|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ministry of Love is going to be so sad. They were very pleased with Jade's initiative - it gave them tons of targets. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
You know Jade, you like to throw around the "9000 man alliance" thing here a lot but lets be real how many goons are actually in highsec spoiling for fights? It isn't many, you should probably drop the strawman.
While you're at it, accept that you brought it on yourself. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:43:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Mara Tessidar wrote:Now, imagine that I am not part of the most powerful group in Eve Online, and that I am not controlling your game. Instead, I am some 20-man "merc" corp that wants to make a reputation. So, my corporation declares war against a mid-sized alliance. The next day, there are 20 "Ally has joined a war" notifications. None of them are friendly.
Goonswarm doesn't really care about getting wardecced by every mom and pop operation out there. If we want to kill people, we will kill them. Wardecs have never stopped us from causing tears of unfathomable sadness. What this change does is keep things from getting out of hand for other, smaller groups that declare war. The way the system works now, you could theoretically have every other corporation in Eve ally against the aggressor at virtually no extra cost. And if there's anything the last 9 years should have taught everybody, it's that if there's a mechanic that can be abused, it will be abused. So. 1. Concord fee for allies only kicks in if the Defender + allies headcount is greater than the aggressor headcount. 2. For every defender ally that joins when their headcount is larger than aggressor headcount, the aggressors can add an ally too. 3. Ally contracts come up for renewal each 2 weeks, can be set to autorenewal and these don't cost concord fee unless defender outnumbers aggressor. 4. Mutual system contains as is and does not exclude allies. Do you have a problem with that?
As much as it pains me to admit it, you have a good idea there. We like it. Although the question is whether we like it more than your endless gnashing of teeth over this change. That is a tough call. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:58:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Point is though its not a strawman - its a solid balancing metric for the wardec system and I honestly can't see how it can be otherwise. The cost of wardeccing Goons is based on the number of heads you have in that alliance. Hence, its reasonable to consider the number of heads you have in that alliance as a balancing factor in how many allies can be called against you.
Now we can argue all day about how your effective size should only be 90 because only 90 of you routinely pvp in hisec but there is absolutely no way to tie that argument / assumption / claim into a system of game mechanics so lets just stick with what it says on the alliance ranking table.
If you decced us, we'd turn the tables, make it mutual, and invite anyone who wanted to shoot you to do so for free...and I imagine there are many who'd take the opportunity. That would seem to make the cost to dec us irrelevant - after all, if you've such an issue with 9000 vs 100, why would you invite the chance for it to be 10000 vs 100, or 15000, or 20000? |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Of course would your leadership make a commitment to accept mutuals from incoming wardecs to add up to 9000 total membership of corps - somehow I doubt that.
Unless chaining allies was the point of this exercise in the first place. Perhaps you just got played.
Jade Constantine wrote:Unlikely that it might have seemed I could see a future where the number of wardec allies you were fighting would be so large as to seriously impact the planning and implementation of a burn Jita style event and your leadership might actually have been forced to offer a surrender. Nice to see that you remain delusional enough to think we'd pay you 5b isk per ally to end a war though.
Jade Constantine wrote:Burn Jita was only successful because you shed your outgoing wardecs and the cost in wardeccing you during that weekend became immediately prohibitive because of cost escalation on multiple decs. But a couple of hundred active wardec fighters duriung Burn Jita would have seriously messed up your plans. Maybe. It wasn't "a couple hundred" but people certainly tried to dec us and interfere. It didn't work then, either.
Jade Constantine wrote:This is why I'm disappointed with these changes - it seems the reverse of encouraging emergent gameplay and simply a thoughtless nerf of the Inferno wardec system.
Sure the system needed tweaks and balances and this thread has examples of how those could be achieved.
Ironically I agree, but then again, a goon would be a fan of emergent gameplay, wouldn't he? |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
360
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:29:00 -
[6] - Quote
You know you've gone off the rails when Seleene of all people shows up to defend goons (sort of) and tell you you're being ludicrous. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:39:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:These changes are so bad they make one think in terms of political manipulations and dodgy disproportionate advantage. It doesn't help of course that we've been listening to Goonswarm boasting about their influence over developers for years now and then we get a significant nerfing of the Inferno alliance system to the clear advantage of one particular alliance that currently is decced by 70 defensive allies - well, it does look a bit dodgy. I'm still waiting on your elucidation on why goonswarm leaders should be deathly afraid of someone in hisec, while the rank and file doesn't care.
Well you see logistics...wait no that's all handled by neutrals. Well, burn jita-like events! Wait, no, wardecs didn't stop us last time either. We're about to all lose our space and will have to live in highsec! That must be it! Wait, no, peace is boring for goons so a completely red highsec would be the best possible outcome if that were to happen.
Hmm. I'm out of ideas, but Jade D Constantine probably has some. The "D" is for delusional! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:48:00 -
[8] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:I agree with Jade. If you couldn't bring in world renowned PvP allies like We help Noobs, INVARIANT TENSOR, Angelserivce, Dukes of Noobs, Spontaneous Castigation, Pods Must Cry, Nocturnal Twins, I AM UGLY AND THIS MAKES ME ANGRY ALSO JUMP, Kicking Smurfs, Hostile Kids, Freight Club, Next Era Dawn, Kamikaze Tactics, Unicorn Zero, PAX Interstellar Mercenary People, The Blacklist LTd., Kursk Security, Destruction Overload, Envy., Multicultural Appreciation Society, Pandora Cartel, P I R A T, Iron Oxide., Corsairs., Let Us Sleep, Ex Obscuritas, Electric Society, Tactical Knightmare, New eden lotto, Hikage Corporation, Rowdy Ramblers, Moustache Twirling Space Cads, and Corpus Alienum to fight the Goon menace, then there is NO WAY to fight them. It's impossible, really. The only way to kill Goons is to have 100 random allies in Empire. Then and only then can their nullsec empire crumble.
And moreover, all of those entities are totally necessary to fight the ebil goonies, because there are 9000 of them, and the fact that not even 1% of them are actually fighting in empire DOESNT MATTER because there are 9000 of them that COULD BE!!! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:54:00 -
[9] - Quote
God, I sure do hate those goons and the way they bring 9000 players out to fight in highsec!
Wait. What? |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:I agree with Jade. If you couldn't bring in world renowned PvP allies like We help Noobs, INVARIANT TENSOR, Angelserivce, Dukes of Noobs, Spontaneous Castigation, Pods Must Cry, Nocturnal Twins, I AM UGLY AND THIS MAKES ME ANGRY ALSO JUMP, Kicking Smurfs, Hostile Kids, Freight Club, Next Era Dawn, Kamikaze Tactics, Unicorn Zero, PAX Interstellar Mercenary People, The Blacklist LTd., Kursk Security, Destruction Overload, Envy., Multicultural Appreciation Society, Pandora Cartel, P I R A T, Iron Oxide., Corsairs., Let Us Sleep, Ex Obscuritas, Electric Society, Tactical Knightmare, New eden lotto, Hikage Corporation, Rowdy Ramblers, Moustache Twirling Space Cads, and Corpus Alienum to fight the Goon menace, then there is NO WAY to fight them. It's impossible, really. The only way to kill Goons is to have 100 random allies in Empire. Then and only then can their nullsec empire crumble. So Elise - since you find these allies so utterly laughable and irrelevant why should I have to pay concord a premium for them as long as the total size of my alliance and these corps is less than the total size of the entity making the incoming wardec? Riddle me that.
So Jade, why should you need to have that many people at all seeing as there seem to be like twenty goons active, based on the posted kill links as examples?
Riddle me that. |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:21:00 -
[11] - Quote
Uranium 242 wrote:Issler Dainze wrote:So another point of view.
I don't believe there is deliberate goon influence in the current CSM, that said, there are some CSM and CCP developers that seem to have pretty similar views of Eve when compared to the goons.
I am the only CSM seriously being affected by this change and I am definitely NOT happy with the current planned change. We were grief-ed deced some time back by the goons and then by test. We asked for allies and we got some great responses for free. So we have lots of folks hunting goons and test with good result.
I can't say that this fact hasn't had something to do with pressures to change what we now have. That's my opinion, and again, I am the only CSM member directly affected in a major way by this proposed change.
Which is it? Is it cause we're "losing" a war, which caused the GOONCP to change the wardec? Or is it just well, CCP realizes, hey this is a ****** mechanic. Have some goddamn integrity and just go full tinfoil hat like your partner over there.
Being a Highly Respected CSM Representative as he is, Issler isn't allowed to bloviate the way Jade is free to. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?
/clap
Anyway, I'm back to address a different topic this time, namely the FW. I've gotten into it on an alt a little bit and I have to say that the proposed changes are pretty unsatisfactory. I don't think allowing everyone to so easily solo plexes (namely, having them be something that can be captured by day old frigate afterburner alts) is healthy for the system - this merely encourages farming LP with cheap alts rather than fighting it out for a system, which doesn't feel very "faction warfare-y" to me.
I would suggest at least an interim solution of perhaps a few webbing towers in each complex for every race to dissuade this sort of behavior, or at least force people intent on soloing plexes to commit larger, more capable ships. That would buy time to implement a more thorough and engaging solution - people in this thread have many ideas.
Regardless of what solution you pick in the end, the overall feeling is that it should be one that encourages players to shoot it out in complexes if necessary, as opposed to running their frigate alts away to another system. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance?
Said my two cents on the FW changes - should I go bring other interested parties to the thread to post on the subject as well? |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:49:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."
Discouraging warfare by allowing plexes to be soloed in frigates isn't actually well done. The thread has multiple topics, please stop trying to monopolize it for your own grievances. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:12:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:corestwo wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."
Discouraging warfare by allowing plexes to be soloed in frigates isn't actually well done. The thread has multiple topics, please stop trying to monopolize it for your own grievances. Funnily enough it is a fix that solves a problem - small scale pvp in complexes was previously nerfed by the fact that npc ew has a significant impact on the outcome of small fights. Tracking disrupting, painting, damping and ecm all help one side or the other disproportionately. The frankly pitiful damage output of the npcs on their own without the EW effects will not really impact the outcome of player on player fights. Thats the positive direction of these changes. Now you can say they don't go far enough because one side can't speed tank and one side can and thats certainly a worthwhile discussion for the future - but aren't we supposed to be talking specifically about the test server stuff for 1.1 here? (and yes, I've spent most of my last couple of months playing faction warfare)
While I realize and acknowledge the deleterious and unbalanced effect of the ewar within the plexes, simply removing it all is a poor solution - I happen to feel that no side should be able to simply speed tank plexes with frigates. As it currently stands, one side can speed tank and the other can't - the changes enabling both sides to do it are on the test server for 1.1 right now, and so are a valid point of discussion. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:54:00 -
[16] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:So now we get back to your argument where you proudly stand on your ragged soap box and scream "CCP FAVORITISM" as loud as you can while quixotically claiming that Goons can destroy Eve unless you can bring in unlimited allies. To which you back-pedaled and went with unlimited allies until the summation of members from my allies is equal to that of the aggressor. In the old war mechanics, the one without allies, how many times did Goons wardec an empire entity and kill it off because it was too expensive to bring 50 other alliances (as you say is the necessary amount) to combat the Goon? Oh, zero in six years? You don't say! I think we actually killed some highsec research alliance by wardeccing them and blowing up all their towers and stuff, but my memory is a little hazy. So its actually once, maybe, in six years.
Hopefully I didn't just undermine your point. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
363
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:15:00 -
[17] - 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? If the point is to achieve results, why does the ability to hire 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) even need to exist? I mean, unless inflating GFs own kills, thus making our war more fun/profitable is your desired result. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
If you're going to keep linking to it, can I keep linking to Soundwave's post that smacked it down? I mean, that's all that matters, really - getting anyone to affirm "yes this is a good idea" is just you seeking validation. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:53:00 -
[19] - Quote
Can we flip the discussion around for a moment and ask why, given wardec costs, unlimited corps should be able to effectively wardec whoever they want for free by simply riding on someone else's coattails? I mean, that's what you're offering people, really. You're not saying "Oh woe is me, come defend me from the evil goonies", you're saying "Come wardec goons for free" and letting people avoid the system.
So can you please justify why CCP should consider this okay? |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
I did not ask about "consequences of being a large aggressor." What I asked was why an unlimited number of corps who may also be interested in wardeccing us, but not in the price, should be allowed to so easily circumvent the system. |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:34:00 -
[21] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Should the war dec fee take into account the actual 'real' member count who actually visit/live in high sec? Too easy to game.
Mechael wrote:Arbitrary price increases and numbers limitations are stupid.
Just give us a real "mercenary marketplace" UI where anyone, aggressor, defender, or even people not currently at war can go to hire mercs for wars. All we need is a list of corps that have flagged themselves as available mercenaries, the ability to look up their war history, and a contract system that is negotiable around price, duration, and war targets.
The current system is more than just a little silly and very un-sandboxy. It gets even sillier with the proposed changes. War contracts. This is honestly what I thought of when CCP was talking about "mercenary marketplace", not this "hey we'll just offer our services through this here button" thing. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
369
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:23:00 -
[22] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:I know you are not listening Hans because at least twice now you've completely missed the point I've been making. Two step didn't even bother reading my proposal before missing the point. Seleene frothed without considering the issue. Elise and Dovonan trolled. The only sensible posts from the CSM in this whole thread game from Alekeseyez and Issler. I 'frothed' because you were going on with your tinfoil nonsense about CCP and their Goon overlords. Thanks for taking your foot off of that particular gas pedal only to now try to paint me as a Goon Cheerleader for calling you out on it, which is almost as WTF but at least you're taking it in game now. "Almost as WTF"? You being a goon cheerleader is probably the single most ridiculous thing he's said in the thread, and yes, that includes his multiple insinuations that the developers are in our back pocket. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
370
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:32:00 -
[23] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Weaselior wrote:Also I wish to interject that large alliances beating up on small alliances is fun. While a few wet blankets may complain that all the fun is at their expense, the fun the large alliances have easily counteracts the quiet sobbing of the small minority. Not nearly as fun as large alliances getting beaten up by small alliances and their heroic allies - now that really is FUN, and frankly the large alliances create a far more impressive stream of tears. Can you direct me to some of the tears of these conveniently unnamed large alliances? I seem to have trouble finding any. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
372
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:29:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:michael boltonIII wrote:Jade have you ever thought that if you are making enemies out of 5000 man alliances, then it would logically be reasonable that in order to fight them maybe you should be good enough at making friends to have another large alliance ally you. I've got 36 allied corps and alliances ready to go. If CCP don't nerf the alliance system by this time next year it'd be 300. You guys are the ones who want to stop my space-friends from being part of the war. I've still not seen your proof that we asked for this. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
372
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:35:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:michael boltonIII wrote: You forgot to mention the part where none of those people are your actual friends I'll let you into a secret. I know those people in the allied wardec coalition as well as you know most of the mooks who are registered with TEST alliance. Not very well, then?
Still waiting for that proof that we asked for this. |
|
|
|