, you cannot declare a separate war against them or join as an ally against them again. Basically, ally status counts as being at war with the aggressor corp/alliance, so anything that would create a new war state between them cannot happen X is an ally of Z against Y X cannot declare war on Y So yea, neither of those negates our situation. Yes it does. Red is at war with Blue Green declares war on Blue Red CANNOT ally with Blue as that's a new war state (ally) between Red and Blue However, Red can declare war on Green if they so choose
But nothing says that.
Your example of green is not covered by anything said.
The first example I gave, using green, would look like this:
Red is at war with Blue. Green declares war on Blue. Reds cannot ally with Green against Blue.
The second example, with Green, would look like this:
Red is an ally of Green against Blue. Red cannot declare war on Blue.
Neither of those covers Reds and Blues at war, and being allies against a third party. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2301
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:03:00 -
[29] - Quote
Kata Amentis wrote:war list: Evil Pair of Ducks vs. Pair of Ducks
ally offer: In War Evil Pair of Ducks vs Pair of Ducks
... are the Evil Ducks the aggressor? am i offering assistance to the non evil ducks?
"vs" doesn't exactly show "direction"... any chance of having the aggressor and defender clearer?
at the moment you have a clear "x declared war against Y" kind of deal on the war list...
and if it's always "the one of the left is the aggressor" how do you expect newbies to know that when they open the war list for the first time?
aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Hiram Alexander
Seraphim Securities
214
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:04:00 -
[30] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Hiram Alexander wrote:Just for clarification...
If "Mining Corp" (10 members) is wardec'ed by "Evil Corp" (10 members), then... "Mining Corp" allies with "Good Guys" (300 members)... is it possible for "Evil Corp"s 10 guys to create a 1 man alt-corp, say, "Sneaky Corp"... wardec themselves with it, then call in "Bad Guys" (2000 members) to 'defend' them from their own alt, then... use "Bad Guys" in their war against all the others...?
Just want to be sure... No, it is on a per-dec basis. Meaning if you have two wars, the allies would need to be called into both wars separately. If you are the aggressor in one of the wars, no allies can be brought in to help you. That's what I figured, but I've been playing long enough to see how buggy things can be occasionally, and short of testing it on Sisi myself, I'd just like to be sure that there isn't any wierd 'bug/feature' that allows an Aggressor to use 'defenders' from a different war to help in their 'main' war. If it's all 'working as intended', then cool... |
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
645
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:04:00 -
[31] - Quote
Nice addition!
Now i can wardec A with my main corp B, then offer him my alt corp C as an ally and let A have it against B while my alt corp gets paid for nothing. And if i as much as convince A to "join" C in an all out assault on B and just don't log in or begin shooting A, the LOLz will be epic.
I wonder where do this CCP guys get so much naivety. They spend months building mechanics that are born dead because even a special child could figure how to abuse them in less than 5 minutes, and yet manage to feel proud about it... EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue.
Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:09:00 -
[33] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Nice addition!
Now i can wardec A with my main corp B, then offer him my alt corp C as an ally and let A have it against B while my alt corp gets paid for nothing. And if i as much as convince A to "join" C in an all out assault on B and just don't log in or begin shooting A, the LOLz will be epic.
I wonder where do this CCP guys get so much naivety. They spend months building mechanics that are born dead because even a special child could figure how to abuse them in less than 5 minutes, and yet manage to feel proud about it... I'm pretty sure there will be an in game mercenary/ally feedback system to help prevent this. Obviously, calling in an ally is at your own risk and you should never blindly trust anyone. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2301
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:10:00 -
[34] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen?
I'm not a game designer so I'd rather not comment on such things. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:11:00 -
[35] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Nice addition!
Now i can wardec A with my main corp B, then offer him my alt corp C as an ally and let A have it against B while my alt corp gets paid for nothing. And if i as much as convince A to "join" C in an all out assault on B and just don't log in or begin shooting A, the LOLz will be epic.
I wonder where do this CCP guys get so much naivety. They spend months building mechanics that are born dead because even a special child could figure how to abuse them in less than 5 minutes, and yet manage to feel proud about it... I'm pretty sure there will be an in game mercenary/ally feedback system to help prevent this. Obviously, calling in an ally is at your own risk and you should never blindly trust anyone.
Right, but who would turn down free help in a war? Very few people. Obviously the second part of tricking them into dying is more complicated, but not terribly difficult. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:13:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? I'm not a game designer so I'd rather not comment on such things.
Can you point one of them to look this way? Because the number of holes in this mechanic are huge and I'm literally astounded that no one on the game design team saw them.
EDIT: That actually depends on which of the game designers was primarily responsible, but I won't name names. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:16:00 -
[37] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen?
We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed. |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2302
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? I'm not a game designer so I'd rather not comment on such things. Can you point one of them to look this way? Because the number of holes in this mechanic is huge and I'm literally astounded that no one on the game design team saw them. EDIT: That actually depends on which of the game designers was primarily responsible, but I won't name names.
it's 8:30 on a Friday night, I'm sure more people from my team will post here when they're available
Edit: nice posted at the same time as SoniClover CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Hiram Alexander
Seraphim Securities
214
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:17:00 -
[39] - Quote
Again, just to be sure...
If a corp, say "BBC", calls for allies, and gets offers of protection from "Eurasia" and "East Asia", who are at war with each other, is it possible for "BBC" to actually accept them, and is it certain that if it can, that it won't break anything in their own mutual war? |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:18:00 -
[40] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed.
Thank you very much for at least doing that much. I just hope you'll put in a proper fix for this when the ally system gets as heavily abused as it's looking like. |
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
646
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Nice addition!
Now i can wardec A with my main corp B, then offer him my alt corp C as an ally and let A have it against B while my alt corp gets paid for nothing. And if i as much as convince A to "join" C in an all out assault on B and just don't log in or begin shooting A, the LOLz will be epic.
I wonder where do this CCP guys get so much naivety. They spend months building mechanics that are born dead because even a special child could figure how to abuse them in less than 5 minutes, and yet manage to feel proud about it... I'm pretty sure there will be an in game mercenary/ally feedback system to help prevent this. Obviously, calling in an ally is at your own risk and you should never blindly trust anyone.
Oh, sure, MercAdvisor. Based 100% on ingenuous customer reviews. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:20:00 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:it's 8:30 on a Friday night, I'm sure more people from my team will post here when they're available Edit: nice posted at the same time as SoniClover
Yeah, I always forget how late it is over there. Thanks for the quick responses though! |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
333
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:20:00 -
[43] - Quote
Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Mechael wrote:"The only way for a mutual war to end is if one side surrenders."
A little, tiny bit worried about that. What if both sides want to end the war, but neither is willing to surrender to the other? Ask Israel and Palestine.
lmao good one bro...
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
166
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:22:00 -
[44] - Quote
btw to all you cheezers talking about RR not being fixed, it is. RR'ing someone will now grant a suspect flag doing 2 things.
1) You get the aggression timer of the person your repping (no docking) 2) You become open to aggression by EVERYONE, not just the enemies of the people you are aggressing
If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:22:00 -
[45] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Oh, sure, MercAdvisor. Based 100% on ingenuous customer reviews.
Just have a link to a merc alliance's yelp page for reviews. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:23:00 -
[46] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:btw to all you cheezers talking about RR not being fixed, it is. RR'ing someone will now grant a suspect flag doing 2 things.
1) You get the aggression timer of the person your repping (no docking) 2) You become open to aggression by EVERYONE, not just the enemies of the people you are aggressing
No, that comes with the crimewatch changes which will be happening towards the end of the summer. |
Sheena Tzash
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:23:00 -
[47] - Quote
Its nice to see all these changes going into the war system and I hope the idea behind some of the restrictions is to reduce the amount of pure griefing war decs that are put onto newbie corps and chases away all the new players from the game.
It causes the agressor to think about the cost and retaliation capabilities of their opponent before they put in the dec.
The defender can still go turtle on them and wait it out or with this new system bring in some hired hands which could quite easily cost more to defend yourself than the agressors pay on the dec itself.
Just a thought on ally payment system though - I assume that they are paid as soon as the defender accepts the offer? What happens if I run a one man band and act as an ally, take the money and walk off with it? What happens if my corp does a poor job and don't deserve the money paid for my 'services'?
Maybe the payment system should be changed so that when the war dec ends the defender is abliged to pay for services rendered. If the ally did a good job you could throw in a bonus.
If they sucked you don't pay them at all.
If you want to screw them over you don't pay them either but at least they could dec you back and reclaim their lost earning! :P
Defenders could also provide feedback (yeah, like a ebay seller) to rate them on how well they did so that other defenders can see their ratings and either look for a particular good rated corp for their services or keep away from offers of bad corps.
Yes it could make new merc corps difficult to break into the market but if they reduce their asking price they'll take on a few deals at a loss but build up the required rep to take on higher paying contracts. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
333
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:25:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed.
people this is discusting he only has 110 likes give this man atleast 5000...
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
646
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:27:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed.
i hope you monitor how many people unsubs after being wardecced for weeks by every last griefer in game, without a chance to avoid nor escape nor win nor do shlt about it. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
166
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:28:00 -
[50] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Karl Planck wrote:btw to all you cheezers talking about RR not being fixed, it is. RR'ing someone will now grant a suspect flag doing 2 things.
1) You get the aggression timer of the person your repping (no docking) 2) You become open to aggression by EVERYONE, not just the enemies of the people you are aggressing
No, that comes with the crimewatch changes which will be happening towards the end of the summer.
when did you see a date on that? I was under the impression that crimewatch changes were happening with the inferno expansion and cannot find any specifics on luanching at a later date If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
|
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:30:00 -
[51] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Karl Planck wrote:btw to all you cheezers talking about RR not being fixed, it is. RR'ing someone will now grant a suspect flag doing 2 things.
1) You get the aggression timer of the person your repping (no docking) 2) You become open to aggression by EVERYONE, not just the enemies of the people you are aggressing
No, that comes with the crimewatch changes which will be happening towards the end of the summer. when did you see a date on that? I was under the impression that crimewatch changes were happening with the inferno expansion and cannot find any specifics on luanching at a later date
Greyscale mentioned in a post somewhere in GD I thought. I'll poke around and try to find it. |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
166
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:31:00 -
[52] - Quote
btw on the note of this expansion, corp hopping still going to be a dramatic problem. I say you just bite the bullet and charge ~100-200m to start a corp, along with the changes you have proposed so far. If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
552
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:32:00 -
[53] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed. Great so what you're telling us is that you're going to release obviously incomplete, poorly thought out content and then wait to see how broken it is after you've released it.
Didn't I hear soundwave talking about releasing content when it's finished rather than rushing towards expansion deadlines with unfinished garbage at some point? Oh I guess that was before crucible came out and CCP was still pretending to be apologetic about incarna and hadn't gotten back to the standard practice of releasing unfinished crap. |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
166
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:34:00 -
[54] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Karl Planck wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:Karl Planck wrote:btw to all you cheezers talking about RR not being fixed, it is. RR'ing someone will now grant a suspect flag doing 2 things.
1) You get the aggression timer of the person your repping (no docking) 2) You become open to aggression by EVERYONE, not just the enemies of the people you are aggressing
No, that comes with the crimewatch changes which will be happening towards the end of the summer. when did you see a date on that? I was under the impression that crimewatch changes were happening with the inferno expansion and cannot find any specifics on luanching at a later date Greyscale mentioned in a post somewhere in GD I thought. I'll poke around and try to find it.
ah found it
CCP Masterplan wrote: I'm glad that this crimewatch work was positively received. The timescale beyond summer isn't firmly fixed yet - we're still planning the release calendar for the next 12 months. It certainly won't be early summer, but I'd hope to be releasing something before the winter. EXPECTATIONS-MANAGEMENT DISCLAIMER: ALL PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE! I DON'T SET THE SCHEDULE
If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Wiu Ming
Wrecking Shots
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:41:00 -
[55] - Quote
Avila Cracko wrote:And defender have onle [sic] one option and that is to become ISK cow for an "Ally". ...You only want to help griefers and screw other players?
Not necessarily. I'm sure high sec war deccing entities have made a lot of enemies over time. Corps may *want* to combine forces to enable payback. The new ally system lets it happen.
Here's another scenario: a nullsec alliance like TEST decides to dec someone. Don't you think upon hearing of this little gem that Privateers, Moar Tears and every other highsec deccing entity would clamor for the chance to join the fray? Hell, the deccee might find itself offered piles of isk for the privilege of doing just that.
Speaking of which, Devs why does the ally system only have a spot for demanding isk? Can this number be negative? Why can't corps be offered isk for the opportunity to join their war?
|
Fergall Acheilleus
The Scope Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:44:00 -
[56] - Quote
CCP is trying to reinvent the wheel. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
111
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:44:00 -
[57] - Quote
Sheena Tzash wrote:Its nice to see all these changes going into the war system and I hope the idea behind some of the restrictions is to reduce the amount of pure griefing war decs that are put onto newbie corps and chases away all the new players from the game.
It causes the agressor to think about the cost and retaliation capabilities of their opponent before they put in the dec.
The defender can still go turtle on them and wait it out or with this new system bring in some hired hands which could quite easily cost more to defend yourself than the agressors pay on the dec itself.
Just a thought on ally payment system though - I assume that they are paid as soon as the defender accepts the offer? What happens if I run a one man band and act as an ally, take the money and walk off with it? What happens if my corp does a poor job and don't deserve the money paid for my 'services'?
Maybe the payment system should be changed so that when the war dec ends the defender is abliged to pay for services rendered. If the ally did a good job you could throw in a bonus.
If they sucked you don't pay them at all.
If you want to screw them over you don't pay them either but at least they could dec you back and reclaim their lost earning! :P
Defenders could also provide feedback (yeah, like a ebay seller) to rate them on how well they did so that other defenders can see their ratings and either look for a particular good rated corp for their services or keep away from offers of bad corps.
Yes it could make new merc corps difficult to break into the market but if they reduce their asking price they'll take on a few deals at a loss but build up the required rep to take on higher paying contracts.
The payment is all up front. It's a basic one lump some right now, we didn't want to implement a more elaborate payment scheme in the first iteration (like automatic reimbursement fund, etc.) - people can continue to negotiate that informally as they've done in the past. The main thinking here is to allow mercenary corporation to build up reputation over time. The public war history is the first step in that direction, allowing prospective patrons to check out the war history of an offering merc corp. Later on we want to expand the information given here to allow defenders to more easily see the 'worthiness' of a merc corp before deciding whether to hire them. A rating or ranking system of some sorts, maybe in EVE Gate, is also a possibility.
|
|
Armed Maniac
The Rock and Roid Band
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:47:00 -
[58] - Quote
If the ally market becomes everyone willing to join at no charge so they can get targets, wouldn't other corps declare war on an alt corp, then use that alt corp to accept as many allies as they wanted targets for?
Pirate corp declares war on alt corp, alt corp accepts 3 ally corps, Pirate corp is now at war with 3 other corps for the cost of 1 war. With the added benefit of them being able to choose which corps they accept the ally contract from.
This also leaves the ally corps with no way to end the war, as long as the pirate corp keeps paying the fee.
Even if the Ally corps charged a fee, the alt corp would only have to pay that once to get stuck in a war they can't get out of.
|
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
553
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 20:57:00 -
[59] - Quote
Absolutely no gaping holes in this mechanic, no sir, it's totally ready for rollout. |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
255
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:03:00 -
[60] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Nice addition!
Now i can wardec A with my main corp B, then offer him my alt corp C as an ally and let A have it against B while my alt corp gets paid for nothing. And if i as much as convince A to "join" C in an all out assault on B and just don't log in or begin shooting A, the LOLz will be epic.
I wonder where do this CCP guys get so much naivety. They spend months building mechanics that are born dead because even a special child could figure how to abuse them in less than 5 minutes, and yet manage to feel proud about it...
The thing is, EVE is a game of alts nowadays. Virtually every area of the sandbox (incursions, FW, hisec wars, etc...) can be exploited. What you just highlighted will be exploited but smart players will adapt. The ignorant will always be taken for a ride. That will never change
C'est la Eve :)
PS- Same thoughts were going through my head as well. But at the end of the day, it's still hisec wars, so meh C'est La Eve :) Gallente Militia -áPVP Corp. Selective recruitment open. http://iamsheriff.com/eagle.html |
|
Shandir
Indigo Archive
140
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:03:00 -
[61] - Quote
At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee. This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.
You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.
Eg:
Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them. Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit. Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war. Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1. Corp 1 declares the war mutual. Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt. Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.
Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.
Just one possible infinite-war exploit. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
676
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:06:00 -
[62] - Quote
Please push for eve gate kill boards and war reports asap! : D |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
676
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:09:00 -
[63] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Absolutely no gaping holes in this mechanic, no sir, it's totally ready for rollout.
The only "gaping holes" are put there on purpose you idiot. eve is a game where scamming and ******* with people is a feature. If you think the loopholes are an after thought, your kidding yourself.
They said it in the dev blog. The system has to be open to abuse so the players set the rules, not CCP. |
Alice Katsuko
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
115
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:11:00 -
[64] - Quote
Looks like a good system, but seems rather inflexible, and doesn't really give the participants many options, si it really feels more like a feature than a tool.
Two things might make this system better:
(1) Allow for variable-length alliance contracts. There should be an option to set whether the alliance will last one week, several weeks, or until the end of the war. That will give both sides more bargaining power. Mercenaries won't have to worry about being tied up a war they no longer want, and defenders won't have to worry about paying a huge sum up-front for services that may never be rendered.
(2) Allow for recurring weekly payments to complement the above system. |
Karl Planck
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
166
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:12:00 -
[65] - Quote
Shandir wrote:At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee. This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.
You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.
Eg:
Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them. Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit. Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war. Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1. Corp 1 declares the war mutual. Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt. Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.
Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.
Just one possible infinite-war exploit.
I don't have a problem with infinite war exploites that encourge fighting, its the ones where they can get out of the fighting that erks me.
Still standing behind my charge 100-200mil to start a corp stance If you don't like it, you should go and ride your Emo high-horse all the way back to WoW.
|
Shandir
Indigo Archive
140
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:25:00 -
[66] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:Shandir wrote:At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee. This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.
You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.
Eg:
Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them. Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit. Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war. Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1. Corp 1 declares the war mutual. Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt. Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.
Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.
Just one possible infinite-war exploit. I don't have a problem with infinite war exploites that encourge fighting, its the ones where they can get out of the fighting that erks me. Still standing behind my charge 100-200mil to start a corp stance
Griefer tears are best tears?
But in a slightly less troll-y vein, the war system has flaws in both sides of the equation, I agree. It is, however, definitely more critical to fix the problems with the defender's side first. Until it is possible for a defender to win a war, wars will never be meaningful.
Atm, the one thing they are adding that will help this, is the mutual-lock on the attacker. If the defender is willing and able to do this, it might actually ruin the attacker's day. If the attacker is not just alts, or just as willing to corp hop as the defender when a proper fight is given.
Personally, I'd be in favour of preventing the attackers from corp dropping unless they disband - and the defender gets to keep the attacker's corp/alliance name if they do. I'd just love the competent defender corps to have a pile of vanquished foes (Corp names) to show off. |
Prisoner 002929
Wulgun Wing
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:38:00 -
[67] - Quote
Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.
Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that. |
JeanPant Man
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:41:00 -
[68] - Quote
Shandir wrote:At the very least, by release you should allow Allies to release themselves from a contract by returning the fee. This prevents the most ridiculous exploitations already mentioned.
You do not want to make it possible to trap a merc corp in a perpetual war they cannot leave between two corps they are not able to affect.
Eg:
Corp 1 has 100 members who like to grief. They invite a few friends to form a Corp 2 and the second corp declares war on them. Corp 1 is now a defender against Corp 2 and it looks reasonably legit. Corp 1 offers some ISK to MercCorps 1,2,3,4 to join their war. Now 4 MercCorps are aiding Corp 1. Corp 1 declares the war mutual. Corp 1&2 change CEO to an alt. Corp 1&2 have all members leave and join Corp 2 or another Corp.
Merc corps 1,2,3,4 are now in an infinite, free war they cannot leave without disbanding, potentially against the people they allied with.
Just one possible infinite-war exploit.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but did the blog not say that by declaring the war neutral, all merc corps are kicked from the war? |
LadyDream
Boobs Light Industries
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:56:00 -
[69] - Quote
Swords? I think we missing dragons, trolls and dwarves for the set. |
JeanPant Man
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:58:00 -
[70] - Quote
Prisoner 002929 wrote:Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.
Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that.
I think you are looking at this incorrectly. Dont think of it as a game where they try to promote Wars, instead think of it as if it were real life. The goal is to stop corps from war declaring for the hell of it. Highsec wars will be more in line with nullsec in the sense that you cant just carelessly attack anyone without any risk of losing. If a nullsec alliance invades another groups space, the defending nullsec group will rally up all the help it can get! Why should highsec be any different?
So in the past where one corp would war dec 10 industrial corps for easy kills, in Inferno they will actually have to fight for those kills. Granted wars will become more rare as they are more risky, but I doubt wars will become a thing of the past. Corps will start wars because they might gain something of value (that is worth the risk), and not just for senseless fun.
If anything, CCP have made wars more realistic and in tune with human nature. |
|
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
255
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 21:59:00 -
[71] - Quote
Prisoner 002929 wrote:Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.
Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that. Doesn't even take a large alliance behind the ten-man alt corp, it could just be any old corp of good friends who like to make trouble. As soon as they get dec'd they invite every single Tom, ****, and Harry who put up an ad to be your ally for free. Judging by some of the responses in this thread there's going to be a ton of corps and alliances doing exactly that.
I completely agree, wars are officially dead. +1 in local |
Riffix
Synergistic Arbitrage
33
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:00:00 -
[72] - Quote
Honestly, I don't really see this as being that good or helpful until pretty much all the things you listed under "Future is Not a Dirty Word" get implemented.
For people to effectively be Mercs there contracts need to be finite with conclusive goals/conditions. Setting time limits for the duration of the contract is one, but another is conditions for payment. Right now the only condition is loosely that the war end. But there is nothing that enforces that. There is nothing to stop an "ally" from agreeing to help, taking the cash, and doing nothing. While I can acknowledge that it might not be EVE without the ability for this type of abuse, since there isn't really an official way to rate a corp/alliance or look up their combat history, the defender has no recourse. If they were looking for help with a defensive war in the first place, chances are they probably don't have the resources to hunt down someone who griefs them via this "help" system.
Also, why not have contracts that don't get paid to the incoming ally until they are completed. For example "get aggressor to retract war" or "cause x amout of ISK damage to agressor" or "destroy x number of ships". Even more sexy would be a renewable contract that basically allows the ally to get paid for every week that they fulfill the specified goal. Maybe something other than ISK could be offered as rewards, or bonus rewards, tiers of payments. There is still a possibility for 2 corps to collude on this but if the person setting the contract prices it right, it wouldn't be worth the trouble. Lead, Follow, or Get the #@$!@ Out of the Way. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:05:00 -
[73] - Quote
JeanPant Man wrote:Prisoner 002929 wrote:Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.
Why would anyone ever dec anyone in eve again? Any massive alliance that wants to can jump in against you and for you to bring in your own allies requires them to dec war and thus incure the massive costs of dec'ing the mega alliances. You're literally exposed to all the risk in the affair AND you're paying for it. This is nothing more then an attempt to kill wardecs all together. A poorly veiled one at that. I think you are looking at this incorrectly. Dont think of it as a game where they try to promote Wars, instead think of it as if it were real life. The goal is to stop corps from war declaring for the hell of it. Highsec wars will be more in line with nullsec in the sense that you cant just carelessly attack anyone without any risk of losing. If a nullsec alliance invades another groups space, the defending nullsec group will rally up all the help it can get! Why should highsec be any different? So in the past where one corp would war dec 10 industrial corps for easy kills, in Inferno they will actually have to fight for those kills. Granted wars will become more rare as they are more risky, but I doubt wars will become a thing of the past. Corps will start wars because they might gain something of value (that is worth the risk), and not just for senseless fun. If anything, CCP have made wars more realistic and in tune with human nature. That's because you don't understand what you're talking about, as evidenced by stating that you could wardec 10 corps at once (no hate, just saying).
No one is saying that the old system was perfect. No one is denying that the old system was ABSURDLY cheap. However, it has been the policy of CCP to make things MORE dangerous and promote this as the "spirit of Eve." It was strongly implied that Inferno, while making wardecs riskier for the aggressorl, would promote wars and make them a MEANINGFUL mechanic, not an EXTINCT one (i.e. CCP did state that wars would be more risky for all involved, but never said anything about making them "rarer"). Also, not many people wardec for ISK, they do it for fun, payback, or revenge.
Sure, the updated costs (I also have an issue with the cost formula, but no one denies that costs did need to increase) will cut down on random grief wardecs, and I don't have too much an issue with that effect (as long as it isn't taken to an extreme, which it is). However, the ally system in its current state will more or less eliminate wardecs completely, with the possible exception of large, professional wardeccing corps. |
None ofthe Above
183
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Shandir wrote: Personally, I'd be in favour of preventing the attackers from corp dropping unless they disband - and the defender gets to keep the attacker's corp/alliance name if they do. I'd just love the competent defender corps to have a pile of vanquished foes (Corp names) to show off.
That's a cute idea.
Preventing people from dropping corp though forgets that people are individuals (well except for the alts) and may not want to hang with the CEO. Trapping people in corps will have lots of nasty unintended consequences.
That said, corp names and tickers as trophies is an interesting idea.
|
None ofthe Above
183
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:14:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
The payment is all up front. It's a basic one lump some right now, we didn't want to implement a more elaborate payment scheme in the first iteration (like automatic reimbursement fund, etc.) - people can continue to negotiate that informally as they've done in the past. The main thinking here is to allow mercenary corporation to build up reputation over time. The public war history is the first step in that direction, allowing prospective patrons to check out the war history of an offering merc corp. Later on we want to expand the information given here to allow defenders to more easily see the 'worthiness' of a merc corp before deciding whether to hire them. A rating or ranking system of some sorts, maybe in EVE Gate, is also a possibility.
If an ally can't withdraw from the war and has no control of ending it, I don't expect this to be used too much.
Hardcore pvpers/mercs and the occasional grudge bearing crop.
It'll be used just enough and in flashy enough cases to appear to be working, but I think there really needs to be the possibility of withdrawal.
Additionally you talk about its possible for the defender and the ally to make their own arrangements for payment after the initial isk fee, but the ally cannot withdraw so has little leverage. (I suppose they could refuse to undock, but that's lame.)
Anyway, I look forward to these refinements.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
649
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:14:00 -
[76] - Quote
I think I agree with the idea that the "holes" are just ways for corps to try and scam each other, and are part of the game. After all, if you find yourself in a war that you just want no part of, you can drop to an NPC corp. But if it just becomes a big mess, without us players learning how to sort it out I see two additions that would help:
Defenders can fire a useless ally. But any payment is still gone.
Allies can return payment and drop out. (After all they can drop out WITHOUT returning the payment by dis-banding).
The other thing that helps is to insure the war record is clear, concise, and provides the information needed to allow for a defender to make an informed decision on hiring any given ally.
Also, I foresee the biggest use of this system is to hire as allies members of your coalition, that is people you know and are friends with. For example, someone in your coalition makes the 1 pilot corp for setting up a POS. It gets decced. The one pilot corp brings in the PvP elements of the coalition as allies. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Haifisch Zahne
HZ Corp
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:18:00 -
[77] - Quote
The point of the new war/ally mechanics is to simply to open up (or really return to the status quo) an ISK sink.
In particular, the small and one-man corporation with minimal taxes is now effectively dead, and the masses of carebears must return to the NPC corporations with their high taxes. Why? Because of the thousand and one exploits that everyone is mentioning.
And, will the players who enjoy PvP care? Hardly, this is why they play.
I will say it once, I will say it a hundred times: Escalation and Inferno are designed to fight ISK inflation, which leads to less PLEX sold. More wars, higher taxes, drone doodie nerf, changes to loot, everything is designed to suck ISK out of the game. You can see the results already in the Market. With a PLEX getting less ISK-- and PvP increasing-- people will buy more.
CCP is in the business of selling PLEX. Follow the money, people. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
649
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:25:00 -
[78] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Shandir wrote: Personally, I'd be in favour of preventing the attackers from corp dropping unless they disband - and the defender gets to keep the attacker's corp/alliance name if they do. I'd just love the competent defender corps to have a pile of vanquished foes (Corp names) to show off.
That's a cute idea. Preventing people from dropping corp though forgets that people are individuals (well except for the alts) and may not want to hang with the CEO. Trapping people in corps will have lots of nasty unintended consequences. That said, corp names and tickers as trophies is an interesting idea.
The not being able to drop corp has been used as for griefing in the past:
Corp recruits new players. CEO gives them roles. CEO uses them for target practice. Members drop roles to quit corp. CEO assigns them new roles before the 24 hours is up, trapping them in corp.
CCP fix: once you drop roles, new ones cannot be assigned to you.
If a war dec in any way trapped players in a corp, similar actions would be possible. http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
J3ssica Alba
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
354
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:26:00 -
[79] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote: Didn't I hear soundwave talking about releasing content when it's finished rather than rushing towards expansion deadlines with unfinished garbage at some point? Oh I guess that was before crucible came out and CCP was still pretending to be apologetic about incarna and hadn't gotten back to the standard practice of releasing unfinished crap.
The bitterness is strong in this one. This is my signature. There are many others like it, but this one is mine.-á Without me, my signature is useless. Without my signature, I am useless |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
22
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:27:00 -
[80] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:
The not being able to drop corp has been used as for griefing in the past:
Corp recruits new players. CEO gives them roles. CEO uses them for target practice. Members drop roles to quit corp. CEO assigns them new roles before the 24 hours is up, trapping them in corp.
CCP fix: once you drop roles, new ones cannot be assigned to you.
If a war dec in any way trapped players in a corp, similar actions would be possible.
AFAIK this is one of the few things classified as "griefing" that is not allowed. My understanding has been that if you petition something like this, the GMs will take action.
That being said, not being allowed to drop corp is a bad idea. Just make the war follow corp droppers and/or give them the blemish discussed at fanfest. The currently proposed idea of not letting them rejoin for a set period of time is laughable. |
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
649
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:34:00 -
[81] - Quote
Prisoner 002929 wrote:Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it.
If the CFC joined as an ally, the aggressor corp just hit the jackpot! That corp wold be worth big time ISK! "You want to have a war vs the Goons for only 50 million a week? Buy our corp!" http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:37:00 -
[82] - Quote
Quote:Another thing weGÇÖre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GÇô if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. WeGÇÖll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted. I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing. 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 |
Large Collidable Object
morons.
1458
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 22:53:00 -
[83] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Quote:Another thing weGÇÖre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GÇô if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. WeGÇÖll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted. I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.
I think the new system is pretty good to start with and watch player behaviour.
Maybe a grace period to retract the war (no refunds, but a possibility to get out without surrender) after it has been made mutual by the defender could be helpful for newb corps wardeccing without proper intel...
I for one am looking forward to provide free assistance to many corps asking for help (no - not with this character). You know... morons. |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
143
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 23:29:00 -
[84] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Quote:Another thing weGÇÖre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GÇô if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. WeGÇÖll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted. I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.
No, they started the war, and they'll suffer genuine consequences. The only corps that should not be trapped in a war are the mercs.
I would say it's fair to allow a timeout clause where a minimum price surrender is allowed. But only if both sides get that concession. The attacker has long been able to declare a war for an indefinite period of time (and still can), so long as they pay a small fee. That fee is still trivial to dec small corps.
If the attacker can trap a defender in a war for a trivial fee, then the defender should be able to trap the attacker in a war for significantly less in retaliation.
I'd say that after 90 days of war, a surrender option of a reasonable fee (perhaps equal to 1 month war fee) is available to both corps as an unrefusable offer. But the defenders get the right to screw over the attacker in some small way right now, and that is fair play.
Edit - regarding the above, I think that the get-out clause should specifically count as a surrender. 2 reasons: 1) They failed and deserve the negative mark on their record. 2) Surrender needs to become a more reasonable option to all parties, and the only way to do this is to decouple it from the idea of being a pinata. This provides a way to force corporations to have surrenders on record without necessarily making them ISK faucets. The surrender amount SHOULD NEVER be displayed in a place of record (nor available easily through the API). |
Dain Highwind
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 00:02:00 -
[85] - Quote
CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????
When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
678
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 00:31:00 -
[86] - Quote
Dain Highwind wrote:CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????
When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again.
O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing
|
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
679
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 01:31:00 -
[87] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Quote:Another thing weGÇÖre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GÇô if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. WeGÇÖll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted. I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing.
Exactly. This is what they want. It will create a market place for trust-able Merc corporations. I think this system is beyond your scope of thinking.
Vincent Athena wrote:Prisoner 002929 wrote:Say your 10 man corp has a legit beef w/ some guys who've been greifing you. Your corp declares war on the another 10 man corp. Little did you know it was a front corporation for goon and a trap. You've been baited and now you realize you've just accidentally dec'd the entire CFC and it costs them nothing. This could be a good thing or the most massive mistake you've ever made in eve. The point is that you have absolutely no way to judge the potential risk. By declaring one war you could literally be opening yourself to a wardec from all of eve and essentially you'd be paying for it. If the CFC joined as an ally, the aggressor corp just hit the jackpot! That corp wold be worth big time ISK! "You want to have a war vs the Goons for only 50 million a week? Buy our corp!"
Bingo |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
629
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 04:21:00 -
[88] - Quote
I think the "Ally till death do us part" thing is a bit weird.
You also don't address, how does the payment for the war dec change with an ally?
If Corp A were to war dec corp B, a 2 man corp, and corp B hires Corp C as mercs, a 100 man corp.
The cost doesn't change?
Doesn't this open up the ability to perma-lock a mercenary into a war? The fee is only 50m. The mercs are 100 man corp. Grief the mercs into accepting contract, pay for war on 2 man corp indefinitely. Rinse repeat.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Iam Widdershins
Diq Holdings
691
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 05:10:00 -
[89] - Quote
My first thoughts:
The marketplace looks good so far, but I'm a bit confused that it's a buyer's market only. Why can a mercenary corporation not put up an order for its own services, giving a seller's market as well? This could definitely serve to drive up the prices of war assistance and consequently bring a better driving force to the mercenary economy. It would also allow both mercenaries and defenders both an active and a passive option to finding contracts and allies.
Simply turn it around and allow a corp to advertise itself as "For hire" with its war history, desired fee, and capabilities on display; potential customers could offer them bids and explain the situation of the war in their application, and the mercenaries could then choose which contracts to accept.
My only other question is:
Quote:When you offer to ally someone, you must wait for them to respond, or 24 hours (which ever comes first) before making another formal offer. Does this mean before you can make another offer to ANYONE, or only if you can make another offer to that same corp? Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
fdk trade
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 05:21:00 -
[90] - Quote
It's not very cool.I don't think that I need system to tell me who will fight for me.The real rules are offline rules.That means when we say 'deal ' we can fight or not.This new ally system looks like some sh^t in warcraft instead of EVE online. |
|
carmelos53
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 06:10:00 -
[91] - Quote
Thank you CCP for once again IGNORING your player base and the very feedback you asked for. Well done *applause*
You surely have forgotten the obvious massive feedback so let me remind you: (oh and btw did t hilmar specifically say ccp would NOT be releasing anything unless it's 100% ready to go?)
1) still no neutral rr docking/gate jumping timer 2) unlimited defender allies??? Really?? No wait... REALLY???????? 3) You just KILLED the merc trade by forcing us to charge one LARGE lump sum instead of a weekly sum (as now we'd be stuck for an undetermined amount of time in a single dec). 4) back to number 2.... REALLY?????? |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
649
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 07:00:00 -
[92] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Dain Highwind wrote:CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????
When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again. O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing
Yay, sure, I could wardec A, offer him my alt B as mercenary ally and then get a free 10% additional insurance payback if he blows my stuff. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
145
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 07:18:00 -
[93] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:MotherMoon wrote:Dain Highwind wrote:CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????
When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again. O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing Yay, sure, I could wardec A, offer him my alt B as mercenary ally and then get a free 10% additional insurance payback if he blows my stuff.
Urgh, just because CCP hasn't implemented it for bounties in game does not mean that pretty much all the players have figured out an unexploitable method of dealing with bounty (which that suggestion effectively is) + insurance fraud. I bet you could even work it out yourself if you tried. |
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 08:08:00 -
[94] - Quote
This is destined to become the dumbest expansion ever. There are holes big enough to drive a tractor trailer through and EVERYTHING listed under the "Future" category should have been ready to roll with the rest of it. Almost nothing has changed for the better, and with neutral RR still in full force, the ONE thing that would make highsec wardecs a bit more manageable for the defenders is completely ignored. Whoever came up with this feature list for this expansion should be fired.
PCU below the low point of last year by mid-July, you can take it to the bank. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
415
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 09:03:00 -
[95] - Quote
Say, have you ever considered putting in real commitment and consequence for the attacking corporation?
How about, if the attacking corporation fails to inflict more damage (ISK value tracked in the War Report) than the defender at the end of a war (expires or one side surrender) every pilot who has been a member of the attacking corporation at one point during the war gets -2.0(?) to their personal security rating (CONCORD get pissed at people who bribes the system and fails to deliver)?
In mutual wars such penalty is voided.
Surely the aggressor would enter a war with some kind of expectation of being able to inflict damage to their enemy.
EDIT: The "unlimited allies for the defender" issue might need some fixing too. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 09:05:00 -
[96] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Jack Dant wrote:I can tell you right now, this is needed. Mutual wars and allies will be exploited to trap corps into free wars from day one. If left unfixed, pretty soon nobody will want to start wars or enter merc contracts. Unless that's your intention? Because it looks that way from the changes you are implementing. Exactly. This is what they want. It will create a market place for trust-able Merc corporations. I think this system is beyond your scope of thinking. Not really. It's not the mercs who need to be trustworthy, but their clients:
- Create fake alt corp (with trial accounts, it's easy to make it look like it has 30-50 members).
- Wardec corp with your main corp.
- Hire mercs to "defend" your fake alt corp.
- Make war mutual.
- Enjoy free unending war against merc corp, who now is overextended and can't take contracts.
Or even better:
- Create alt corp.
- Find one of those highsec alliances who think they are tough and dangerous because they have a POS in a lowsec deadend.
- Annoy the hell out of said alliance until they wardec the alt corp.
- Join war with main corp.
- Make war mutual.
- Enjoy free unending war against the alliance until they disband.
If this kind of trick becomes common, hiring mercs will be much harder. But it won't matter, because few people will bother declaring wars. 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 |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries Alliance not Found
43
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 09:21:00 -
[97] - Quote
Quote:Another thing weGÇÖre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GÇô if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. WeGÇÖll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.
Surely surrender of one side of the other is always the only way to end a war... It's just that in a non-mutual war the aggressor can obfuscate their surrender by accidentally not paying the bill.
There are also three valuable aspects of a war for a mercenary; the initial payment (which has an intrinsic value), the kills they achieve (which add to their killboard stats) and...
Quote:"Evil Pair of Ducks surrenders to Pair of Ducks and Buddies for Hire."
(or even better just the mail direct to Buddies for Hire, it depends on how the system treats Allies in that regard).
With wars having to be declared mutual very quickly this creates all sorts of logistics issues for mercenaries and defenders.
It also seems to me that the Mercenary Marketplace is significantly less than half finished, it currently gives mercenaries a place to shop for wars (although only the 50 most recent ones, which seems a bit silly) but offers nowhere for them to advertise their services (which would allow defenders to choose to approach allies with good reputations, good records of successful intervention...etc. and allow aggressors to look up the advertising of the ally they just got notified about and see what they say about themselves). |
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
30
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 09:40:00 -
[98] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed. Ummm yeah.... Is this going to be like the "make adjustments... in the future" similar to the way you guys were gonna improve Black Ops? Or deal with scripts? Or Gallente? Or sov wars? Or any of the other things that have been promised scrutiny and action? I only ask because CCP's track record has been... well.... utterly #$^@ing terrible in that regard.
Or would it be more reasonable for us to assume that these are going to be the wardec destroying changes that we will be stuck with for the next few years as you are distracted by whatever new shiny pops up?
|
Severian Carnifex
183
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 10:35:00 -
[99] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:Dain Highwind wrote:CCP you are introducing a new awesome feature as killreports where you can see the isk destroyed in the kill. Is it really that difficult to pay mercenaries an agreed % of isk per kill????
When you first said "there will be a mercenary marketplace" i was very exited, now i realize that you ****** all it up again. O.o, wow your right, that would be amazing
CCP ****** it all... again. Where is that yours "commitment" for the attacker???
But this is MUST!!!! Put in this option of automatic paying agreed % of isk per inflicted damage. If ally kill their pirate BS with worth 3B with modules and we agreed to pay ally 20% of their kill value, 600mill is transfered from my corp account to ally corp account. First time there is no enough money, ally contract is void. There can be and some one time fee at beginning too but it don't have to be.
This way ally must do their job for money. No kills no money. And this way ally get more money if they are good at what they do. And you cant trap them for noting - they kill you must pay.
And maybe you can add contract with max damage. When ally kill XXX isk contract is over. That wold be for contracts where sides agree for bigger fee upfront and small or none per inflicted damage. |
Swidgen
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 10:35:00 -
[100] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:That being said, not being allowed to drop corp is a bad idea. Just make the war follow corp droppers and/or give them the blemish discussed at fanfest. The currently proposed idea of not letting them rejoin for a set period of time is laughable. What's even more laughable is the idea of giving a blemish to players who drop corp in order to dodge a wardec while refusing to name and shame characters banned for botting and RMT'ing. Let the punishment fit the crime, and bona fide cheaters deserve at least the same treatment.
One thing at a time, please, and CCP is going to have about a dozen things to fix after this fiasco goes live. Another half baked expansion, badly conceived with an awful implementation. Whatever. Anyone who saw the FF presentation about the new wardec system knows it was thrown together in a day or two without giving any serious thought to how the sandbox actually works. |
|
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
295
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 10:44:00 -
[101] - Quote
Rome wasn't build in a day, but I think it's a step in the right direction. I really, really would not abandon this but follow up for at least a year as people will find all the loopholes and abuse possiblities of course. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Thomas Kreshant
Fweddit
85
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 11:58:00 -
[102] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Or even better:
- Create alt corp.
- Find one of those highsec alliances who think they are tough and dangerous because they have a POS in a lowsec deadend.
- Annoy the hell out of said alliance until they wardec the alt corp.
- Join war with main corp.
- Make war mutual.
- Enjoy free unending war against the alliance until they disband.
If this kind of trick becomes common, hiring mercs will be much harder. But it won't matter, because few people will bother declaring wars.
That doesn't work, mutual wars can't have allies any existing contracts are also cancelled. |
Aemonchichi
Limited Access Guardian Society
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 12:14:00 -
[103] - Quote
ccp doesnt want a commitment of the attacker^^ they seem to favor grps of players that decide to **** in the sandbox
i dare not to make speculations why they do that but its sad enough they do it
as long as the crimewatch is not in full effect the new wardec system is worth shiat, neuts can continue to do their thing
it would have been smart to implement the crimewatch first before bringing the new wardec system because the new system need the crimewatch to be based upon - other way around is just crap |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 12:15:00 -
[104] - Quote
Thomas Kreshant wrote:mutual wars can't have allies any existing contracts are also cancelled. You are wrong. That's in the "future" side of the devblog, things CCP is thinking about doing post-expansion. My argument is that, without that safeguard, the war system will never work. 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 |
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 12:49:00 -
[105] - Quote
MY overall impression of these war changes is that CCP are revamping a system that not a single one of their employees actually uses at present.
That's understandable, because right now it sucks.
I think they have a hugely naive, idealistic vision of highsec warfare.
In CCP's world, wars exist either for highsec entities to increase their dominance over their rivals in a particular area, or for nullsec alliances to disrupt their nullsec rivals' highsec operations to gain a logistical advantage over them in sov warfare. Those are both noble enough intentions, but it's just not the way it happens.
In the real world, highsec wars exist as a way for players who want to play a bit more casually to get PVP without having to spend as much time running logistics and carebearing with alts just to support themselves as they do actually playing the part of the game they enjoy.
The biggest problem with highsec wars, which is also the one that these changes do absolutely nothing to address, is that there is no incentive for the defender in a war to fight. This is compounded by the fact that there are a myriad of ways for a defender to get out of the war with zero penalty. Until they do something about this, wars will always suck for the full time wardeccer. This is why I think it's a feature that CCP don't actively engage in at present, because this major issue is totally ignored in this expansion.
Now, it may be that is CCP's intention. If that's the case, I wish they'd come out and say it. Do they intend for wars to be a means rather than an end? Right now wars are a viable (just about) profession in themselves. A living can be made off shooting bears' POSes, blowing their ships up and taking the loot, and just holding them to ransom. If this is a profession that CCP don't want to exist in the game, please, please tell us this so as we can stop wasting our time, rather than just nerfing it to oblivion and pretending you're giving us a wardec boost. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
652
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 12:55:00 -
[106] - Quote
Pere Madeleine wrote:MY overall impression of these war changes is that CCP are revamping a system that not a single one of their employees actually uses at present.
That's understandable, because right now it sucks.
I think they have a hugely naive, idealistic vision of highsec warfare.
In CCP's world, wars exist either for highsec entities to increase their dominance over their rivals in a particular area, or for nullsec alliances to disrupt their nullsec rivals' highsec operations to gain a logistical advantage over them in sov warfare. Those are both noble enough intentions, but it's just not the way it happens.
In the real world, highsec wars exist as a way for players who want to play a bit more casually to get PVP without having to spend as much time running logistics and carebearing with alts just to support themselves as they do actually playing the part of the game they enjoy.
The biggest problem with highsec wars, which is also the one that these changes do absolutely nothing to address, is that there is no incentive for the defender in a war to fight. This is compounded by the fact that there are a myriad of ways for a defender to get out of the war with zero penalty. Until they do something about this, wars will always suck for the full time wardeccer. This is why I think it's a feature that CCP don't actively engage in at present, because this major issue is totally ignored in this expansion.
Now, it may be that is CCP's intention. If that's the case, I wish they'd come out and say it. Do they intend for wars to be a means rather than an end? Right now wars are a viable (just about) profession in themselves. A living can be made off shooting bears' POSes, blowing their ships up and taking the loot, and just holding them to ransom. If this is a profession that CCP don't want to exist in the game, please, please tell us this so as we can stop wasting our time, rather than just nerfing it to oblivion and pretending you're giving us a wardec boost.
I heard that you don't need to wardec in lowsec, so you can go PvP there if you got the right stuff. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 13:24:00 -
[107] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
I heard that you don't need to wardec in lowsec, so you can go PvP there if you got the right stuff.
Really? What is this lowsec of which you speak? I've never heard of such a thing. It must be a magical place with dragons, and unicorns, and all kinds of stuff, where the good fights flow from neverending fountains of awesomesauce! |
Tex Bloodhunter
Konstrukteure der Zukunft The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 14:56:00 -
[108] - Quote
1. IMO enhancing the ally contract system is absolutely vital. When you agree on a contract both sides need to be clear about what they get and what they have to do. With the current implementation there is a fixed amount of ISK for a war that might last forever. This is really bad for mercenaries as they have an interest in maximizing their ISK/hour reward since PVP is their main profession. Introducing fixed contract lengths is just one option here. There also might be recurring payments. There also should be an option for the ally to back out of a contract (after fixed length contract or after the current cycle of recurring extension).
2. The current system also just allows mercenaries become active by aiding a defending party. But this is just one side of the medal. As surely mercenaries will do anything as long as they get to fight and are paid in ISK, they gladly would like to offer their services in an aggressive role. So if a corp/alliance needs a POS removed or just wants to be the only one operating on a trade route they should be able to put out a war request. They would offer a fixed/recurring amount of money to mercenaries in exchange for war being waged on some poor corp/alliance. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:35:00 -
[109] - Quote
Tex Bloodhunter wrote:1. IMO enhancing the ally contract system is absolutely vital. When you agree on a contract both sides need to be clear about what they get and what they have to do. With the current implementation there is a fixed amount of ISK for a war that might last forever. This is really bad for mercenaries as they have an interest in maximizing their ISK/hour reward since PVP is their main profession. Introducing fixed contract lengths is just one option here. There also might be recurring payments. There also should be an option for the ally to back out of a contract (after fixed length contract or after the current cycle of recurring extension).
2. The current system also just allows mercenaries become active by aiding a defending party. But this is just one side of the medal. As surely mercenaries will do anything as long as they get to fight and are paid in ISK, they gladly would like to offer their services in an aggressive role. So if a corp/alliance needs a POS removed or just wants to be the only one operating on a trade route they should be able to put out a war request. They would offer a fixed/recurring amount of money to mercenaries in exchange for war being waged on some poor corp/alliance.
Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world.
Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one. So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be.
Finally, there is nothing stopping people for hiring mercenaries to help them in a war they started. They just have to have the mercenaries declare war on whomever they are fighting (presumably footing the bill). This is business as usual for mercenary corps. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:45:00 -
[110] - Quote
Pere Madeleine wrote:MY overall impression of these war changes is that CCP are revamping a system that not a single one of their employees actually uses at present.
That's understandable, because right now it sucks.
I think they have a hugely naive, idealistic vision of highsec warfare.
In CCP's world, wars exist either for highsec entities to increase their dominance over their rivals in a particular area, or for nullsec alliances to disrupt their nullsec rivals' highsec operations to gain a logistical advantage over them in sov warfare. Those are both noble enough intentions, but it's just not the way it happens.
In the real world, highsec wars exist as a way for players who want to play a bit more casually to get PVP without having to spend as much time running logistics and carebearing with alts just to support themselves as they do actually playing the part of the game they enjoy.
The biggest problem with highsec wars, which is also the one that these changes do absolutely nothing to address, is that there is no incentive for the defender in a war to fight. This is compounded by the fact that there are a myriad of ways for a defender to get out of the war with zero penalty. Until they do something about this, wars will always suck for the full time wardeccer. This is why I think it's a feature that CCP don't actively engage in at present, because this major issue is totally ignored in this expansion.
Now, it may be that is CCP's intention. If that's the case, I wish they'd come out and say it. Do they intend for wars to be a means rather than an end? Right now wars are a viable (just about) profession in themselves. A living can be made off shooting bears' POSes, blowing their ships up and taking the loot, and just holding them to ransom. If this is a profession that CCP don't want to exist in the game, please, please tell us this so as we can stop wasting our time, rather than just nerfing it to oblivion and pretending you're giving us a wardec boost.
Regarding incentives to fight wars (whether as aggressor or defender), it is our belief that the main incentives should not be created by the war mechanic itself. The war mechanic is just a tool by which players can legally engage other players, but why they want to do so isn't handled by the war mechanic system itself (and shouldn't be). Now, it can be argued that Inferno isn't affecting the incentives much (and I won't deny that's the case), but the war theme lasts throughout the year, so we'll see what happens on that front later this year.
Whether fighting wars can be a career path, we belief it can (and want to support it to a point), but again, the war mechanic is just a tool, and it all depends on how you use the tool. Ideally, the biggest reward monetary and status wise should come from fighting those strong enough and interested enough to put up a fight, but EVE being what EVE is, this can of course never be guaranteed. |
|
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:52:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world. You completely obviated case d) the aggressor kicks the merc's ass and just keeps attacking the original defender. Way more common than you'd think.
Quote:Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one. Neither were mercs forced by CCP to stay in the war until the end. Right now, a merc corp has to declare war on the aggressor on their own, so they keep control over the length of the war. That's the control they lose with the ally system. Yes, they can keep using the current method. But if the best candidates for the ally system have to avoid using it, why did you implement it? :CCP:?
Quote:So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be. But the issue is not with the merc's reputation, but with the client's. Currently, if the client stops paying the bill, the mercs can just pull out of the war. With the ally system, they are stuck with it until the end.
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 |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:55:00 -
[112] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:My first thoughts: The marketplace looks good so far, but I'm a bit confused that it's a buyer's market only. Why can a mercenary corporation not put up an order for its own services, giving a seller's market as well? This could definitely serve to drive up the prices of war assistance and consequently bring a better driving force to the mercenary economy. It would also allow both mercenaries and defenders both an active and a passive option to finding contracts and allies. Simply turn it around and allow a corp to advertise itself as "For hire" with its war history, desired fee, and capabilities on display; potential customers could offer them bids and explain the situation of the war in their application, and the mercenaries could then choose which contracts to accept. My only other question is: Quote:When you offer to ally someone, you must wait for them to respond, or 24 hours (which ever comes first) before making another formal offer. Does this mean before you can make another offer to ANYONE, or only if you can make another offer to that same corp?
Regarding the marketplace - yes, we totally want to give mercenary corporations the ability to advertise themselves. Maybe we can add that for the August release (no promises though, all I'm saying is we'll look into whether it can be done). The mercenary marketplace term is a bit of a misnomer as it stands right now (and that term isn't used anywhere in the game itself). Hopefully we can take it all the way in the next few months.
As for the second question, this only applies for each ally offer sent, not overall. So you can have several ally offers on the table at the same time, but only one per corp. |
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
509
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 17:03:00 -
[113] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding incentives to fight wars (whether as aggressor or defender), it is our belief that the main incentives should not be created by the war mechanic itself. The war mechanic is just a tool by which players can legally engage other players, but why they want to do so isn't handled by the war mechanic system itself (and shouldn't be). Now, it can be argued that Inferno isn't affecting the incentives much (and I won't deny that's the case), but the war theme lasts throughout the year, so we'll see what happens on that front later this year. No, you are not touching incentives much. But you are adding extra disincentives for the aggressors in the form of extra costs and extra risks. So it will most likely lead to less aggressors, and so fewer wars and less need for mercenaries.
Quote:Ideally, the biggest reward monetary and status wise should come from fighting those strong enough and interested enough to put up a fight Monetary reward? That is impossible in EVE's PVP model. 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 |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 17:03:00 -
[114] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world. You completely obviated case d) the aggressor kicks the merc's ass and just keeps attacking the original defender. Way more common than you'd think. Quote:Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one. Neither were mercs forced by CCP to stay in the war until the end. Right now, a merc corp has to declare war on the aggressor on their own, so they keep control over the length of the war. That's the control they lose with the ally system. Yes, they can keep using the current method. But if the best candidates for the ally system have to avoid using it, why did you implement it? :CCP:? Quote:So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be. But the issue is not with the merc's reputation, but with the client's. Currently, if the client stops paying the bill, the mercs can just pull out of the war. With the ally system, they are stuck with it until the end.
The crux of the matter here is how much it matters for the mercenary corp to be in a war that they're not actively engaged in for whatever reason. Yes, having an active war that you're not pursuing is not ideal, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker either. What matters for the merc corps (and their clients) is where it's operating (and against whom). Again, this is one we're actively monitoring and looking into changing post-Inferno. |
|
bornaa
GRiD.
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 19:09:00 -
[115] - Quote
@ CCP SoniClover
are you going to look at adding of possibility of paying ally by % of ISK damage they inflicted to attacker?
Many people have talked about that and i think it would be great. That Ain't Right |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 19:18:00 -
[116] - Quote
bornaa wrote:@ CCP SoniClover
are you going to look at adding of possibility of paying ally by % of ISK damage they inflicted to attacker?
Many people have talked about that and i think it would be great.
We-¦ve discussed similar things in the past, such as the defender putting an X amount of ISK into escrow, which then is used to pay an ally for some events (reimbursement, kill reward, etc.). We scoped it out of the initial iteration that is coming out in Inferno, but maybe it can be added later (and then maybe as part of a bigger system for allowing people to make formal contracts of all kinds). We-¦ll see, personally I would love something like this, but one step at a time |
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
506
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:35:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world.
Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one. So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be.
Finally, there is nothing stopping people for hiring mercenaries to help them in a war they started. They just have to have the mercenaries declare war on whomever they are fighting (presumably footing the bill). This is business as usual for mercenary corps.
......
Regarding the marketplace - yes, we totally want to give mercenary corporations the ability to advertise themselves. Maybe we can add that for the August release (no promises though, all I'm saying is we'll look into whether it can be done). The mercenary marketplace term is a bit of a misnomer as it stands right now (and that term isn't used anywhere in the game itself). Hopefully we can take it all the way in the next few months.
As for the second question, this only applies for each ally offer sent, not overall. So you can have several ally offers on the table at the same time, but only one per corp.
......
The crux of the matter here is how much it matters for the mercenary corp to be in a war that they're not actively engaged in for whatever reason. Yes, having an active war that you're not pursuing is not ideal, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker either. What matters for the merc corps (and their clients) is where it's operating (and against whom). Again, this is one we're actively monitoring and looking into changing post-Inferno.
First thing's first to the players, unfortunately the neutral RR changes can't make it into Inferno due to the complexity of Crimewatch. It would have been nice to have the RR and war mechanic changes hit at the same time but nothing to be done about it. Second, I agree the unlimited and cost-free nature of the ally system does shut out the middle-ground of empire players by making it unthinkably risky for anyone but a hardcore PVP corp to declare war. CSM did not have a look at this blog before it went out.
And now for CCP SoniClover. As I've tried to communicate several times, the ally system as proposed (and advertised) does more than just brush against the mercenary system.
1. Calling it the "Mercenary Marketplace" and so prominently featuring your war tracking feature as a way to identify good mercs does not add to what mercs are in EVE's informal system, it undermines it by pulling away the definition and confusing potential customers. New players and those unfamiliar with mercs are already unsure of who to trust or how it works. The mercenary community has worked hard to develop safe places for players to go for units (Merc Contracts Channel) and promote the mercenary option to players (see my article in EON Magazine for just one example). Now you're pushing this new mechanic of defender ally performance tracking as a major measure of finding a trustworthy merc, the merc marketplace as the way for mercs to find work and people to put their needs, and saying the only official use of the term merc will be for people who go through this system. A merc's rep is currently and probably should be equal parts kb numbers and employer satisfaction/word of mouth; this new system only tracks their performance on wardecs without consideration of how they do on other types of jobs if they are not a pure war dec corp (not supported) or on offensive wars (not supported) meaning mercs who still want to be mercs as EVE has understood them for years will still need to maintain an independent killboard/contract history AND have the additional burden of explaining to new players how the in game merc mechanic isnt the real one (kinda like the bounty system now) and how their in game war records aren't reflective of their abilities (which also opens another opportunity for players to get scammed by ****** "mercs")
2. Remember that word of mouth part of a merc corps rep? The ally system will also undermine that too. "c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else" Well no offense but **** you we can. When you accept a contract you are responsible for completing it and your performance while doing so. If the attackers dock up for a few days but extend the war, the mercs cant just up and leave. If the targets undock and blow up more of the client, that will be tracked on the war reports and the employers will be pissed the mercs didnt do their job. No recurring payments but no withdraw for allies means that a www.noirmercs.com Now Recruiting CSM7, CSM 4 |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
506
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:35:00 -
[118] - Quote
serious merc who actually does want to take such contracts will need to charge a massive fee upfront to make it worth the potentially substantial time investment and potenial boredom/hard fighting. They cant charge a normal weekly rate because the defender they're helping has no incentive to pay that second week; if the mercs refuse to fight the week they arnt paid it will look badly on their war record and the attackers can still shoot them, meanwhile the defender/client has no such permanent record. So having an "inactive" war is a no-win situation for a merc. As was mentioned pay per kill will not be supported on release so there's not even a way to mititgate the non recurring payments problem.
3. Recall above having to charge a large upfront fee for a merc to agree to the potential time and risk investment of an allies contract. Now contrast that with the approach taken by more casual PVP corps and alliances who seek to use the ally system not as a vehicle for the mercenary profession but a cheap way to get as many war targets as possible. They will offer free ally contracts to EVERYONE, literally as many as they can click. They may not fight or do great in any one of these wars, but there is no downside for a defender to accept their help so it will be accepted. So what would you rather have: one unit at current merc services rates which cost 1 bil- 2 bil a week (Noir. prices for reference, but wont be too far behind or above) increasing to likely 3b-6b (assuming a 2 week possible extension, which is the minimum pad I'd expect people to throw in) or infinite numbers of casual PVP corps/alliances looking for as many ally contracts as they can find for 0 cost to you (if one isnt enough just accept more and more and more ally contracts till your attacker is blobbed out and doesnt renew)?
All three taken together means this system will eliminate defensive empire mercing as a viable profession, limiting offensive empire mercing to all but the hardest core unit or units people are willing to pay billions upon billions for and who can handle fighting LARGE blobs, and undermining defensive empire mercs, offensive war mercs, and any mercs trying to offer combat services in W-space, 0.0, and lowsec and non-direct combat services (escort, training, etc) everywhere.
And not to mention all the potential exploits of infiniwars locking down mercs with "inactive" wars against alt corps that could flood w alts at the mechanic abuser's convenience as discussed in previous posts.
The CSM would really like to talk to you on the CCP/CSM forum https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110792&find=unread so these concerns can be substantively addressed before players expectations (and fears) are set, and perhaps addressed before the Inferno patch. www.noirmercs.com Now Recruiting CSM7, CSM 4 |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
3476
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:49:00 -
[119] - Quote
More blogs!! <333
|
|
Endeavour Starfleet
817
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 21:22:00 -
[120] - Quote
CCP lets make things clear.
The people whining about "OH NOES UNLIMITED ALLIES" and "GIVE THEM TEH CONCORD COST!" in my opinion are or have alts doing griefing against corps that don't know how to shred or fight back. So please continue to allow unlimited allies without any cost.
"But we will be blobbed by allies!!!" Oh you (I mean the players doing these current decs) mean for once you will get to experience what everyone you have deced has experienced? Weeks docked in station playing other games because someone needs a lol?
You are used to no risk decs. Now it will have risk. If you want CONCORD fee for more allies then there needs to be a massive increase in price to start a war to match it. |
|
Kuroi Hoshi
Ajo Heavy Industries
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 22:04:00 -
[121] - Quote
From my understanding with the proposed system I could do the following:
1. Sneak a corp thief (or thieves) into a bunch of carebear corps and steal their stuff. 2. Join my new corp called Team Punching Bag with all of those corp thieves. 3. Wait for the wardecs from the carebear corps for revenge 4. When they come call on my allies (all in griefer corps) 5. Mutual every war
From my understanding the carebear corporations will have to effectively disband to avoid being hunted down in HS forever by my allies for free. I have no real incentive to accept a surrender because we're getting to beat up on some bears indefinitely for no cost. Their only choice is to disband which makes the victory even sweeter.
The proposed system seems like a terrible mistake waiting to happen for a corporation to use that has a PvE/PvP split because if they dec another they could pay for it for their rest of their corp's life. |
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 22:27:00 -
[122] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding incentives to fight wars (whether as aggressor or defender), it is our belief that the main incentives should not be created by the war mechanic itself. The war mechanic is just a tool by which players can legally engage other players, but why they want to do so isn't handled by the war mechanic system itself (and shouldn't be). Now, it can be argued that Inferno isn't affecting the incentives much (and I won't deny that's the case), but the war theme lasts throughout the year, so we'll see what happens on that front later this year.
Whether fighting wars can be a career path, we belief it can (and want to support it to a point), but again, the war mechanic is just a tool, and it all depends on how you use the tool. Ideally, the biggest reward monetary and status wise should come from fighting those strong enough and interested enough to put up a fight, but EVE being what EVE is, this can of course never be guaranteed.
Jack has already said pretty much what I have said, but I'll just add that I think you're missing the point of my post. You're right, the war mechanic is just a tool, I agree, and I also agree that the reasons for going to war shouldn't come from game mechanics. However, the big problem is that when an industrial corp is AT war, they have no incentive to actually take part in that war.
For example, the normal situation right now, if a 15 man corp decs a 100 man industrial corp, the industrial corp will just refuse to undock for a week. It would be more fun for all involved if they just got everybody in a ship with guns, and blobbed the aggressors. They might actually win, and the aggressors will probably have a good time anyway, because they're in it for fights. The one thing that's not fun for anyone is for the defenders to not log on for a week and the aggressors camp the one or two who do log on in a station while they AFK.
The aggressors in highsec wars usually pick targets they think they can get reasonably even fights out of. When deccing indy corps, this usually means about 5-10 times your member count, because that seems to be the minimum ratio they're willing to undock at. If you make it quick and easy for them to call in reinforcements, you then give them more incentives to just hire mercs that have twice as many members as the aggressors. A blob of indy players in drakes vs a small gang of full time PVPers can be an even fight. But a blob of full time PVPers vs full time PVPers is just blobbing. Nobody likes blobbing. Stop encouraging it.
|
Y3R M4W
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 01:33:00 -
[123] - Quote
Without a time frame the risks of being an ally (without personal interest, e.g. a mercenary rather than a friendly corp/alliance) prevent any realistic pricing, as the defending corporation could effectively hold the ally in the war dec forever.
Say corp A declares a war on friendly corp B, makes it mutual. Then corp B enlists some ally corp C, suckered in by the tantalising prospect of usable mercenary mechanics, for which corp B pays X. Then corp B proceeds to afk/jump ship to A/remote-rep A and both grief poor corp C, unless they pay ALL THE MONEY to end the war.
Or they could disband their corp, which is increasingly looking to be the response CCP are aiming for.
The scale of these changes are far too large to be rushed in, a mercenary market and new war mechanics are HUGE features and deserve to be given the amount of care they need to work well (alternatively give up the massive patch approach so there's less resentment and butthurt when you can't deliver what's promised/implied). |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
693
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 03:05:00 -
[124] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding incentives to fight wars (whether as aggressor or defender), it is our belief that the main incentives should not be created by the war mechanic itself. The war mechanic is just a tool by which players can legally engage other players, but why they want to do so isn't handled by the war mechanic system itself (and shouldn't be). What we -- I believe I can speak for myself, Jack Dant, Aleks, and others -- what we are trying to get across is that this ideal is laudable. Incentives should be in the fight, not in the mechanic. THEREFORE, the significant and worrying disincentives offered up by these new mechanics -- in the form of greatly elevated costs, dozens of freeloader allies picking up war after war after war to get free targets, etc. -- are going to be the real mechanics that are driving and determining the outcomes under the new system.
This is no healthier than a 'gameified' system with built-in rewards and incentives for warfare, because it is the mirror image of the same thing: built in disincentives and risks to participating in warfare at all that must now be overcome before a war is even considered.
There need to be checks and balances in order for a system like this to maintain its widespread usability, and for something that is planned to be the theme of the upcoming expansion, there are an awful lot of checks and precious few balances. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Endeavour Starfleet
818
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 03:19:00 -
[125] - Quote
Awww look at the whittle gankers and griefers now scared that they actually will be on the receiving end of a blob for once. This is almost as good as the pirate whines when CCP boosted concord to stop the completely free ganks that were happening beforehand.
CCP you are doing the right thing. I do agree that the mutual issue needs to be addressed but their other whines are just because they are scared that they cant game the system for free ganks and the joy of causing people to remain logged off anymore. |
Cannibal Kane
Viziam Amarr Empire
385
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 03:34:00 -
[126] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Awww look at the whittle gankers and griefers now scared that they actually will be on the receiving end of a blob for once. This is almost as good as the pirate whines when CCP boosted concord to stop the completely free ganks that were happening beforehand.
CCP you are doing the right thing. I do agree that the mutual issue needs to be addressed but their other whines are just because they are scared that they cant game the system for free ganks and the joy of causing people to remain logged off anymore.
You talk to much about things you seem to know nothing about. I remember calling you a moron in another thread a long time ago, I guess your keeping the label.
In any event...
There are a couple... very few in fact that dec larger than Life corp/alliance solo Like myself to get stories that we post in c/p for others entertainment. Now I am nowhere near some of the Solo guys that has been entertaining people with their blogs for years but these cost changes effectively kills my solo ability to that and theirs.
Those that say this is a MMO and I must get into the picture and join corps, get a clue.
It is unfortuanate since there is not a week that goes by where people don't send me mails or greet me in local that they love reading my stuff. This is what I love to do, those few and dare to be great moments. The younger little man bringing an entire alliance to it's knees.
All it means I now have to chance my gameplay by joining a larger entity that does not worry about cost. I just have to think differently on how to get those interesting and larger than life kills/mails/convos. I cannot afford to the new cost dec large alliance anymore, and i will be damned if I buy plex just to do that. Even deccing 3 corps in the new system will cost 300mil a week. Those piping do PVE.... you to get a clue. Alot of my isk comes from people who like what i do... people who want me to stop what I am doing to their corp, and just fans buying me faction BS.
So here I am most likely just going to become another CEO pawn, gun, and thats going to kill me.
I like the new system, but it going to kill the solo artist as i like to call those guys. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 03:36:00 -
[127] - Quote
Lots of good ideas and some even good opinions being posted. My initial take on the allies and costs would have to be: "the defender didn't WarDec anyone and should never have to pay for any allies to join in." Well, except of course if they are hiring the ally but, that's paid to the ally and not CONCORD.
Nothing clever at this time. |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 03:39:00 -
[128] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Awww look at the whittle gankers and griefers now scared that they actually will be on the receiving end of a blob for once. This is almost as good as the pirate whines when CCP boosted concord to stop the completely free ganks that were happening beforehand.
CCP you are doing the right thing. I do agree that the mutual issue needs to be addressed but their other whines are just because they are scared that they cant game the system for free ganks and the joy of causing people to remain logged off anymore. You talk to much about things you seem to know nothing about. I remember calling you a moron in another thread, I guess your keeping the label.
Moron is a good label for someone like him.
Infinite allies for potentially no cost! If anyone is looking for a free gun for hire, I would like to participate in such a scheme. |
Nick Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 03:39:00 -
[129] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Awww look at the whittle gankers and griefers now scared that they actually will be on the receiving end of a blob for once. This is almost as good as the pirate whines when CCP boosted concord to stop the completely free ganks that were happening beforehand.
CCP you are doing the right thing. I do agree that the mutual issue needs to be addressed but their other whines are just because they are scared that they cant game the system for free ganks and the joy of causing people to remain logged off anymore. You talk to much about things you seem to know nothing about. I remember calling you a moron in another thread, I guess your keeping the label. In any event... There are a couple... very few in fact that dec larger than Life corp/alliance solo Like myself to get stories that we post in c/p for others entertainment. Now I am nowhere near some of the Solo guys that has been entertaining people with their blogs for years but these cost changes effectively kills my solo ability to that and theirs. Those that say this is a MMO and I must get into the picture and join corps, get a clue. It is unfortuanate since there is not a week that goes by where people don't send me mails or greet me in local that they love reading my stuff. This is what I love to do, those few and dare to be great moments. The younger little man bringing an entire alliance to it's knees. All it means I now have to chance my gameplay by joining a larger entity that does not worry about cost. I just have to think differently on how to get those interesting and larger than life kills/mails/convos. I cannot afford to the new cost dec large alliance anymore, and i will be damned if I buy plex just to do that. Even deccing 3 corps in the new system will cost 300mil a week. Those piping do PVE.... you to get a clue. Alot of my isk comes from people who like what i do... people who want me to stop what I am doing to their corp, and just fans buying me faction BS. So here I am most likely just going to become another CEO pawn, gun, and thats going to kill me. I like the new system, but it going to kill the solo artist as i like to call those guys.
Please don't change your gameplay. It's just fine and I am sure there will be a fair number of very small corps being WarDec'd by big alliances that would be glad to have you as an Ally. You'll still get to shoot big alliances ... but for free!
Nothing clever at this time. |
Endeavour Starfleet
818
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 04:41:00 -
[130] - Quote
Could care less about your stories or blogs or whatnot. Fact is finally something is happening that will allow people to do something other than dock up for a week or lose ship after ship when they try to fight a grief group alone.
Enjoyed their tears? Now I am enjoying yours! CCP did the right thing. |
|
MooKids
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 05:23:00 -
[131] - Quote
Stupid phone, I made a reply about this yesterday and it didn't go through. So anyways...
One complaint I saw is that if Corp A is wardecced by Corp B, Corp A then calls in Corp C as a defender, but Corp C is working for Corp B, just to get Corp A's ISK for accepting the contract.
So why not have an OPTIONAL bounty system setup, these guys are mercs, make them earn their money!
Here is an example I had in mind.
Corp A sets up a contract for an ally to protect them. Reward for accepting the contract is 1m, followed by 200m in ship kill bounties offered. Corp A then can set the bounty for specific ship classes, such as 5k for a frigate, 500k for a battleship, 5m for a logistics, 8m for a HAC, etc. All this will be visible by the merc corps applying. Corp A could also set a minimum threshold of bounty rewards before the total is paid off to the merc corp to ensure that they do fight or no pay, but have the option to pay them regardless.
Once the bounty rewards are used up, the contract ends with an option to renew by Corp A. By having Corp A set the bounty prices, if they do it right, they can avoid insurance fraud, or at least profitable fraud. And like I said, it can be an optional addition.
I realize that CCP wants it simple to begin with, but might be good for future improvements. |
Endeavour Starfleet
818
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 05:30:00 -
[132] - Quote
Didn't they say they wanted to implement features like that in the future?
They wont get the right feedback on it anyway. They are going to have to dig though more pages of these whines "OH NOES I CANT RISK FREE DEC ANYMORE!" Let the idiots get used to the fact and calm down then CCP can take time to make it more advanced. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
695
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 06:16:00 -
[133] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Didn't they say they wanted to implement features like that in the future?
They wont get the right feedback on it anyway. They are going to have to dig though more pages of these whines "OH NOES I CANT RISK FREE DEC ANYMORE!" Let the idiots get used to the fact and calm down then CCP can take time to make it more advanced. You do have a point, but you have to keep in mind, it cuts both ways.
On one hand, CCP is trying to deploy a framework with the expectation of fixing things and expanding to take care of buildup by the half-expansion patch, and that's good. Getting things into the wild sooner rather than later can be important, otherwise there will be major deployment problems and nobody wants that.
On the other hand... the players have a lot of concerns. CCP shares many of these concerns and is aware of these problems, but they need to both be given the opportunity to answer concerns from the playerbase then actually take this opportunity to be vocal, letting the player know what their longer term plan is in more detail in the first place. It's still hard for them because they have to give the right amount of information, without being too verbose and ruining the future of the game for people or causing needless conjecture on ideas that are not finished.
It's really something both sides need to work on. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
511
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 09:25:00 -
[134] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:There need to be checks and balances in order for a system like this to maintain its widespread usability, and for something that is planned to be the theme of the upcoming expansion, there are an awful lot of checks and precious few balances. This, pretty much. They are marketing the expansion as a "war" expansion, but making wars less common.
Also, I think SoniClover's line here shows a basic disconnect with EVE:
CCP SoniClover wrote:Ideally, the biggest reward monetary and status wise should come from fighting those strong enough and interested enough to put up a fight, "Status reward" is subjective, and so hard to quantify. But money-wise, the best reward in EVE always comes from fighting those who do not expect, do not want, and are not ready to fight. They offer little risk to the attacker, who then can minimize his losses. And because they don't expect to lose their ships, they will have the best loot.
You cannot change that without changing the PVP model completely, and, as Widdershins says, "game-fy" it, which would destroy it if you were successful. 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 |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 11:13:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:bornaa wrote:@ CCP SoniClover
are you going to look at adding of possibility of paying ally by % of ISK damage they inflicted to attacker?
Many people have talked about that and i think it would be great. We-¦ve discussed similar things in the past, such as the defender putting an X amount of ISK into escrow, which then is used to pay an ally for some events (reimbursement, kill reward, etc.). We scoped it out of the initial iteration that is coming out in Inferno, but maybe it can be added later (and then maybe as part of a bigger system for allowing people to make formal contracts of all kinds). We-¦ll see, personally I would love something like this, but one step at a time
great idea, and hope you do this soon, and you do it could be the same system thats used for bounty and bounty hunting!!!! 2 systems fixed 1 system |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
120
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:09:00 -
[136] - Quote
Massive bad feedback on a devblog : CHECK Half of the posts are made by mercs : CHECK (I have yet to ind a merc happy with the changes)
Because...
High wardec fee making small corps/solo highsec pirate (like my bro' Cane) : CHECK High wardec fee creating a new decshield for any big alliance : CHECK Worst thing about highsec pvp still active (RR neutral) : CHECK "Ally mechanism" that is full of loopholes (and most of them were already voiced before) : CHECK The defenser can still drop his corp at any moment, so they dont feel they have something to fight for : CHECK The agressor can still join a wardecing corp at any moment (and the exploit about joining near a soon-to-be wartarget is still working) : CHECK The only valid targets of a wardec are still POSes, because shooting 50m EHP is fun, and it's not like they could unanchor it before the wardec : CHECK CCP not listening to its player : CHECK
The only positive thing in this update is the "invulnerable POS loophole" that is getting removed. And I do not forget that it's CCP that made it 1) possible 2) not an exploit anymore 3) refused to do a patch for it. |
Svalinn
SOMER Blink Cognitive Development
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:16:00 -
[137] - Quote
Unfortunately I can't see this change resulting in anything other than a complete stiffling of the mercenary market as it is currently, and a general de-valueing of what existing corporations have built in the absence of CCP's presence here (Merc Contracts). An increase in price is justified on size comparison, but the ally system is going to change the landscape entirely, and instead of making difficult for griefers, they have made it easier.
When you consider the defender can bring in allies at no cost to get involved, this may be beneficial for the industrial corporation that is decced by a griefing corp, they can bring in their own griefers or mercenaries. But on the flipside, large 0.0 alliances now have several additional defences against alliances aiming to disrupt them - the cost of the wardec is now prohibative, they can bring in a large number of 'defenders' for free, and why would you hire mercs when Grief corps A-T who simply want as many targets as possible, will help for next to nothing.
It's this that will essentially suffocate the current Mercenary market - 'Mercs rely on the income and goodwill of customers, yet lose almost any kind of offensive capability - they have to pay through their ears for larger corps, fight a lot of unwanted extra targets and generally have a harder time doing the job they were hired to do(you may even agree this is fair), but it would be so much easier financially to be hired as a defender then - only then mercenary corps become second fiddle to large alliances duking it out, and can't compete financially with corps that do it for free. Suddenly, what's the point? Why pay top dollar for one very good corp, when you can hire 10 average ones for less.
It does not help either that the neutral RR mechanics remain as they are in addition to this, that way the afforementioned grief corps can sit on trade pipes with almosty risk free engagement, thats another impediment to combat. It's not Red vs Blue. It's Red vs Blue and lots of friends, helped by more friends who you can't engage to start with. I cannot see anything other than the complete forced overhaul of mercenary work with that, a change that it seems hasn't been thought through, discussed with the CSM (particularly its small gang/merc members), and will cause many Merc corps to scale back/stop high sec opperations alltogether.
I do think wardecs need the rebalance. However this swings too heavily the other way, and seems rushed (Which we've seen can do wonders for EVE right, the door anyone?), and it devalues the Mercenary way of life really.
I would suggest the change is shelved before damage is done. I can personally think of a few changes for this that might help balance things, not limited to:
GÖª Ally fees should be hard-calculated based on the number of members of the defending corporation. To assist a 2000 man alliance, you need to be paying about half the cost of the initial war dec or thereabouts. GÖª Limit the number of allies you can have, to one. GÖª Limit the number of corporations you can ally to, to two. GÖª Neutral RR - fix it
In this, aggressive mercenary corporations can still declare, but the scope for the contract escalating is now limited. Defensive mercenary corporations can now get a half price wardec and exclusivity, which creates competition. And defending corporations can no longer bring in legions of allies to help - they can choose the griefer/merc option, and arrange payment before the system so fees are negotiable. And fixing neutral RR makes everyone happy.
It should be this easy. :psyduck:
- S
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1026
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:51:00 -
[138] - Quote
My predictions:
PvPers will figure out ways to abuse the ally system.
Care bears won't use the ally system, instead choosing to not log in, corp hop or just sit AFK in station for a week.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
McCreary075
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 15:48:00 -
[139] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Massive bad feedback on a devblog : CHECK Half of the posts are made by mercs : CHECK (I have yet to find a merc happy with the changes)
Because...
High wardec fee making life impossible for small corps/solo highsec pirate (like my bro' Cane) : CHECK High wardec fee creating a new decshield for any big alliance : CHECK Worst thing about highsec pvp still active (RR neutral) : CHECK "Ally mechanism" that is full of loopholes (and most of them were already voiced before) : CHECK The defenser can still drop his corp at any moment, so they dont feel they have something to fight for : CHECK The agressor can still join a wardecing corp at any moment (and the exploit about joining near a soon-to-be wartarget is still working) : CHECK The only valid targets of a wardec are still POSes, because shooting 50m EHP is fun, and it's not like they could unanchor it before the wardec : CHECK CCP not listening to its player : CHECK Advertising a expansion about "wars" and making Inferno where almost nobody will declare wardecs anymore because 1) too expensive 2) you're paying to get blobbed. Seriously ? CCP, look at all the replies "eh cool, I will offer for free my corp as an ally. Free targets are cool !" Because nobody wants to pay hundred of iskies for a wardec. You want wars ? Make them cheap. Make them important (example : once you're wardecced, you cannot unanchor modules in highsec).
The only positive thing in this update is the "invulnerable POS loophole" that is getting removed. And I do not forget that it's CCP that made it 1) possible 2) not an exploit anymore 3) refused to do a patch for it.
+1 to Reppyk from NMG.
The idea that a merc corp being tied up as an Ally is a very big deal, Soniclover/CCP.
Not having the ability to set a time-limit on the Ally agreement is unacceptable from a mercenary point of view. We have multiple jobs coming in all the time, and we schedule them as best we can - a neverending ally war that prevents us from easily moving to the next job is unacceptable because we cannot schedule jobs. Thus, this feature shuts us out rather than including us - the exact opposite of what you intended.
The other problem with the Ally system is that griefer corps can very easily exploit it. They want kills and to make other's lives a pain, that's fine, no worries, but now they can Ally up for nothing and have wars all over. At least under the old system, if a merc decc'd a corp, the corp could get griefer help, but then the griefers would have to at least pay the wardec costs, which may be a turnoff. These changes are major incentives for mercs to avoid taking hi-sec jobs. We would need charge substantially more to mitigate the risk of having tons of griefers with their neutral RR side up for almost nothing to fight us.
You want to fight? Drop a dec, pay the fees, allies too, the Ally system is great for finding people and negotiating a fee to help. However, the Allies should have to pay wardec fees (which can again be negotiated as payment through the ally system).
On a related but separate thought: The new fee structure is different, but not horrible. It does make it more difficult for people who want to just fight wars to fight wars, and hurts smaller groups more due to funding. If there was an easier way to scale it based on both the decing corp and the defender, that would be something to look into.
Edit: Clarity is good. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
657
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 16:09:00 -
[140] - Quote
Do you know what is wrong with the wardec system? The pretense that it must enable non-consensual PvP in hisec aka griefing.
Wardec system should do wat it was intended to do: allow corp A take over the POS slot of corp B w/o CONCORD opposition... and nothing else.
That's the elephant in the room. EVE already allows griefing without a specific griefing mechanic. Let's look at price, FAI:
How expensive should be to grief an uberalliance in hisec? There is no "right" answer, as the question is wrong. The real question is: do the mechanics allow to grief uberalliances in hisec? And the answer is: yes, of course. Their ships are exactly as vulnerable as John Doe's. They can be suicide ganked the same. There is no need for a specific game mechanic.
But what about John Doe? Can he be griefed in hisec? Of course he can. He's the main staple of EVE's griefing foodchain. And so there is no need for a specific mechanic.
It's the whole pretense to legitimize griefing with "wars" and "mercenaries" and the rest that makes for a complex system nobody is gonna like (it will always too slanted in favor of "the other side") and all in all the resulting mechanics lead to people adapting to them rather than enjoying them.
That is, if you are wardecced because of belonging to a corporation, then leave the corporation and keep enjoying the game. And in case that you can't enjoy the game without belonging to a corporation... well, then... EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
113
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 16:30:00 -
[141] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote: Wardec system should do wat it was intended to do: allow corp A take over the POS slot of corp B w/o CONCORD opposition... and nothing else.
This and other things you post, stated as fact, yet clearly so wrong makes me think you're a SoniClover alt. (Thats not a compliment by the way)
To help you out here, War Decs existed long before POSs could be setup in highsec systems, but you clearly didn't know that. I look forward to more of your posts where you make other statements as fact when it's clearly so wrong. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
113
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 16:31:00 -
[142] - Quote
This change is CCP attempting to set the "griefers" against the "griefers". It's a trap based around the premise of making one of the corps that enjoys highsec wars make the mistake of actually declaring war against anybody. Within 24hrs they're going to find that every single other corp that enjoys wars will have offered their services to the defender for 0.00Isk. Eve being Eve, the defenders won't care and just accept them all, as Eve University's cardinal rule goes: "The more the merrier". Essentially pitting people who like highsec PvP against people who like highsec PvP, a section of the so called sandbox cordened off so these people don't disturb the other kids playing in the sand.
Unfortunately this change, it's based on anecdotal evidence provided by unheard of alts worried about losing a highsec pos because they have 3 characters in the corp, all the same person, and people who post heavily in every dev blog regardless of the topic and believe in their heart they are indeed the expert on every subject that they think they are.
I can't fathom why as SoniClover already stated in another blog that small corps weren't being griefed in the first place. He's made little attempt to explain why it is that 0.0 alliances need to be protected on their Jita trips. I've outlined elsewhere what it is that over time has caused highsec wars to be predominantly based around Jita, I can't be bothered to repeat myself so I'll just link it again. What we have now is an evolution as more and more nerfs came in, this forthcoming patch does absolutely nothing to tackle this which indicates to me at least that SoniClover and his team of ~superfriends~ are oblivious to what goes on in and with wars. Remember, if you've been around long enough you would know that the mercenary business was once an entirely self-sustaining and thriving player community based business that didn't require the aid of a marketplace. I'm surprised none of the team didn't look into what it is that changed to cause it die before trying to reinvigorate it with whats little more than a shot in the dark.
Anyway you look at this, the new war mechanics and mercenary marketplace are not going to work, at least not in the way intended. I'm actually astounded that no-one on the development team flagged the issues that have been highlighted already. Apart from anything else, no-one at CCP has considered that people may like to do highsec wars as a form of income. The assumption all the way is that people do a few missions to get the ISK to pay for the war. An astounding misjudgement of what people in their game are doing and why - probably been listening to too many of those alts that mysteriously appear shout proclaimations of doom and gloom regarding forthcoming unsubscriptions due to being griefed by mean people before fading back into the shadows again.
I'm a guy who likes to shoot stuff I'm clearly in a 0.0 alliance as can be identified by my corp and alliance. I'm pretty bored to death of 0.0 as it's based on timers, few will bother to lift a finger unless some sov based mechanic informs them that they need to. When there is a fight, people go for the simple numbers + alpha approach - it gets samey pretty quickly.
I have an alt in FW which is funny because everyone in FW just wants to do missions and fit for speed and ecm, yeah thats not really that entertaining to me
Highsec wars just got nerfed out of existence and the only people who can't see that yet are the people who instituted the changes.
No wonder everyones so ISK rich now, no-one loses anything.
Still, at least there's still highsec ganking, fortunately The Mittani will not allow CCP to 'fix' that. Sreegs hasn't even spotted that some have a considerable advantage over others yet. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
225
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:10:00 -
[143] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
I think your estimate is a bit off. I think a large part of what the expansion's purpose was to correct a lot of the problems with the current mechanics. (except they forgot neutral RR cough cough) If someone screwed you really hard, you'd pay the 50M+ to get get them anyway. If it isn't worth 50M they must not have pissed you off THAT bad. It's what, a couple level 4's? It shouldn't be that bad, unless the guy cleaned the corp wallet out and you used it as your personal wallet... then your prob screwed regardless. And you will then be blobbed into station by the dozen corps that are called as an ally and are looking for good fights and free targets. The price IS an issue in my opinion, but the ally system is worse.
What you seem to be missing is the fact that 'traditionally' in EVE Mercs offered their services in a wardec to decced corps for ~50 million ISK a week per member of the deccing corp. They also request all info on deccing corp, situations surrounding the Dec, and ask that you relay all this before they will give a final quote and help you.
Now I only checked into this once, but it was ~ 400 million a week to Dec a 5 man Corp with moderately well skilled PvPers plus all cost associated with ship loss in the War was on the Decee. I think I talked with something like 3-4 Merc Alliances/Corps.
EVE players like to make ISK, and if it is garnered from some hapless fools who can't defend themselves, then so much the better. Auction - EVE Rogues Alliance [ROGUE]: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438-á-á~ Auction starts @ 20 Million ISK. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues EVE Rogues Alliance
225
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:12:00 -
[144] - Quote
I see a minor bit of fun occuring as a result of this actually. Bait Corps will be cool. Auction - EVE Rogues Alliance [ROGUE]: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438-á-á~ Auction starts @ 20 Million ISK. |
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
700
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 23:00:00 -
[145] - Quote
I actually want to take a brief moment...
The devblog itself was excellent. SoniClover did a fantastic job of laying out the details of how the new systems are going to work, and deserves credit for that. Everyone laying the blame for what they perceive will go wrong once the expansion is deployed at his feet and the feet of everyone else in Team SuperFriends is silly and wrong. So, props to SoniClover.
That said, there clearly are some real issues to be taken into account with these changes and some really good points being brought up. Not everything is going to work perfectly as described, and there are some real serious changes that need to be made in upcoming months to iron out this system into something workable and effective that we as players can enjoy. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
123
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 23:24:00 -
[146] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote:I actually want to take a brief moment...
The devblog itself was excellent. SoniClover did a fantastic job of laying out the details of how the new systems are going to work, and deserves credit for that. Everyone laying the blame for what they perceive will go wrong once the expansion is deployed at his feet and the feet of everyone else in Team SuperFriends is silly and wrong. So, props to SoniClover.
That said, there clearly are some real issues to be taken into account with these changes and some really good points being brought up. Not everything is going to work perfectly as described, and there are some real serious changes that need to be made in upcoming months to iron out this system into something workable and effective that we as players can enjoy. That's a lot of words for a "bad game design. Bad CCP."
|
Turgesson
Five-0
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 23:30:00 -
[147] - Quote
Sounds like a giant mess. Isn't being in an ALLIANCE considered having ALLIES already?
I don't think I can add anymore to the list of bad and "who cares" things about this expansion. Maybe nice way of bloating a system to the point where noone will understand it but the players exploiting it.
Example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfmvkO5x6Ng&feature=related |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 01:21:00 -
[148] - Quote
Can't you merc corps just wardec the target corp if you are worried about endless fighting? Then you control the time limit.
Sure it will actually cost more money, but you have total control.
You should have to think if you truly want to start a war. And having to stick with it to the end, definately gives your allies incentive to fight :)
Is this system perfect... probably not (few things are). But the old system was just a blatent griefing tool. Allocate resources to FiS |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 03:25:00 -
[149] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:Can't you merc corps just wardec the target corp. Then why have this feature at all? www.noirmercs.com Now Recruiting CSM7, CSM 4 |
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 03:51:00 -
[150] - Quote
Hey, you can still sign on as an ally.
But if you really are too scared to take the fight to the end, you have this option to dec them yourself. I see more flexibility with different cost options. Allocate resources to FiS |
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
657
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 06:39:00 -
[151] - Quote
Mars Theran wrote:Eternal Error wrote:Burseg Sardaukar wrote:Vimsy Vortis wrote: Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
I think your estimate is a bit off. I think a large part of what the expansion's purpose was to correct a lot of the problems with the current mechanics. (except they forgot neutral RR cough cough) If someone screwed you really hard, you'd pay the 50M+ to get get them anyway. If it isn't worth 50M they must not have pissed you off THAT bad. It's what, a couple level 4's? It shouldn't be that bad, unless the guy cleaned the corp wallet out and you used it as your personal wallet... then your prob screwed regardless. And you will then be blobbed into station by the dozen corps that are called as an ally and are looking for good fights and free targets. The price IS an issue in my opinion, but the ally system is worse. What you seem to be missing is the fact that 'traditionally' in EVE Mercs offered their services in a wardec to decced corps for ~50 million ISK a week per member of the deccing corp. They also request all info on deccing corp, situations surrounding the Dec, and ask that you relay all this before they will give a final quote and help you. Now I only checked into this once, but it was ~ 400 million a week to Dec a 5 man Corp with moderately well skilled PvPers plus all cost associated with ship loss in the War was on the Decee. I think I talked with something like 3-4 Merc Alliances/Corps. EVE players like to make ISK, and if it is garnered from some hapless fools who can't defend themselves, then so much the better.
Really? 50 milion per member/week?
Sure that is cheaper than shut down operations for a week...
My, the more i learn about it, the more utterly fu**ed up is the whole wardec system... EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Irongut
Sex Money Guns Unprovoked Aggression
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:15:00 -
[152] - Quote
Seems you missed the obvious and click reducing step of linking this to the standings system and letting your allies by standings be allies in war. So now we'll have:
- allies, the ones in our alliance
- allies, the ones we're blue with
- and maybe allies, who we agree to fight a war with
Yet again CCP hit the jackpot for multiple different features all with the same name!
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
511
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:22:00 -
[153] - Quote
Irongut wrote:Seems you missed the obvious and click reducing step of linking this to the standings system and letting your allies by standings be allies in war. Yes please!
Then we can dec a small renter alliance and instantly be at war with half of nullsec! Please, please, CCP, do this! 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 |
Irongut
Sex Money Guns Unprovoked Aggression
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:28:00 -
[154] - Quote
Iam Widdershins wrote: The devblog itself was excellent. SoniClover did a fantastic job of laying out the details of how the new systems are going to work, and deserves credit for that. Everyone laying the blame for what they perceive will go wrong once the expansion is deployed at his feet and the feet of everyone else in Team SuperFriends is silly and wrong. So, props to SoniClover.
Why wouldn't you blame the people who came up with the design and then coded it? They are exactly the people responsible. Or, would you prefer to blame Hilmar's dog?
I must remember to use that one at work - well I did a fantastic job of describing the feature in the manual so the fact that my code blew up an oil refinery is just not my fault.
Iam Widdershins wrote:That said, there clearly are some real issues to be taken into account with these changes and some really good points being brought up. Not everything is going to work perfectly as described, and there are some real serious changes that need to be made in upcoming months to iron out this system into something workable and effective that we as players can enjoy. The thing is there aren't going to be "real serious changes that need to be made in upcoming months to iron out this system into something workable and effective" because when CCP published a devblog they have already made up their minds and written the code. And, once written that code will not change for years. Oh sure they'll promise iterations but they never happen within a reasonable time frame if at all.
|
Irongut
Sex Money Guns Unprovoked Aggression
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:30:00 -
[155] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Irongut wrote:Seems you missed the obvious and click reducing step of linking this to the standings system and letting your allies by standings be allies in war. Yes please! Then we can dec a small renter alliance and instantly be at war with half of nullsec! Please, please, CCP, do this!
And you think that won't happen with the new system anyway?
|
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
511
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:01:00 -
[156] - Quote
Irongut wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Then we can dec a small renter alliance and instantly be at war with half of nullsec! Please, please, CCP, do this! And you think that won't happen with the new system anyway? Why would a sov alliance join in its renters' wars? Or even its own allies' wars? For alliance members, highsec wars are a nuisance to logistics, and the leadership, if they think about them at all, considers them a distraction from all-important timer wars. That's why wars against them work. 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 |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
971
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:03:00 -
[157] - Quote
Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. |
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
701
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:36:00 -
[158] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. Glad to hear it, I'm hoping to see more love in there for mercenaries and space-bads than we're seeing right now.
The biggest hope for an independent wardecker in the new system as it is currently described right now is the hope that lots of really bad groups will join up as allies against an inconsequential target, providing them with the targets they desire; if that's not how it turns out, there won't be much of an case for declaring war on anyone in the first place.
Oh, and Irongut... you sound mad bro. Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1033
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 11:47:00 -
[159] - Quote
Irongut wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Irongut wrote:Seems you missed the obvious and click reducing step of linking this to the standings system and letting your allies by standings be allies in war. Yes please! Then we can dec a small renter alliance and instantly be at war with half of nullsec! Please, please, CCP, do this! And you think that won't happen with the new system anyway? Of course that won't happen, null sec corps don't fight high sec corps. They ignore them, and just send out a mail periodically saying "don't forget to use NPC hauler alts in high sec at the moment".
My prediction for this ally system is that PvP corps will find a way to abuse it to get free war decs and more targets, and care bears will just keep corp hopping and disbanding in order to avoid the risk of PvP.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Khoda Khan
Zantiu-Braun Corporation Zantiu-Braun Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 12:49:00 -
[160] - Quote
CCP is yet again not really bothering to listen to a lot of intelligent people who generally have a pretty decent handle on what potential mechanics changes will mean. CCP gets ideas in it's head about what great new features need to be introduced or changed, and there's no dissuading them from going ahead full steam no matter how much evidence to the contrary there is to make them reconsider. It's as if they're afraid of wasting all that time invested, when in the end it's wasted anyways as the changes blow up in their faces.
Isn't the first time, sure as hell won't be the last time. Every time CCP has the opportunity to really do something interesting with a new feature or mechanic they screw it ten ways to Sunday.
I'm not a merc. I haven't done highsec wardecs in a couple years now. So I don't have any stake in this particular card game. I'm just a subscriber who logs in to change skills and chat a bit and that's pretty much it. Changing skills is about the most exciting thing to be found in EVE these days, though I hope that might one day change and hence why I keep the characters training.
CCP: Take the revised war mechanics, remove them from Inferno and put out a finished product, and one that is actually productive rather than counterproductive. Get it right the first time. And getting it right the first time means actually listening to the folks that have some experience with this particular facet of the game, rather than basing your work on assumptions made by devs who don't. I just can't believe that any dev who has half a brain about them doesn't see the potential issues these changes are going to open the wardec system up to, many of which have already been mentioned here by far more knowledgeable folks than myself.
Alekseyev Karrde is one of the most knowledgeable people in EVE (if not the most) regarding merc issues. Do yourselves a favor and actually listen to what's being said. Drop the changes from Inferno, write off the time put into the changes and start over. Put out a real and complete system in the next expansion.
Of course, we already know CCP is going to do what they've always done. |
|
Homo Jesus
The LGBT Last Supper
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 13:12:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things.
Cool, I'm looking at ways of iterating on the confusing system your are going to release. I would put the date for your iteration around yesterday...or pull it and just release part 2 of the Dust wardec system...oh I mean Escaltion to Inferno... |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
659
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 13:32:00 -
[162] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things.
So now you plan to see how people uses the wardec system?
Couldn't you had done that six months ago, before you started figuring the wrong solutions to the wrong issues for the wrong reasons and against everybody's advice? EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
123
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 13:45:00 -
[163] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. That's cool but these 2 are not the important issues... |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
166
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 13:53:00 -
[164] - Quote
Guys I wouldn't worry about it. The iterative development process have done wonders for the dominion era sov system. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
972
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 13:54:00 -
[165] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. So now you plan to see how people uses the wardec system? Couldn't you had done that six months ago, before you started figuring the wrong solutions to the wrong issues for the wrong reasons and against everybody's advice?
The new system.
We have a shortlist of stuff we'd like to iterate on and we'll meet with the CSM to hear theirs too. |
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
49
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 14:06:00 -
[166] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. So now you plan to see how people uses the wardec system? Couldn't you had done that six months ago, before you started figuring the wrong solutions to the wrong issues for the wrong reasons and against everybody's advice? The new system. We have a shortlist of stuff we'd like to iterate on and we'll meet with the CSM to hear theirs too.
Yeah CCP, why didn't you test the new system before you made the new system so you would know how people used the new system before there were a new system to test, so you could make a new system that people liked! |
Vegare
Das zweite Konglomerat The Initiative.
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 14:12:00 -
[167] - Quote
CCP, when you decided on the new wardec costs you followed the lines of 'having to pay for targets'.
Now you're giving free targets to everyone... |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
84
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 14:57:00 -
[168] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding incentives to fight wars (whether as aggressor or defender), it is our belief that the main incentives should not be created by the war mechanic itself. The war mechanic is just a tool by which players can legally engage other players, but why they want to do so isn't handled by the war mechanic system itself (and shouldn't be). .....
And yet you put in scaled pricing system in a game where peoples actions are heavily influenced by economics? |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
84
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 15:24:00 -
[169] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:So defenders can bring in as many allies as they want for no cost other than the fee that the ally requests?
You realize that what this does is make it even less attractive for the Average Joe corp to declare war on people they have legitimate grievances with since they will be able to bring in an infinite number of allies and the attacker has no means to respond.
Rather than doing something to address the fact that wars are "underutilized" all this and the cost changes does is draw an even greater dividing line between people who do wars as their primary form of gameplay and everyone else in highsec by making starting a war so undesirable for anyone whose primary form of gameplay isn't wars that it will never be worth declaring war on someone who's done you wrong.
Post expansion war will be an even less viable option for 99% of highsec inhabitants than it is now. This expansion is a joke, and the advertisements that refer to it as "war fueled" are fraudulent.
Now I haven't been playing too many years, but along with the new fees and this allies system I can't decide if this may be the worst thought out game mechanic I've seen put in game (evidence: the war icon is a sword. A SWORD! in my internet spaceship game), or if the real design goals (protection for large alliance logistics/dec shields for certain crops) are so important yet repugnant to the larger EVE community, CCP can not actually state them publicly and instead just implements a system that pretty much kills of high sec wars for any mid level/small group and screws the mercenaries over to do it while acting like their not. |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
512
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 16:17:00 -
[170] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list As a semi-random thought: if you are going to allow allies in mutual wars at all, you should allow them for both sides. That allows balanced escalation and could generate interesting stories. 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 |
|
Gort Thud
Wandering Spartans
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 17:22:00 -
[171] - Quote
CCP's concept of incentives to fight wars - scaling war declaration cost with target size and allowing allies only on the defenders side.
It is ironic that these two mechanics are what the rest of the world would use as a disincentive to fight wars - it would appear that CCP have a number of separate teams at work here with different definitions of some key concepts such as "incentive" and "war" .
Without being able to clearly and unequivocally state what the primary goals you are intending to achieve are and what metrics are to be used to judged that success it is it is almost guaranteed that the detail design will not be fit for purpose. I feel that you guys need some clear and concise back-to-basics on goal design before you iterate yourself into a grave.
Gort |
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 17:34:00 -
[172] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things.
Most of the poor reaction you've received is not from people disappointed that it doesn't include certain things. The poor reaction has been because what it DOES include will make the game worse. Will your next iteration be to remove the bad changes inferno puts in?
By the way, "Calm down, we'll iterate" is not a satisfactory response to player fury. It wasn't satisfactory pre crucible, and it isn't now. Did crucible not teach you anything? |
charlie ice
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:11:00 -
[173] - Quote
How did CCP let this get released without seeing some of the major problems that it will cause. This system is just going to open up a can of worms, maybe thats what they wanted. |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:24:00 -
[174] - Quote
I don't think anyone is in doubt how much effort the dev team have put into this, the UIs and extra details look extremely good, but it just feels that many of the ideas behind the changes and the believed reasoning behind wars are remarkably out of touch with the people who are expected to use them, which is unfortunate for everyone.
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:32:00 -
[175] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. I'm not quite sure how you're going to 'iterate' out of this one, but good luck....
Nothing much to add beyond what Alek/McCreary have other than, good luck finding someone willing to take on a POS removal contract, 24 hours from now.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
661
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 19:44:00 -
[176] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. So now you plan to see how people uses the wardec system? Couldn't you had done that six months ago, before you started figuring the wrong solutions to the wrong issues for the wrong reasons and against everybody's advice? The new system. We have a shortlist of stuff we'd like to iterate on and we'll meet with the CSM to hear theirs too.
Sure? Well then, I suggest you to iterate this:
Quote:Please, I have a question! If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation? Thank you in advance!
That was asked on March 29th, and as far as I know, nobody answered it yet. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
567
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:23:00 -
[177] - Quote
charlie ice wrote:How did CCP let this get released without seeing some of the major problems that it will cause. This system is just going to open up a can of worms, maybe thats what they wanted. Because like I've said over and over gain CCP literally do not care about releasing useful game mechanics that actually work, they care about releasing whatever arbitrary thing they decided on before it was even announced.
Once a senior individual at CCP has decided on an idea, regardless how unwanted by the players or bad for the game it is everyone else in the entire company puts their blinkers on and then follows the path of least resistance until the the next expansion totally ignoring everything the players say and minimizing the incoming criticism by releasing details as close to the launch date as possible so that they can hold their hands up and say "Sorry guys the expansion is next week". The objective isn't to release the content that the players want, it's to deviate as little from the original idea as possible while doing as little actual work as possible.
It is more important to the CCP game development staff to minimize conflict by agreeing with the origional concept and ignoring everything that disagrees with it than it is listen to what people who actually play the game say and deliver the product that their customers want. |
Armed Maniac
The Rock and Roid Band
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 20:56:00 -
[178] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Hey guys
We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things. So now you plan to see how people uses the wardec system? Couldn't you had done that six months ago, before you started figuring the wrong solutions to the wrong issues for the wrong reasons and against everybody's advice? The new system. We have a shortlist of stuff we'd like to iterate on and we'll meet with the CSM to hear theirs too. Sure? Well then, I suggest you to iterate this: Quote:Please, I have a question! If i am in a miner corp and someone wardecs us solely to prevent us from playing the game, how exactly can we avoid being at war and keep playing w/o surrendering to blackmail or dismantling our corporation? Thank you in advance! That was asked on March 29th, and as far as I know, nobody answered it yet.
Pick up some allies on the merc market. From what I have gathered there will be a ton of corps on there willing to work for free. If not free, then they will have to pay, but the option is still the same. |
Endeavour Starfleet
819
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 22:04:00 -
[179] - Quote
Remember CCP the reason you are seeing so much BS about your new system on this topic is because these idiots are watching their favorite pastime of griefing and basically forcing other players out of their groups or out of EVE for a week, fall apart before their very eyes.
Some of the points are good. Mutual war means both sides get allies. Sounds fair to me.
I also think that you should declare using mutual to trap allies into a war is an exploit for now and allow GM action on those who do until a proper fix is in place.
Most of what else is just people whining about having to face uncertainty and the blob for once. Please continue to allow allies to join the defense in any number for no cost. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 22:47:00 -
[180] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Remember CCP the reason you are seeing so much BS about your new system on this topic is because these idiots are watching their favorite pastime of griefing and basically forcing other players out of their groups or out of EVE for a week, fall apart before their very eyes.
Some of the points are good. Mutual war means both sides get allies. Sounds fair to me.
I also think that you should declare using mutual to trap allies into a war is an exploit for now and allow GM action on those who do until a proper fix is in place.
Most of what else is just people whining about having to face uncertainty and the blob for once. Please continue to allow allies to join the defense in any number for no cost. Good sir, this has nothing to do with 'griefing idiots', rather legitimate concerns for a legitimate [mercenary] profession and the services rendered.
For info, High sec work is but one facet of what we do.
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
|
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 00:24:00 -
[181] - Quote
So how long is the blanket argument of "cost to the aggressor" going to be a viable one, CCP? It's not the first time you've used it and I doubt it will be the last. The new cost mechanics were a great change to war decs and really brought a lot of balance to the system; a system which now has to deal with yet another shock from poorly planned, out of touch content. Having seen CCP's involvement in player driven content over the last year alone, it's also hard to imagine that they don't have an general idea of the "masses'" attitude. cough(#burnjita) But no doubt yesterday's exploit mechanics would be today's hot fix. I also have no doubts the merc community as a whole will stand strong through whatever this "feature" brings. |
McCreary075
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 01:30:00 -
[182] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Most of what else is just people whining about having to face uncertainty and the blob for once. Please continue to allow allies to join the defense in any number for no cost.
Let me clarify what I said earlier, in a post that you may not have read (at 10 pages now, I haven't read EVERY post, I won't lie to you).
The reason this is bad is in your own post: 'for no cost.'
Really? It should be okay for a defender to bring the rest of EvE in to fight an attacker for free? The attacker paid to wardec you, and now you can summon PL, Goons, and every one else to your side for 0 isk?
Currently, the defender has to search out help for a war, and they may not know where to go to get the help they need. The new system helps solve this problem. This is good. Then the defender has to agree on terms. The 'ally' (to borrow CCP's term) can agree to work for nothing, or something. The in-game system will be better than the current mechanics because the money will be given to the Ally, unlike today where you can get scammed. Once an agreement is reached, under the current system, the Ally needs to pay the wardec fee. Under the new system, this is unnecessary, and this is where I have a problem.
The problem is that, without the wardec fees, the corps can join wars for nothing. Why is this bad? The attacker did pay a penalty besides future ships and structures lost in pvp - the wardec fee. The defender does not need to pony up these assets in the new system, and can turn the tables completely around for free (this assumes that the tables were unfair to begin with, which is part of your argument, but is not necessarily the case).
Allies or defenders should pay the standard dec fee - this would prevent Ally abuse. The first ally should be able to join by paying equal to what the attackers pay, and not have to suffer the penalty of +1 wardec to bring in an assist.
Right now, nothing stops a defender from bringing in corp after corp of help until they overwhelm an attacker. They can do all this while safely docked, and not have to risk or spend a penny. Even if the attackers also decide to stay safely docked or logoff, they lose their dec money. The attackers took a risk, and lost, but the defenders can win for no-risk.
Before anyone thinks this extreme situation is unlikely, I point you to the current mechanics that allow people to completely avoid wardecs and save towers. These ways are/soon-to-be-were utilized all the time. At least the dec-shield mechanics cost some decent money per week.
So, the new system as it stands allows defenders to rob attackers, which the exact reverse of what many people, including yourself, claim the current system allows. This is not an improvement for anyone, and should be avoided at all costs. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
533
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 02:35:00 -
[183] - Quote
The fixes are nlimited allies with scaling costs or limited allies where allies can charge for help but there's no minimum cost. Unlimited free allies is a bad bad combination. www.noirmercs.com Now Recruiting CSM7, CSM 4 |
Endeavour Starfleet
819
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 03:24:00 -
[184] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The fixes are unlimited allies with scaling costs or limited allies where allies can charge for help but there's no minimum cost. Unlimited free allies is a bad bad combination.
Yes for you... And the others who have abused this system for eons now and have rarely or never tasted the defeat of having to play other games for a week or worse leave the corp or EVE altogether.
You get to taste the blob now. There are a few changes that need to be made but the bulk of your "Give cost or restrict allies" argument just comes down to the same type of whining the gankers had for concord buffs. |
Endeavour Starfleet
819
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 03:28:00 -
[185] - Quote
McCreary075 wrote:
Really? It should be okay for a defender to bring the rest of EvE in to fight an attacker for free? The attacker paid to wardec you, and now you can summon PL, Goons, and every one else to your side for 0 isk?
Yes! yes and more YES
You declared war and must now accept the risk that you can get blobbed. It is almost hilarious that some think that because they have been abusing the system for years (And calling it the sandbox) they should not have to experience the same blob feel the defenders have had for years.
You brought the war and must experience the risk. The "cost" to the attacker is one of those risks. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
535
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 04:50:00 -
[186] - Quote
...do you even know who we are or what we do? www.noirmercs.com Now Recruiting CSM7, CSM 4 |
Endeavour Starfleet
819
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 05:28:00 -
[187] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:...do you even know who we are or what we do?
What you do? Whine on the forums apparently.
Edit: No I don't know much about your group and I don't really care. This change is badly needed for the many who get forced out of EVE by these wardecs. |
charlie ice
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 06:40:00 -
[188] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:...do you even know who we are or what we do? What you do? Whine on the forums apparently. Edit: No I don't know much about your group and I don't really care. This change is badly needed for the many who get forced out of EVE by these wardecs.
Maybe its because you don't care about any one else that you can't see the problems this will cause |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
662
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 06:51:00 -
[189] - Quote
charlie ice wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:...do you even know who we are or what we do? What you do? Whine on the forums apparently. Edit: No I don't know much about your group and I don't really care. This change is badly needed for the many who get forced out of EVE by these wardecs. Maybe its because you don't care about any one else that you can't see the problems this will cause
Maybe it's because a free grievance mechanic can not be "fixed" in any other way but by removing it. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
NorthCrossroad
EVE University Ivy League
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 07:12:00 -
[190] - Quote
Another thing that will make merc corps an attractive idea is a rework of the bounty system. In this way players that want to be mercs will band together not only for war assists, but to be able to hunt down specific targets more effictively. More roles for mercs - more merc corps and bigger merc market.
North |
|
JeanPant Man
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 08:12:00 -
[191] - Quote
The entire anti-inferno argument is based on the assumption that corps will Ally for free. Thats not a very good assumption to have, considering greed is what fuels us.
1) Corporations will ask for money as long as they know they can get away with it. Why not be paid? 2) The defender corp would rather hire well known merc corps for a bit of isk, instead of hiring a no-name brand corporation that is offering something for free. In EO nothing is free and the defender would sleep better at night hiring a corp with some worth and a good track record.
Maybe I have missed it, but can a hired Ally attack its defenders freely?
|
Reppyk
The Black Shell
123
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 10:24:00 -
[192] - Quote
JeanPant Man wrote:The entire anti-inferno argument is based on the assumption that corps will Ally for free. Hum, no. Feel free to read the thread, thanks. |
Endeavour Starfleet
819
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 12:51:00 -
[193] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:JeanPant Man wrote:The entire anti-inferno argument is based on the assumption that corps will Ally for free. Hum, no. Feel free to read the thread, thanks.
You mean many pages of stupid?
There will be mountains of free help at first. Eventually tho it will balance out when they find they can make some money in the process of getting lots of targets. |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
123
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 13:12:00 -
[194] - Quote
I'll redo it for you.
CCP made a fanfest presentation about wardecs, claiming that there were "too few wardecs". CCP is advertising an expansion which is about conflicts.
And we have experienced players posting in this thread saying that these new rules may do the contrary : - Mercenaries are complaining that merc jobs will be harder and/or with reduced income [1] - Highsec pvpers are claiming that with these new (increased) fees, the ally mechanism and the possible "free ally blobs", and the many exploits that are still possible [2]/complicated rules of agression... The average Joe that would like to experience it may not enjoy it.
If there are mercs in highsec, it's because 1) that's cool to roleplay a merc 2) some people are too busy to shoot things themselves, okay they have iskies and 3) highsec PVP is a goddamn mess that only dedicated pilots understand.
[1] Which is already one of the lowest income in EVE [2] The new exploit from last patch sounds awesome (neutral rrs being able to shoot even when not agressed).
EDIT :
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:You get to taste the blob now. Alek is an horrible blobber ! I KNEW IT ! Shame on you. |
KanashiiKami
103
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 13:21:00 -
[195] - Quote
some of my ideas after reading some post n blogs ... parts reposted here n revised since it has something to do with ally system ...
what is concord? hisec police of course, player pays to get the concord law out of their war "turf" (dirty cops!).
instead of a CCP curvaceous formula, i base it on the difference in number of pilots and a standard penalty system for oversized blob aggression and war leavers which a lay person CAN easily calculate. base war tax is still 50m isk
10 pilots dec 50 pilots = 40 toon difference. for each toon gap add 100k isk, which makes this dec = 54m per week.
bonuses and penalties ---> oversized corp has a dec penalty on smaller corp based on how many times they are oversized.
players can choose to leave a war by paying a isk penalty to concord.
so corp A 5 toons who decs Corp B 9000 pilots, will have to pay = 50m + (8995*0.1) = 949.5m isk !.
THAT is if the whole alliance is dec-ed. now since CCP has moved to conclude (or seems so to me) that alliance AND corp may receive same fee structure for war costs system, and the same system applies to ANY number of wars. WHY not now make war dec become a corp-corp only system, which is to say, the alliance no longer appears as an entity that is war-decable. so say to war dec the 9000 peeps in goons, the 5 man corp has to apply the war procedure 133 times to ALL the individual corps (makes more sense now doesnt it? 1 corp vs 1 alliance of 133 CORPS) ... and of course they have to pay more (133 corps, base costs will be = 50 x133 = 6.65b ! now that will be a nice isk sink, but then again players may just end up flipping 133 cans costing less than 1m isk hahaha, "WHY PAY FOR WAR when you can just have it right here" --> title of can marker)
say now the same 5 man decs the goon corp, 5 vs 3900 toons. it will cost (50+(3895 * .1)) = 439.5m isk !.
in reverse, 3900 toons dec 5 man toons. it will cost (50+(3895 * .1)) = 439.5m isk ++ a oversized penalty of ((3900/5 toons) = oversized ratio ) multiply by 2m isk = 1560m isk !!
so now an immensely huge corp like that can also do alot of damage to the game play, so in reverse mechanics, the same immensely large corp will destroy the entire game play for tens of thousands of hisec players in no time (i think we all know goons did OTEC-icize the game, with unlimited isk = unlimited wars, i hope CCP did know this). that is why a 3900 deccing a 5 man corp must pay a oversized war ratio tax. anyway, even @ 1999.5m isk per week, goons 1 tec moon generates about 3.2b in 1 week, so its is just peanuts, very likely he can still obliterate hisec with a few constant surgical strikes into hisec.
strategically it is foolish to do that 2b dec on a 5 man corp (unless there is a TEC moon involved), im sure they will hire mercs, but now merc knowing this is the actual cost will of cause ask for suitable compensation. NOW this is where things get interesting, small gang PVP will still thrive under this mechanic, and earn isk! and BIG blob war in hisec will survive and be containable too cos large corp wars will jus be in their own class and scale. this will entail focused pvp/wars and not rampant destruction ! unless CCP intended widespread upheaval
now what happens when wars get into situation of allies?
250 toons vs 150 toons, cost = (0.1X100)+50m = 60m / week. what happens when either side asks for reinforcements? 150 toon gather a corp of 300 toons to join the fray in defense. so now it becomes 250 vs 450, new costs accordingly = (0.1x200)+50m = 70m, however since the defenders are changing this equation, they will have to pay the new total of 70m (new defense entity total) + another 50m base cost, and this refreshes the war new by 7 days. this now updates the defendor entity to retaliator status. in retaliator status, attacker can now ask for allies to help him, same formula, status becomes retaliator as well. at retaliator status any additional addition of allies will now add 60m isk for the 3rd ally onwards. imagine the defender now retaliator 150toons + 300 toons adds 1 more 200 toon ally, costs will now become (400*0.1) +50m , +50m base, +60m 3rd ally = 190m (++5.2m oversized tax)
so what does alliance benefit in all these? adding a ally from within the same alliance reduces the add on costs by 30m. so say if the same above defender corp goes into distress and initiates his allies within alliance, he now pays (400*0.1) +50m , +20m base, +30m 3rd ally = 130m (++5.2m)
for defending side unable to sustain such a war, how should it end? i think CCP did not address this area very clearly for people WHO DO NOT WANT TO PVP. this will lead to players exploiting this particular mentality of the player and grief them in particular (i wonder is CCp hopping to transform eve into a fully PVP game?) , this is not very good, more name calling and more personal griefing attacks.
corp disband within 12hrs = end war (surrender), concord pays back 50% of war tax to initiator. corp cannot disband after 12hrs n must sit it out (too bad). ceo who disbands will create a 14 day cooldown of not able to join corp OR make corps. members cannot join corps for 7days. single player exit corp, player PAYS concord 25m isk, OR 10% of total war tax which ever is the higher and rounded up to nearest million (OR if he exits within 12 hrs of being decced before war goes live he pays flat 5% of total war tax, so CEO/appt holders cannot leave). toon who exited will not be able to rejoin any corp for 7 days of course.... OR ... just sit your axx out.
any 7 day war will have a mandatory 1 day concord ceasefire, during which ceo decide to prolong wars, disband corp, exit members, nego peace treaty, etc
and of course i think the new war information panels are going to be very useful for very big corps with very impressive combat FC and combat muscles ... that leaves smaller entities to gawk and scurry to 1 desolate corner.
to be continued ... WUT ??? |
KanashiiKami
103
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 13:44:00 -
[196] - Quote
... continuation ....
in all of this, when we look at the big picture. a new player coming into the scene forming his own small corp is at the worse disadvantage. he could be forced out of game play very easily before the game milks him to farm more plexs ... o no i meant before CCP farm him for subs.
but then again ... old player make use of new toons created to promote a facade that he is a noob that is able to get people into scams more easily or get himself shielded from wars
so how can CCP protect a truly new player?
new players will have a option that allows him and his corp to be automatically excluded from war system at no cost (meaning he cannot dec / ally any entity or alliance corp at war) for a period up to 30 weeks (arbituary value, maybe 35 weeks? maybe 25 weeks?)
this feature can only be used once in a account and only on 1 toon. so exploitation can be ... minimal?
more ideas coming ....
to be continued ..... WUT ??? |
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 18:37:00 -
[197] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:charlie ice wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:...do you even know who we are or what we do? What you do? Whine on the forums apparently. Edit: No I don't know much about your group and I don't really care. This change is badly needed for the many who get forced out of EVE by these wardecs. Maybe its because you don't care about any one else that you can't see the problems this will cause Maybe it's because a gratuitous griefing mechanic can not be "fixed" in any other way but by removing it.
So we fix "gratuitous griefing mechanics" with more griefing mechanics? We get to taste the blob now (cause if there's one thing Noir. doesn't have to deal with, it's blobs right)?
GG goonswarm alt.
|
Lady Zarrina
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 19:19:00 -
[198] - Quote
I think we understand Noir. You don't like the new mechanic. But honestly nothing has really changed.
Price has increased and corps on the receiving end have a structured option to obtain help.
I know you want to be able to help for free, get all your money upfront then be able quit when ever you want to. That is perfect for you, I agree. Ball is 100% in your court. You actually might fight for a few days.
But people have always had the option to wardec you. Unless you were using wardec shielding/shedding mechanics (and if that is the case...... further discussion is pointless). So really, what is the issue? Allocate resources to FiS |
NinjaTurtle
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 19:49:00 -
[199] - Quote
Lady Zarrina wrote:I know you want to be able to help for free, get all your money upfront then be able quit when ever you want to. That is perfect for you, I agree. Ball is 100% in your court. You actually might fight for a few days.
A perfect summary of everything we a) don't want, b) don't do and c) never said anything about. |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 21:09:00 -
[200] - Quote
@Endeavour Starfleet & co.
War declarations as a whole are not GÇÿgriefingGÇÖ - period. Please avoid continuing this simplistic GÇÿgriefingGÇÖ/'ganking'/'abusing the system' fallacy as it demonstrates a complete misconception about the nature of Eve and its player driven economy.
War declarations, in particular, through 3rd party mercenary operations, are a feature that CCP clearly intended/intends/desires as another tool in the GÇÿtoolkitGÇÖ of an industrialist; to be used as the ultimate resolver of competition, be it over limited resources (GÇ£I want THAT moon for my own R&D POSGÇ¥), market share or something as simple as prestige.
If you cannot appreciate that, you donGÇÖt stand a hope of understanding why this new system has deep flaws.
I look forward to seeing how this GÇÿiterationGÇÖ goes, CCP Soundwave
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
820
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 00:28:00 -
[201] - Quote
Gabriel, That view of EVE war is the classic 18th century PR that war is a gentlemen's game over who gets what. Instead of the RL and EVE way of war back then of destroying the weakest first and whenever possible. And then destroy the army if given the chance.
The issue is that instead of being what it should be of war over POS and POCOs and maybe over tax benefits. War turns into a tool to drive people out of corps or out of the game completely. This was the exact reason wars were allowed to be exploited out of for so long.
That is why I really don't care of the views of say Noir or other so called big name mercs. Your game is PVP and you have the numbers and strict organization to stand a remote chance. You aren't a player and 6 of his buddies that quit eve after a war goes into another week of staying docked due to constant red presence. Atleast not until today. |
Reppyk
The Black Shell
128
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 00:54:00 -
[202] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:That is why I really don't care of the views of say Noir or other so called big name mercs. Your game is PVP and you have the numbers and strict organization to stand a remote chance. You aren't a player and 6 of his buddies that quit eve after a war goes into another week of staying docked due to constant red presence. Atleast not until today. I don't have the numbers and my organization is limited to a notebook "week#23 : wardec against Alliance#34525". But I doubt I'm a "big name merc(s)", duh. A few corporation closed because of me. A few pilots stopped playing EVE after I wardeced their corp/alliance. Mind you : I had the privilege to ask some why they were leaving. They werent leaving because "someone wardeced me onoz!11!1! how unfair". They left EVE Online because a- they finally found EVE was becoming boring for them b- they didnt like the idea of being cows predated by wolves c- for every kill in highsec, you have to outsmart the victim (which is not really the case in low/00/wh : highsec pvp is all about preparations and sneaking near the soon-to-be-a-killmail). Every player wants to think he's the smartest, and it hurts when you get ganked. d- Every time you get outsmarted, there is a thing called "killmail" that will stay around. Some people dont like it.
Every player knows that they could run to a NPC corp or join a better corp that could protect them. Wardecs are only a tool that can make people leave EVE, but there are not the reason. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
667
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 06:37:00 -
[203] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote:That is why I really don't care of the views of say Noir or other so called big name mercs. Your game is PVP and you have the numbers and strict organization to stand a remote chance. You aren't a player and 6 of his buddies that quit eve after a war goes into another week of staying docked due to constant red presence. Atleast not until today. I don't have the numbers and my organization is limited to a notebook "week#23 : wardec against Alliance#34525". But I doubt I'm a "big name merc(s)", duh. A few corporation closed because of me. A few pilots stopped playing EVE after I wardeced their corp/alliance. Mind you : I had the privilege to ask some why they were leaving. They werent leaving because "someone wardeced me onoz!11!1! how unfair". They left EVE Online because a- they finally found EVE was becoming boring for them b- they didnt like the idea of being cows predated by wolves c- for every kill in highsec, you have to outsmart the victim (which is not really the case in low/00/wh : highsec pvp is all about preparations and sneaking near the soon-to-be-a-killmail). Every player wants to think he's the smartest, and it hurts when you get ganked. d- Every time you get outsmarted, there is a thing called "killmail" that will stay around. Some people dont like it. Every player knows that they could run to a NPC corp or join a better corp that could protect them. Wardecs are only a tool that can make people leave EVE, but there are not the reason.
Yay, EVE is serious business. Just paying for it doesn't entitles you to play it. Playing EVE is a privilege to be earned.
Oh my: I just got a new signature! EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Blind Hoax
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 14:03:00 -
[204] - Quote
Under "future improvements" can we please have the option to pay allies per confirmed kill and/or offer a cash bonus for confirmed kills?
Being paid for pvping would make the merc life style that much more appealing to those who like myself might be interested in such a career. It would also add incentive to use the merc system for more than petty theft and larceny. In general a win for both parties. |
MiggSigg
Heretical Eucharistia
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.23 23:25:00 -
[205] - Quote
OK, after i have really read a lot of dev blogs and comments to the new expansion. (It took me nearly two weeks to read all the stuff). And after Inferno is now online for everyone, i would like to ask you a few things Sry everyone my english sucks as you can see, so i tryed to make it as short as possible.
This is a link to the fanfest videos http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ2u9Njy4VA&list=PLDDA989F65CD6E98A&index=7&feature=plpp_video
( I hope it worked with the link, im not a forum person. otherwise its the "war declarations video from the fanfest 2012) starting at minute 25 ending at 27:15)
After what this person says, you did try to figure something out, like 1 contract for many allys. Why at the end you descided to not make it, he does not really tell.... i mean he does say stuff about technical difficultys (26:45) but this is not really helpful. Therefore i try to make a reasonable example of a contract with multiple allys.
Corp X is looking for ally Against Corp Z War started 2012.01.01 War period Ends 2012.01.07 Corp X pays to ally [0.10 Isk] Bounty for every [1.00 ISK ] inflicted (estimated worth) damage to the offender Corp X has a Total of 100Mio Isk Bounty to payout for this War period (warweek)
[I agree with this terms]
WARNING: If you agree with this terms, legal fighting between blablabla....period ends 2012.01.07. If maximum bounty is higher then 100Mio Isk it gets proportionally divided by efford to all involved allys during this warweek. [OK] / [NOT OK]
If yes...and I am quite sure you did thought about that, what was the reason to not implement it? I can simulate such a thing easely in a excell table, at least the mathematical base, so im quite sure it can work in actual gameplay too, and most of what would have to be programmed, does allready exist in the current game mechanics, also am i shure that u are able to do this. Why did you descided to not do it in this way or something similliar (there are many possible other forms of such contracts)? And if you never thought about this, could you bring something like it? Would be very nice if you at least give it another thought
I mean i have no Problems thinking about a corp who is blindly offering theyr assistance for free and get traped into a sensless, neverending war, actually it makes me laugh. This is why i think its not a bad idea to have both possibillitys. On one side you have the more bounty hunter like killer merc, witch gets payd at the end of week proportional to his efford, on the other side you have a protector in witch you have more trust to actually deffend your stuff, and therfore gets payd in front, but stays untill the end of war.
And By the way... great work CCP, eve is the best game that i ever Played, even if it is not perfect. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
245
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 13:34:00 -
[206] - Quote
Pretty sure CCP have a hidden agenda on this change.
The idea of having allies, on the face of it, sounds cool but this implementation is too crazy not to have been thought through.
The only reason I can think of that CCP allowed allies to join the defender for free is because they want to phase out hi-sec PvP but are too chicken **** to stand up and say it. CCP: Fix Inferno war decs - Allies should not be free. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
245
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 13:49:00 -
[207] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:That is why I really don't care of the views of say Noir or other so called big name mercs. Your game is PVP and you have the numbers and strict organization to stand a remote chance. You aren't a player and 6 of his buddies that quit eve after a war goes into another week of staying docked due to constant red presence. Atleast not until today.
I kind of agree with you in that a guy and 6 of his buddies might not know what to do when a 20man PvP gang war-decs them and shows up outside station. I've always been of the mind that "eve is hard" and not everyone is cut out for this. That said, I also quite like the idea that if you are war-decced you can counter by getting allies.
However, the massive and obvious thing CCP have missed is that by making Allies potentially 'free' and 'unlimited' it completely ruins the whole system. This is the point of contention.
It seems that you are arguing from a point of not wanting war decs to work at all in high-sec? Which, I hope, is not in line with CCP's thinking (I hope).
P.S FYI, we are not a blobbing outfit but you're correct on the strict organization. CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
Aemonchichi
Limited Access Guardian Society
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 14:32:00 -
[208] - Quote
ccp soniclover:
And most importantly it emphasizes one of the key truths in EVE GÇô that having friends is really important.
u serious kid ? u play the same game as we ? where CCP emphazizes on steal from and kill ur friends? make pretend u are a corpmate to get rights ? steal all their stuff and u are a cool bro ?
you daresay that bullshit about key truths ?
u shame yourself with **** like that, and ccp would have to go a long way to make this a key truth, and that is road they haven`t even begun to walk |
Mercurio Ogeraurhirhe
Milking Interstellar Incorporated.
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 15:33:00 -
[209] - Quote
I think the system would be greatly improved if you could call aonly one ally. Be it a free blood-hunter or a serious profesional merc, your decision. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
246
|
Posted - 2012.05.24 16:28:00 -
[210] - Quote
Mercurio Ogeraurhirhe wrote:I think the system would be greatly improved if you could call aonly one ally. Be it a free blood-hunter or a serious profesional merc, your decision.
Or if you are an ally you can only be an ally on one war at a time.
Otherwise, to be honest, hi-sec wars become pretty pointless. Makes me wonder whether this is just what CCP were really after all alone.
Loads of marketing BS about how inferno is going to bring WAR and CONFLICT to EVE and all it really did was the beginning of the end of hi-sec wars. Pfft. CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1046
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 10:48:00 -
[211] - Quote
Current issues with the ally system:
1) The defender needs the ability to terminate ally contracts - with the usual 24h cooldown. This way, allies which are not performing can be removed from the war. Or allies can be removed for some other sandbox reason defined by the defender.
2) The defender needs an easy way to see whether a particular ally is pulling their weight. Or maybe I haven't found a way to pull up the war report for how an ally is doing on the current war in terms of kills/losses.
3) Ally contracts need to have expiration dates as short as 3-days and as long as 14-days (or until the war is retracted). With the option for auto-renewal at the end of the period for a *possibly different* renewal fee. I might want to hire an ally for 500M for the first 3-days and then only 200M for every 3-day period after that point.
4) There should probably be a small ISK fee, paid by the defender, for every ally accepted into the war. My feeling on this is that a fee of 10-25M per ally accepted would be enough not to crimp the sandbox nature, but enough that you maybe would not want to accept every last 1-man ally corp that applies.
5) Do not put limits on how many allies you can bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts). Do not put in scaling costs on the ISK fee paid per ally that you bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts).
6) Corps should be free to join as many wardecs as they want. If limits are being considered, they should be tabled for 2-3 months to see how things play out after the initial frenzy. |
Mercurio Ogeraurhirhe
Milking Interstellar Incorporated.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:26:00 -
[212] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Current issues with the ally system:
5) Do not put limits on how many allies you can bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts). Do not put in scaling costs on the ISK fee paid per ally that you bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts).
I still think that the limit should be 1 (or two or three, doesnt really matter while there is a limit small enough), but then the capacity to terminate contracts is clearly neccessary to avoid geting stuck with an ally that doesn-¦t perform as expected
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:16:00 -
[213] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:Pretty sure CCP have a hidden agenda on this change.
The idea of having allies, on the face of it, sounds cool but this implementation is too crazy not to have been thought through.
The only reason I can think of that CCP allowed allies to join the defender for free and without limit is because they want to phase out hi-sec PvP but are too chicken **** to stand up and say it.
Hmmmm interesting ... finally a reason for people to go to losec and nullsec .... PvP ... what a novel idea. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
250
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:05:00 -
[214] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Wacktopia wrote:Pretty sure CCP have a hidden agenda on this change.
The idea of having allies, on the face of it, sounds cool but this implementation is too crazy not to have been thought through.
The only reason I can think of that CCP allowed allies to join the defender for free and without limit is because they want to phase out hi-sec PvP but are too chicken **** to stand up and say it. Hmmmm interesting ... finally a reason for people to go to losec and nullsec .... PvP ... what a novel idea.
So you agree with my suggestion that CCP did this to effectively render wars in hi sec pointless?
How about this scenario; A big, null sec alliance "A" is fighting a null sec war with another "B". A wants to cut off B's hi-sec operations by war dec'ing them and paying a big fee to do so. B starts hiring allies (possibly for free) and suddenly B alliance has a massive upper hand by doing nothing. To make it worse, A cannot counter-hire allies for love nor money.
^ This is totally screwed! CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 17:47:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed.
So, what's the plan now that everyone is doing exactly what I said and running around taking wars for 0 ISK? Especially all of these lovely wars with tens of allies? Thoughts on how you're going to make it so that:
A) It's worth dec'ing people again.
and
B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1034
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 18:03:00 -
[216] - Quote
Aemonchichi wrote:ccp soniclover:
And most importantly it emphasizes one of the key truths in EVE GÇô that having friends is really important.
u serious kid ? u play the same game as we ? where CCP emphazizes on steal from and kill ur friends? make pretend u are a corpmate to get rights ? steal all their stuff and u are a cool bro ?
you daresay that bullshit about key truths ?
u shame yourself with **** like that, and ccp would have to go a long way to make this a key truth, and that is road they haven`t even begun to walk EVE is the only game where friendship has any real meaning, because of the potential of betrayal. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1061
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:07:00 -
[217] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote: B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free?
Welcome to the free market of EVE. There are no guaranteed income sources and not all actors are rational. Now you understand how industrialists feel about the MIMAF crowd (Minerals I Mine Are Free).
If your competitors are willing to give away their services for less (or for free), then you need to figure out how to stand out from your competition so that people are willing to pay you instead. Maybe you have to make your profits on war loot instead of the initial contract fee.
It would help if we could setup free-form bounty contracts which are paid out over time as objectives are met.
An open-ended contract system where you pay for performance (which is now possible since in-game kill mails have the concept of ISK destroyed). It wouldn't need to be tied into the wardec system either.
- "hit" or "bounty" contracts can be public or made private to a specific alliance, corp, person who will do the wet work. - Time limits of 1-14 days for expiration, 1-30 days for completion time limit. - Target area can be all of EVE, or just a selection of systems, constellations or regions. - Target can be anyone (a good way for the creator of the contract to be swindled), or limited to a specific set of corps/alliances.
The more selective that you are about contract limitations, the harder it would be for someone to defraud you without getting the results that you want.
The creator of the contract would escrow a maximum total ISK payout for the contract (could be 10M, could be 100B ISK). They then specify how much they will pay for kills of a particular type (pod, frigate, dessie, cruiser, BC, BS, cap, s-cap, titan, POS tower, sov-structure, industrial, cap industrial). Each ship class can be specified as a percentage of kill mail value (1-1000%), with a maximum payout per kill mail. There would be (13) classifications of ships. That could balloon a bit if you separate out T2 and T3 hulls. However, since payout is specified as *both* a percentage of the KM value, with an upper limit on what you're willing to pay for a single KM, you might not need to separate out the T2/T3 hulls.
Payout is made to the organization who accepted the contract, to anyone in that organization who was on-grid when the kill happened. Split just like rat bounties, and taxed by the player's corp just like rat bounties. If a particular kill is covered by multiple contracts, they should all pay out.
When the contract expires due to time limit, the remaining escrow goes back to the creator of the contract (and counts as failed). If the escrow gets used up before the expiration date, the contract is considered "completed".
So you could setup a private contract to a merc corp where they only get paid if they take out a POS tower belonging to a specific corporation in a specific system. Or maybe you pay a merc corp to wage indiscriminate war in a particular constellation. Or you want to pay for TCUs destroyed in a particular region. Or you use it as a pay-for-performance contract to get mercenaries to wage war against a target corporation.
Bounty Office https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1362340#post1362340
|
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 20:03:00 -
[218] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote: B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free?
Welcome to the free market of EVE. There are no guaranteed income sources and not all actors are rational. Now you understand how industrialists feel about the MIMAF crowd (Minerals I Mine Are Free).
I'm not a merc, I'm one of the random dec corps that's doing this because I can. My point was that CCP claimed this was to support a merc business, and then set it up in such a way that it promoted the exact opposite and seems confused as to why this happened. I am merely pointing out what has happened, why it is happening, and (in other posts) what needs to be done to the system if they actually want to promote the "merc lifestyle."
Regarding the rest of your post, I tend to prefer something less rigorous than strict contracts. You take out a lot of the risk of paying someone to do your dirty work if they can't scam you. Part of that entire business is the fact that the people doing it "legitimately" have to build the reputation of doing so, and the only way to do that is if other people can screw you over. You make things scam proof, and EVE is no longer EVE.
As a side note, you're from EVE UNI, so your opinion on HS warfare is very likely laughable, at best. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
251
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:18:00 -
[219] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote: B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free?
Welcome to the free market of EVE. There are no guaranteed income sources and not all actors are rational. Now you understand how industrialists feel about the MIMAF crowd (Minerals I Mine Are Free).
You're so far off the mark here. Anyone who's been a merc will tell you that it's not the quickest way to get rich by a mile. If it was about the ISK then players would just do incursions instead or whatever.
The reason why the current iteration of the ally system makes no sense is because it is geared up completely to dissuade players from running a war dec for any reason. See my post on this or the previous page with the example of two alliances - it shows you just how broken the system is.
There are some really simple fixes, for example the defence ally fee could be subject to the cost of the war plus whatever the ally chooses to charge if anything - meaning wars would be more cost-stable.
The truth is that CCP rail-roaded in a war change they hoped would help protect whining bears and they ended up creating a loophole even worse than the "dec shield".
What's really galling thing is how this pill was sugared as we were all told about how great the new system would be for mercs. Ironically this could not have been further from the truth. CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 22:59:00 -
[220] - Quote
Still no response? Awesome. |
|
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
252
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 21:43:00 -
[221] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Still no response? Awesome.
There is this...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1400252#post1400252 CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
Lyric Lahnder
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 03:25:00 -
[222] - Quote
It might help if allies cost increased incrementally.
Ally one: free
Ally two: costs whatever
Ally three: (costs whatever) x 2
Ally four:(costs whatever) x 4
Ally five:(costs whatever) x 8
and so on.
This would stop or slow free ally floods. Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.comI Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 12:25:00 -
[223] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Superfriends.
With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:
A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.
The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.
This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?
Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.
It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.
Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrence of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars. We've been talking to some of the merc corps/alliances and having no meaningful choice in terms of picking a defender basically nullifies their business. What we wanted to do was put in an incentive to look harder at exactly who you ally with, meaning that successful merc corps would be able to market themselves better. I agree that in an isolated sense, the 4500 vs 9x 500 people is a bit silly, but at the end of the day, making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. We can evaluate that later, but I'd really like to see how people who do this for a living fare with the changes. Regarding the recurrence, we're definitely looking at that.
Source
Just saying. I (and a lot of other people who actually use dec mechanics) called this. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |