|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:17:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:By the way, Jade, you called your system "Destruction Testing the New Wardec System"
Well, seems you broke it and it's being fixed. Isn't that the point of a "destruction test" - to find the weak spots and fix it? They're literally tests to find the breaking point.
I think you can actually claim OP success.
But instead, because you don't like the result, it's waaaaaaa Goons win wwaaaaaaaaaaaa Well remember when Mittani informed his troops that Burn Jita would be a test of CCP's commitment to emergent gameplay and whether they'd intervene to destroy the sandbox by protecting it? Kinda this. Only this time CCP have intervened to protect the big-boys from the implications and consequences of the Inferno wardec system.
You've abused a war dec mechanic and continue to whine that it's going to be nerfed.
But by all means, please continue. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
You see, the reason that CCP are helping goons is because goons are CCP and therefore, |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:23:00 -
[3] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:nice one, haquer, you started him off again
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:20:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.
This won't be abused.
At all. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Haquer wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.
This won't be abused. At all. Okay so put aside the trolly meme nonsense for a moment and lets talk like adults .... how do you think this will be abused and what is the problem with it ?
The problem is exactly how you're abusing it right now and whining that it's going to be nerfed. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:30:00 -
[6] - Quote
Also, don't take my post to mean that I care that you're abusing it. I'm just stating that you're abusing it -- since that's exactly what you're doing.
I don't mind all the free targets in highsec. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:44:00 -
[7] - Quote
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 recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.
It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate). |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:27:00 -
[8] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:Sorry, just had to comment... (<-- Please note the CSM tag here.) Jade Constantine wrote:We've had it confirmed that the CSM was universally opposed to this wardec change. . . I am not opposed to this change, therefore the CSM can not be "universally opposed" to it. Please, either try harder with the misinformation, or please, just give up Jade. There are people much better at making stuff up and blowing things out of all proportion than you are, and you're just looking like an amateur. You'll have to take it up with Alekseyev Karrde then. I was simply repeating what he said on this thread. I've bolded and underlined the quote for you. (You should probably note his CSM tag too and I think he was actually at the meeting) Alekseyev Karrde wrote:[ But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way.
And in what you quoted, it says right there that they are opposed to the solution, not the change itself.
Please, PLEASE for the sake of everyone, go find something else to do. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
Dominus Alterai wrote:Change = Solution. Good try though.
Incorrect. They know that a change needs to be made, but the solution presented is not the correct one.
Good try though. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Fuujin wrote: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. So what? The defensive coalition can deny access to hisec to the largest alliance in the game. Eventually you'll surrender.
Why would we surrender with all those targets?
Seriously, your logic is so full of holes and tinfoil. Give up already. |
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:34:00 -
[11] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=72889
CCP just posted a devblog on this. Sorry Jade, but it looks like your incessant whining hasn't paid off. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Rikanin wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Jade, this isn't GD. You don't *have* to understand where Test/Goons/Anyone but you stands on it. That's our job. You are welcome to give us feedback, not to tell everyone posting their own feedback that they're wrong. They're not wrong, and neither are you, because it's impossible to be wrong when you're just offering an opinion or idea for consideration. More Goon favoritism I guess - I never see CCP stomping up and down on any of the **** griefing bad posts the goons make. Come on, at least a dozen of my posts in this thread have disappeared without a trace.
Yeah, this thread would easily be 70 or so pages by now just due to trolling/jade whining.
Also, I'm really happy with this devblog and I do believe that it solves the woes that are currently facing the war dec mechanics.
(again, here: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=72889 ) |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:31:00 -
[13] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: See, you simply can't post without it being statements of personal preference presented as group fact.
Dude, chill out game face off. The discussion is over. Wardec change is dialed in, no point wasting any more breath on it.
If only you realized this 3 days ago. |
|
|
|