Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2440
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:11:00 -
[421] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:something about man hugs
every time I see someone from Sudden Buggery post, it reminds me of the time I thought it was called Sudden Burgery (which is btw a better name ) @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2457
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:16:00 -
[422] - Quote
Mechael wrote:You sound like a politician from the Mass Effect series.
Well, Jade always has had a flair for the dramatic. I thought I would respond in-kind.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2053
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:17:00 -
[423] - Quote
@ Hans
Problem is you don't "encourage" war by making it more expensive for only one side to fight a war. All those changes achieve is to protect large alliances from the allied system being used against them. It will not encourage the use of paid mercs the way you think it will.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:It's all fine and dandy to say "that's just the price you pay as an aggressor" if we are running with a punishment mentality, where the aggressor is the evil-doer and the victim needs protection at all costs.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. This is not about punishing an aggressor for "daring" to declare war, its about adding enough people into a war to make it a war rather than a sequence of random ganks. Unless the defender has a strategy to add sufficient numbers they simply won't fight and we'll be back to pre Inferno wardec evasion mentality and simply walking away.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:What you've failed to convince me of so far is the scale to which the atrocities you're trying to prevent are occurring. I understand your personal situation, but CCP has to make game play decisions that are good for the majority of players, not that just cater to one group's particular situation.
My particular situation is irrelevant to this line of thought really. No atrocity is occuring or can occur to my alliance obviously. What I saw via the ally system was an opportunity to build a real defensive coalition to take the fight back to the largest alliance in the game. Well okay, thats being nerfed but its no biggy. You and I both know what I do in Eve and it doesn't really involve hisec. The Goons dec, I'll add a free trade hub ganking alliance to the dec and never need to think about it again. Job done, but its not really the sense that I got from the intention for Inferno.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I think trying to use the game mechanics to discourage a large corp from wardeccing a small corp are about as reasonable as trying to use game mechanics to discourage a large fleet from attacking a smaller gang. It quickly becomes a game of whack-a-mole, as groups that *truly* want to grief will never actually be restricted by the wardec system to begin with, regardless of its implementation. It's akin to obsessing over which lock to install on your front door - a true burglar isn't going to be deterred regardless.
Listen Hans, you really do have the wrong end of the stick here. I don't want to discourage anyone from wardeccing anyone. I would like to make sure that once the wardec button is clicked the war becomes a dynamic and evolving thing that can grow in surprising directions.
Inferno wardecs with allies was a step[ in the right direction - nerfing those allies to the stone age is step in the wrong direction. Soundwave has declared his thinking on the issue and feels that big alliances should have all the advantages of the system - so be it. But my point is there will be no motivation for the defender to do anything but move all their logistics out of corp (as usual) and simply avoid the aggressors. Inferno 1.1 will give the ability to add ONE free merc to the war and thats all that will happen. The is absolutely no motivation to add a paid merc into a system where there is no war-objective, goal, or activity beyond random lols.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Unlimited, cost-free ally-stacking defeats the entire purpose of creating a *competitive* mercenary market. It allows for pig-pile opportunistic wardecs without creating real incentive to actually participate in the war.
Which of course is not what I proposed at all. I proposed cost-free while the defending coalition is smaller than the aggressor - once the defending force is bigger then they must pay of course and the attacker could then add additional forces.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I think a lot of us realize that forcing some degree of strategic *choice* will incentivize using the best allies for the job and increase the chance those allies will be used in the first place.
It simply won't happen the way you think it will. As long as you can add one ally for "free" that ally will be somebody who offers for free. Even if you nerf the free slot the next strategy will be to charge a willing ally a discount rate from their usual direct wardec charge. Nobody is going to pay for mercenary cover on random tradehub ganking wardecs. Without a meaningful system of objectives and win conditions for wars the only work mercs will get will be the kind of work described already in this thread (pos takedowns, pos defenses, area denial etc etc).
This change you are making will not do anything for mercenary corps and doesn't do anything at all to deal with the problem they will face on their ordinary business when whoever they dec just advertises for a free ally and gets a 5000 man alliance to join in for lols.
From the beginning of this thread I get the strong impression that the CSM members are not really listening to whats being said and are simply quoting from their own internal dialogue.
It seems you are simply justifying a decision that has already been made rather than discussing options so to be honest, we're running out of any point to the discussion.
This change will clearly happen without any alternation and we'll see how it develops over the next six months. It won't impact me much because I'll be enjoying Faction Warfare. It will remove the option of what could have been an enjoyable hisec war from the 70 allied corps at war with goonswarm of course - but thats collateral damage from the overt intention to protect large alliances from the implications of the Inferno allies system.
So congratulations - the CSM has taken the heat out of Inferno.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:19:00 -
[424] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.
Awesome. This is the concept that first got me excited when I heard about the mercenary marketplace and being able to bring mercs in to fight wars.
CCP Soundwave wrote:Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.
I totally agree with this. Anything else would be against the nature of EVE, which is of course meant to be the ultimate science fiction simulator.
CCP Soundwave wrote:Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.
What about a smaller entity that would like to gang up on a larger entity as the aggressors? Why should they have to be the defenders in order to employ mercenaries? Or better still, what about a shady industrial corporation that is sick of another corp that is mining all the rocks or undercutting all of their products? Shouldn't they be able to hire mercenaries in an aggressive way? I'm thinking of backroom deals with mercs who are under strict instructions not to reveal their employer (whether they do or not, well ... choose your mercs carefully.) Shouldn't we be able to do these sorts of things, and shouldn't it be supported by the game design itself? Why not have a real mercenary marketplace, where anyone can go to see a list of available mercenaries, review their history and credentials, and hire them (for negotiable price and duration, of course) if they so choose? I think that's what a lot of people were expecting with this expansion.
I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Imma ShroomDealer
Corporate Scum
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:20:00 -
[425] - Quote
CCP goliath. if your changing the cycle times for the adaptive armor hardener. can you also tweak the capacitor consumption per cycle to reflect the change in cycle time so it uses the same cap after the change as it does now |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
384
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:24:00 -
[426] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it? In my mind, it will be something like this
how about you guys let us duel on the regular one...
like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
tech III industrial ships! |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
575
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:26:00 -
[427] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it? In my mind, it will be something like this Slapfight? It will be like this.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2441
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:27:00 -
[428] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it? In my mind, it will be something like this how about you guys let us duel on the regular one... like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?
oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:32:00 -
[429] - Quote
there was once an episode of saved by the bell that had a dance off i think you should do that Follow me on twitter |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
575
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:32:00 -
[430] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it? In my mind, it will be something like this how about you guys let us duel on the regular one... like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions? oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal! Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2441
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:34:00 -
[431] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it? In my mind, it will be something like this how about you guys let us duel on the regular one... like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions? oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal!
maybe the fish slapping one would be better for Fanfest.. seeing as it's on the harbor anyways @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
384
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:36:00 -
[432] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it? In my mind, it will be something like this how about you guys let us duel on the regular one... like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions? oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal!
i haz been trolled...
i was thinking more of a personal war dec that lasts only a short time... like two peeps ina npc corp cant fight in high sec because they are in noob corps...
but setting up a concord sacntioned pvp fight that has clear victory conditions would allow this to happen...
though can we see punky and karuk have a sword fight at fanfest anyways?
i woould donate a plex and free booze to the winner
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
tech III industrial ships! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:37:00 -
[433] - Quote
You know to be honest; it really feels like the war dec mechanic could be tweaked to revive the merc market and not provide a situation where mega alliances are all but immune to war decs in high sec from aggressors. Yet CCP and the CSM happily present the 1.1 patch and the open end to abuse it by large alliances as collateral damage with no intention of taking an honest look at it.
Any other ideas that not only maintain the idea of a dynamic merc marketplace, but improves upon it are promptly dismissed because it also includes a fix to keep super large alliances in the danger zone. Why are you determined to keep super large alliances as safe as possible while in high sec??
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:37:00 -
[434] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I think the bottom line is that we are trying to "encourage" war, and encourage the use of mercenary forces to fight wars.
I am glad we have the same goals, even if the methods you support seem completely wrong. Perhaps you could look at why people do or don't fight. People will fight if they feel they have some chance for success. Obviously the attackers believe they can succeed, since they have chosen to initiate the war. The only task is to convince the defenders that fighting is a better option then dropping corp or skipping EVE for a week. Note how convincing defenders to make an effort is the most significant method of encouraging wars.
The free allies help convince a member of a small corp that they have support, and that they do not have to fight the lop sided war alone. It has the added effect of making the war more active by bringing people into the battle. The free allies are just extra targets who want fight, and are given the opportunity. The free allies will not accomplish any targeted task, which is where merc corps actually have a role. The problem is that there are not enough targeted tasks to hire them for. As a bonus those tasks would give the defenders something to work for. Instead of removing the free support of random allies CCP should be looking at providing targets to aim mercenaries at. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:37:00 -
[435] - Quote
Jade, the major problem with your proposal is that the ONLY scenario in which it is a good idea is in YOUR situation. You don't see why people are writing it off as incredibly biased?
Your original comments were a conspiracy fed "this has been changed because it helps Goons" whereas your proposal is literally requesting a change to aid yourself.
I will tell you what is wrong with it.
One of the major changes that CCP wanted to remove in Inferno was "greif decs" -- wardecs where a small entity wardecs a larger one for a tiny, tiny cost as there is almost no downside to it. So CCP added price scaling, such that small entities trying to wardec large ones would end up paying for what is basically a large target list. You get more reds the more you pay.
Under your solution, there would be more small corps wardeccing slightly larger industial corps because the aggressed party is outnumbered, and ergo penalised under your system.
In case you don't know, this is the MAJORITY use of the wardec system. It is literally what wardecs are used for in nearly all cases. Don't believe me? Look at the war history of any random highsec corp.
Now, you basically have two.
Say it again, TWO groups who don't fit into this in their wardeccing -- Goonswarm and TEST, attacking two entities, BEEP and you.
TWO.
Who just happen to be aggressing you. Oddly enough, the only other person with you on this is Issler and OH LOOK, they're the other victim of this "unjust" change.
Can you admit here that you see why your suggested changes are being bashed down by everyone, including the game designers working on it and the lead game designer who has already told you why your suggestion is completely wrong for the game?
Can you give me a suggestion that explains the need for your system which doesn't:
- Mention a CFC alliance - Mention 9000 vs 100 - Mention the unusual case of nullsec players wardeccing
If you can achieve this, you may have a solid point. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2459
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:47:00 -
[436] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: From the beginning of this thread I get the strong impression that the CSM members are not really listening to whats being said and are simply quoting from their own internal dialogue.
It seems you are simply justifying a decision that has already been made rather than discussing options so to be honest, we're running out of any point to the discussion.
This change will clearly happen without any alternation and we'll see how it develops over the next six months. It won't impact me much because I'll be enjoying Faction Warfare. (If the goons really wanted to "grief me" they'd have to join Minmatar FW to ruin the atmosphere there.
I am listening, Jade. All I said was that you aren't convincing me that Goons griefing people out of the game using predatory wardecs is a big enough problem to shape a mechanic around it. I mean you made a big deal about the CSM and CCP developing policy especially in response to them, but I'd say pointing to an anti-Goon war that now can't happen as your example is doing exactly that.
You're still more than welcome to convince me though that the wardec- griefing issue is out of control, I can't speak for the other CSM's but I'm *always* subject to a change of an opinion on an issue with respect to new information.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Alain Kinsella
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:05:00 -
[437] - Quote
I'm only on page 10 so far but wanted to highlight the below. Been trying to put my finger on my own 'core' issue between the two and you've nailed it. Even if item 1 is not easy to do, item 2 is more critical.
As an aside, I'm very familiar with tree inventories and their interaction, from their use in Second Life (a core feature since I started circa '04). The main reason I can live with such a system is that they have a very easy way to spawn a second window (making organizing a breeze).
Lallante wrote:A good suggestion to address what I translate your main issue to be could be as follows:
1) Create a "stripped down mode" that can be switched to in any inventory window in the same way chat windows can be switched to "condensed mode", which unexpands the tree panel.
2) Allow any number of instances of the new inventory screen. Allow the instances to be 'saved' which stores their location, size, and "stripped down or full toggle" value against a custom chosen name. Make these saves bindable to hotkeys (so "Ctrl C" could pop open a small inventory window focused on your current ship cargohold in the bottom right corner of the screen in stripped down mode).
That would give you back all the old functionality but be much, much more powerful and use the new system.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2079
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:08:00 -
[438] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade, the major problem with your proposal is that the ONLY scenario in which it is a good idea is in YOUR situation. You don't see why people are writing it off as incredibly biased?
Your original comments were a conspiracy fed "this has been changed because it helps Goons" whereas your proposal is literally requesting a change to aid yourself.
I will tell you what is wrong with it.
One of the major changes that CCP wanted to remove in Inferno was "greif decs" -- wardecs where a small entity wardecs a larger one for a tiny, tiny cost as there is almost no downside to it. So CCP added price scaling, such that small entities trying to wardec large ones would end up paying for what is basically a large target list. You get more reds the more you pay.
Under your solution, there would be more small corps wardeccing slightly larger industial corps because the aggressed party is outnumbered, and ergo penalised under your system.
In case you don't know, this is the MAJORITY use of the wardec system. It is literally what wardecs are used for in nearly all cases. Don't believe me? Look at the war history of any random highsec corp.
Now, you basically have two.
Say it again, TWO groups who don't fit into this in their wardeccing -- Goonswarm and TEST, attacking two entities, BEEP and you.
TWO.
Who just happen to be aggressing you. Oddly enough, the only other person with you on this is Issler and OH LOOK, they're the other victim of this "unjust" change.
Can you admit here that you see why your suggested changes are being bashed down by everyone, including the game designers working on it and the lead game designer who has already told you why your suggestion is completely wrong for the game?
Can you give me a suggestion that explains the need for your system which doesn't:
- Mention a CFC alliance - Mention 9000 vs 100 - Mention the unusual case of nullsec players wardeccing
If you can achieve this, you may have a solid point.
There are other small corporations that are also being wardec-ed by the goons, so more than just us two. I was contacted by one of them today, in fact. I agree that the ideal system will have to be good for the primary cases as well.
Issler
|
Azual Skoll
Skoll Heavy Industries
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:13:00 -
[439] - Quote
Surely if you're concerned about not being able to add sufficient allies to match your aggressor's numbers, you could simply recruit willing participants into your corp or alliance rather than use the ally system? Sure, fewer people will be willing do leave their own corp or alliance to do it, but hey - war is supposed to be all about consequences and difficult choices right? It'll be harder for you, but just ticking a 'requesting assistance' box and letting people do their thing seems a little easy to me - why shouldn't you have to put in some effort? Alternatively, you can simply pick your allies well - choose someone who has a proven record of forcing larger entities to surrender. That's what the ally system was supposed to be after all.
There are solutions, even if they aren't the most elegant solutions or the ones that you'd like to have as the defender. For the regularity with which such situations occur, I think it makes far more sense to rely on those than to demand the whole system be designed around your edge case.
You're also assuming that these 'huge alliances' will active prosecute a war against a smaller party using their full membership, which isn't true at all - almost all of them are in nullsec, and even at a stretch you're going to be actively fighting a very small portion of their membership. Treating a wardec from a 9000 member nullsec alliance as a war with 9000 hostile participants is deliberately misleading. Eve Blogger at www.evealtruist.com Formerly Director of Agony Unleashed's PVP-University |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2445
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:17:00 -
[440] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it? In my mind, it will be something like this how about you guys let us duel on the regular one... like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions? oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal! i haz been trolled... i was thinking more of a personal war dec that lasts only a short time... like two peeps ina npc corp cant fight in high sec because they are in noob corps... but setting up a concord sacntioned pvp fight that has clear victory conditions would allow this to happen... though can we see punky and karuk have a sword fight at fanfest anyways? i woould donate a plex and free booze to the winner
you want one of us dead? @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
384
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:20:00 -
[441] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you want one of us dead?
i was thinking more nerf mallets and protective gear like in american gladiators... PLEX FOR PIZZA!
tech III industrial ships! |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1248
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:21:00 -
[442] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:you want one of us dead? i was thinking more nerf mallets and protective gear like in american gladiators... This, plus disclaimer forms to be signed before the fight. Rifterlings - Small gang lowsec combat corp specializing in frigates and cruisers (all races, not just Rifters!). US Timezone veterans and newbies alike are welcome to join. Come chat in the "we fly rifters" in-game channel. Free fitted frigates for members! |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:27:00 -
[443] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.
Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.
I would never ask (or want) CCP to try to "balance" a fight or war in eve. I'm not taking that side in this forum fight. Yet I couldn't help but notice this.
" If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive" other than this not being duck hut online, targets CAN shoot back. We are not just putting quarters into a machine and asking for more ducks to flyby with our isk. Many times a smaller entity is taking a huge risk war dec'n a big alliance. But that aside, why then is the war mechanic the only one where corp size matters? Are larger corps now going to have higher corp offices cost since "more" pilots are using them? Will smaller corps now get a discount on those offices? Or is the war mechanic the only one where larger corps get the favoritism? (of note I feel the war price should just be one flat fee for any size corp or alliance treat all of us the same). |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:31:00 -
[444] - Quote
One more thing. You say access to 9000 targets in a war should have a high cost. Ok. The war dec mechanic is only relevant in high sec and maybe lolowsec if you really want to reach for things. Yet, to their own admission, only 1% actually go to high sec. Ok. So to have access to those 90 pilots you have to pay over 500 million ISK? But those 90 can war dec a corp/alliance of 150 for only 50 million ISK??
In one post you justify access to 9000, which is only on the extreme case all 9000 actually go to high sec. But then shortly after brush aside any posts describing extreme scenarios with words proclaiming you don't design game mechanics with extreme scenarios in mind.
What.
The.
****?!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:32:00 -
[445] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
All I said was that you aren't convincing me that Goons griefing people out of the game using predatory wardecs is a big enough problem to shape a mechanic around it.
Oh please. This discussion should be about how to have mechanics in place that create fun gameplay.
Some elements of the new wardec system is stupid, no doubt about it. But the proposed changes will just create new problems, and reinstate the wardec as primarily a griefing tool. So this isnt about "shaping the mechanic around the Goons", its about gameplay issues larger than the Goons.
EVE is supposed to be fun, and that goes for both parties in a war. When one side vastly outnumbers the other, wars are not fun, unless the smaller party just likes it that way - which is the minority of cases.
EVE is also supposed to encourage coorporation and teamwork, strategy and tactics.
Changes should be made to the mechanic that would enable the defender to achive numerical parity if he so wishes, and only hurt finacially if you try to outnumber the attacker. Alternatively, if the defender outnumbers the attacker, the option to call in allies opens up for the attacker as well. Why is this so hard to accept? |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:34:00 -
[446] - Quote
So I read this thread, gave some constructive feedback, trolled a little, which I think got deleted. The main theme I am getting is that all the power is basically towards the aggressor and the defender is up spaceshit creek.
If the goal is to get the defender to want to fight, what does the defending party want the most? IDK, not be in a war? Why not allow the defender, if they actually fight, to reduce the amount of time the war lasts. But only in instances that, lets say ze Goons are coming to stomp on some 50 man alliance or what have you.
Actually fight and destroy/lose x amount of ships up to what the dec cost. If that's met, war gets reduced by a day. So if they bring out shiny, and you Luke Skywalker them, no more war.
I also like the idea of Mercs actually flagging themselves as mercenaries. And those who flag themselves as Mercs should be the only ones allowed to ally in a war.
Just an idea. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2460
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:37:00 -
[447] - Quote
Azual Skoll wrote:Surely if you're concerned about not being able to add sufficient allies to match your aggressor's numbers, you could simply recruit willing participants into your corp or alliance rather than use the ally system? Sure, fewer people will be willing do leave their own corp or alliance to do it, but hey - war is supposed to be all about consequences and difficult choices right? It'll be harder for you, but just ticking a 'requesting assistance' box and letting people do their thing seems a little easy to me - why shouldn't you have to put in some effort? Alternatively, you can simply pick your allies well - choose someone who has a proven record of forcing larger entities to surrender. That's what the ally system was supposed to be after all.
There are solutions, even if they aren't the most elegant solutions or the ones that you'd like to have as the defender. For the regularity with which such situations occur, I think it makes far more sense to rely on those than to demand the whole system be designed around your edge case.
You're also assuming that these 'huge alliances' will active prosecute a war against a smaller party using their full membership, which isn't true at all - almost all of them are in nullsec, and even at a stretch you're going to be actively fighting a very small portion of their membership. Treating a wardec from a 9000 member nullsec alliance as a war with 9000 hostile participants is deliberately misleading.
Thanks, Azual. This was exactly the point I'm getting at - for the situation Jade describes to be one that shapes the game play decisions, it needs to be happening regularly.
This is a sandbox after all, I don't think its fair to accuse the CSM or CCP of trying to completely blot out Jade's vision of a vast war against the Goons. Unless I'm overlooking some rule, it seems that there are indeed methods through which a defending alliance could take on as many willing participants as they can find, its just not *as easy* this way. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:43:00 -
[448] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:There are other small corporations that are also being wardec-ed by the goons, so more than just us two. I was contacted by one of them today, in fact. I agree that the ideal system will have to be good for the primary cases as well.
Issler
So, "the Goons are the problem, please change the game to help us fight the Goons" ?
You're both looking at the edge case and asking for the mechanic to be changed to meet it. This is the exact wrong thing to do when designing a system to cater for many. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Alain Kinsella
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:44:00 -
[449] - Quote
Azual's beaten me to the punch, but I'll leave this here anyway.
corestwo wrote: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?
I agree that the original setup is odd, and needed tweaks. This seems like a step in the right direction for the mercs, and it still gives corps/alliances an option (which is not discussed much yet).
@ Jade - Are you willing to open your alliance to corp recruitment and alliance merger? If you're this dead-set on showing any holes in the system, than consider standing up and taking it to the next level. Perhaps in the process you'll find the kernel of a new highsec power bloc.
@ Marlona Sky - Looks like you're (or at least a group of FHC folks are) doing this already at the merc level, which sounds intriguing and cool.
I may have come here from Myst Online, but that does not make me any less bloodthirsty than the average Eve player.
Just more subtle.
|
Lord Zim
790
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:45:00 -
[450] - Quote
Just to quickly point out how the whole "OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!!!!!!1111111eleventyoneoneone" deal is overplayed, I'm not sure if there's really been any week, and certainly no month, where we haven't been wardecced by various sub-100 groups, and all they do is gank loners who are dumb. If there's any organized resistence, they just dock up, which means all we do is tell people to use neutral alts, and if they still get ganked, they're being dumb and should feel bad.
OVER NINE THOUSAND!!!!111eleventyoneoneone, indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |