|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jade, why are you so preoccupied with size and growing it? I know you keep going "...vs 100" but lets be real, The Star Fraction is a turgid 74 members so its not even that. I know it's natural to want to compensate, but you could be less obvious about it.
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Come on Paradox ... when we wardec the 5000 person alliance we have to pay ISK for EVERY MEMBER of the that organization regardless of how many of them come into HISEC. They all factor into the calculation that decides the wardec fee.
And when the aggressor gets to get allies, then your argument is valid.
The fact remains that life and eve do share one thing in common: they aren't fair. Previous to the Ally system, if a more powerful group wardec'd you, you could either fight back and possibly get turned into a grease spot on the sidewalk, or run away.
Now you have the opportunity to get allies involved that can help tip the balance some, likely make them pay in blood. That said, allowing for allies is not a guarantor of equality. Unlimited allies are stupid, and everyone not named Jade or Issler agrees to that point.
As for the argument that larger alliances have deeper pockets--what, do you want a free r64 moon or personal instanced crokite belt too? This is eve, where economic disparity defines your playstyle. I'm sorry you can't fly a supercarrier or blinged out mach, or fit a doomsday on your freighter. Deal with it. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
It's like you said, you're paying for the right to shoot 9000+ people in that case. It SHOULD be expensive.
500M is also peanuts for access to the potential loot pinatas our ******** members provide. Or put another way, if you can't afford 500M for the dec, you probably couldn't afford your potential losses; hell, a neutral fleetbooster T3 runs that much.
The numbers argument is incredibly disingenuous. Prove to me that more than even 1% of those numbers are actual combatants and you'll have made your argument. Otherwise you're just looking to salve your wounded ego through numbers compensation as opposed to quality, will-fight-and-fight-hard merc forces.
Why do you want to destroy merc corps so badly, Jade? |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:06:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.
Two different scenarios.
One is the large alliance as an aggressor. You are not an existential (or even tangible) threat to their home, so a fraction of a fraction will likely form up. Possibly with occasional spikes for a specific op (people love killing POS).
The other is the large alliance as the "Defender". Again, you aren't a threat to their holdings in any means. You will never threaten their livelihood. You're realistically paying to pick off lone members and dumb haulers, with little/no risk of repercussion. Paying for this privilege makes sense; its basically consequence-free (non)suicide ganking.
I mean, if you really want to descend into endless semantics and deconstruction, we should get a discount on wardeccing you based on how many of your people actually undock.
Hell, our honda war would be free then |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.
Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.
This is not a complex argument surely ?
Actually, it is.
Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you. All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.
You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases. Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do. Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free. Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not. A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.
Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lallante wrote: As I mentioned before, the underlying principle should be to not discourage reasonably even numbers on both sides. The current proposals basically make getting even numbers against a large single attacker (like goonswarm) impossibly expensive and that has to be wrong.
I disagree.
GSF numbers are silly huge. But that's a result of a multi-region nulsec empire. You won't see those kinds of numbers in a hisec dwelling alliance--the closest AFAIK is Eve-U. Ha. So trying to design for those edge cases is just dumb. Better to balance the system for smaller groups. Because, as has been stated, nulsec groups as a rule don't come into hisec en masse. Too many restrictions, too many station games, not enough interest, etc. So the numbers there would not be a concern--any competant merc group you could recruit using normal rules would still likely be a good match numerically for your OpFor. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:27:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lallante wrote: There isn't really any real risk for a 5000 man alliance wardeccing a 50 man corp. Even if they punch 10x harder than expected this is still a drop in the ocean to the 5000 man alliance. Meanwhile the 50 man corp can neither bring in significant numbers of allies (unless it just invites in one super-massive ally), nor can it get its friends to wardec the 5000 man alliance withou incurring what will be a prohibitively high cost for most small entities.
I think you missed something: you can still bring in as many allies as you want, you just pay an additional concord fee (on top of the hiring fees/if any). 10/20/40 is 70M for 3 allies; if you can't get several hundred mercs out of 3 allies to assist you (easily outnumbering the forces a large alliance will realistically bring to bear on a 50 man) you're just not trying.
Numbers parity is a fool's errand. Quality > quantity. Or you can just balloon your corp by spamming the recruitment channel and get the same effect.
Edit: To the above poster, feel free to create whatever group you want. It's up to the target to accept allies. But if you want to shoot nulsec dwellers, well, where we live is quite clearly marked on the map. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:42:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
I agree quality > quantity (although its impossible for a mechanic to judge this) - Out of interest, why do you support a mechanic that escalates the cost of bringing in allies with the quantity of ally entities then? Is it just to troll jade (a noble endeavour).
Quantity has a quality all of its own. Especially for small scale wars--100 v 200 or 200 v 100, if you bring in a large merc corp of 200 guys you'll likely swamp the aggressor even if they aren't good. There needs to be a limiter on allies, if not a hard number than an effective ISK wall works just as well.
Ideally, the wardec system will be relatively simple and not bogged down with escalation rules, number count rules, weekly comparisons, derivatives of the membercounts, etc. You want Risk, not the board game of Game of Thrones. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?
Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?
Most people don't read the forums. All they can do in-game is solicit offers, look at their war histories, and make determinations that way. A trash "merc" corp can glom onto wars and have a kickass undefeated streak, while still being trash. A quality merc corp can fight hard and do stuff, and have the same record, but fewer members.
Who would you hire? The larger undefeated corp, or the smaller? |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:29:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: The first stage of the argument is a bit bunkum because it assumes that an entity like SF or Honda Accord would be paying for mercs in any situation on receipt of those wardecs and the answer is no.
Found your problem; its your incessantly self-centered argument.
So you and issler won't hire mercs; fine. What about the research alliance that gets dec'd? Or the small industrial group? Will you ignore their needs to defend their towers/assets/members?
Take the focus off yourself and consider the typical situation. Allowing for unlimited free allies is a Bad Thing for merc competitiveness because it dilutes the War History as a determinant of quality.
|
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:00:00 -
[11] - Quote
I know how badly you want to blob, jade, but consider the ramifications: By having so many free allies for any and all wars, you potentially improve their win/loss ratio with no effort on their part (the war history thing). A small corp gets wardec'd and is looking for allies. They see this mid-large corp that offers to join for a nominal fee, they have a strong win history. They pass over smaller "real" merc corps for this larger one. They turn out to be paper tigers and you lose assets, and the "Real" merc corp not only loses a contract, but also has its reputation stained by association "if this large merc group was useless; the rest of them are probably crap as well."
You seek to destroy the marketplace through removing a key quality check via a poor signal-noise ratio. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:49:00 -
[12] - Quote
Finde learth wrote:And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?
Because its just idiotic on its face?
Parity, equality, level fairness is not a goal. Disallowing free wardecs by all the tradehub and roving gankers against a small corp that wants to wardec someone else is just preserving the mechanic from abuse.
Forget Goonswarm. Consider the vast majority of cases--every single wardec is getting unlimited allies against the aggressor, be it 3 alts or 3000 mains. At that point, wardecs are less a way to put a hurt on a guy who's crossed you/competition, and more a way to get nulsec entities NBSI in empire.
If you can't see how that breaks the mechanic, I can't help you. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:00:00 -
[13] - Quote
Moreover, even if you managed to recruit every hisec trash corp in your free and idiot proof crusade, you'd STILL never be able to do any meaningful impact against the ebil alliance since you won't actually go to where it lives or operate cooperatively.
Your entire argument is a strawman. Give it up. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:04:00 -
[14] - Quote
Hardly. Even that condition is nigh impossible to achieve, and you know it. You're being deliberately obtuse to filibuster the issue. Accept that your toys are being taken out of the pram due to safety recalls and deal with it.
Edit: ^Fit a tank and you don't have to worry about destroyers. Your mids and lowslots in an exhumer are not purpose-built for cargo expanders and mining upgrades. An unarmed ship SHOULD be killable by anything in the game; you're relying on Concord for protection when in fact it is just a penalizing force. |
|
|
|