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 Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi everyone,
Please find a note of the new features and changes currently on Sisi. Please note, that this is not an exhaustive list nor is it a final list of 1.1 features. Teams may add new things over the next week (for instance, GoD will add Unified Inventory fixes and changes).
Superfriends
GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never be more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Trilambda
GÇó Minmatar V3 GÇó Re-designed Caldari Drake GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship. GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
Game of Drones
GÇó Adding some new items to FW LP stores GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
How is a reduced cycle time on Reactive Armor Hardeners a good thing? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:How is a reduced cycle time on Reactive Armor Hardeners a good thing?
Decreases the time between modification of resistances. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances.
It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well?
|
Krelian Lann
The Zohar Project
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
I disagree with:
GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared)
It seems like an attempt at negating the huge cost against wardeccing huge Alliances but wasn't that the purpose, to prevent people from easily deccing entities like Goons and TEST, just to get kills in Jita ?
I don't really understand the reasoning here. |
Cathrine Kenchov
Ice Cold Ellites
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hopefully this:
All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter. will make my Guardian into a candy red & sun gold 0wnmobile that it was |
im mrmessy
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
320
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs
OMG finally ! I might even rejoin Gallente FW again.
GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
I also would love to see the return of the shiny Golden Fleet FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
48
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
im mrmessy wrote:How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
|
Trading Unknown
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Quote:GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship.
How's this work? No more zooming to zero when your ship dies? |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Trading Unknown wrote:Quote:GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship.
How's this work? No more zooming to zero when your ship dies? Yes it keeps same focus now when ejecting but if you reboard it jumps back out to 20K range |
Di Jiensai
Domination. En Garde
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
why? If you hire mercs to fight on your side of a war, why would they be out after 2 weeks if the war is still on? Whats the reason for this change?
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)
Why? This is eve, why should you not be able to wardec someone and then hire mercs to fight for you? With this change, that will not be possible anymore. I can see no reason at all to take this option away from your players, care to give a reason?
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared)
Why? 500m is pocket change for big alliances. or even medium ones for that matter. do you seriously think 500m is a lot in todays eve?
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
Why? There must be a better way for additional isk sinks. What is the reasoning behind this change? Again, this is eve, a sandbox game. why do you see the need to restrict warring corporations/alliances in this way?
I dont like these changes at all. Maybe it would be easier to accept them if there was some kind of explanation. Or at least we could offer counterarguments then.
tl;dr CCP implements lex goonswarm. or lex AAA. or lex [insert big alliance here]
not cool. |
Sarmatiko
733
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
I only hope that current Vagabond, Rapier, Tempest Fleet Issue models are temporary and CCP decided not to invest too many resources and effort, planning future redesign of these ships.. Actually there will be shitstorm anyway after masses will log in their fugly vagabonds in 1.1, hang on to your helmets
Also like some posters already pointed - why Angel Cartel npc ships have Thukker Tribe logos and color scheme? |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship. GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs
Instantly 100x better than 1.0.
Any details on when the Guardian will have the front repainted correctly? (Red or Gold but not black) |
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ...
|
Mata1s
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
Many of the V3 Minmatar ships look absolutely awesome (The Tech2 and Faction Tempest Hulls in particular also the Wolf <3), however the T1 versions look too bright and very cartoony.
The Core Complexion ship skins (Sabre, Rapier, Scimitar etc.) however are just horrible the Thrasher and Cyclone hulls are two of the few awesome looking Minmatar hulls and the Claymore and Sabre especially have had all their character removed by making them pitch black. |
|
CCP Paradox
293
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
As for the Super Friends stuff, a dev blog has been written and we're hoping it will be out pretty soon so we can discuss it further. CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
NeoTheo wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ...
This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response.
Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table.
Think it through with this example.
9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance.
Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.
Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.
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! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
filingo rapongo
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
glad to see goons are ensuring that nothing like t20 ever happens again by placing goons into dev positions.
devswarm, its not good for goons - its good for all of us |
|
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response.
Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table.
Think it through with this example.
9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance.
Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.
Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.
Now its no longer "pay to grief" for small wars, for small conflicts its fixed as designed thats cool.
If you are large allaince however it iseems you can still pick and choose your terms - LAME. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance.
The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place!
Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani.
In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table.
And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out.
You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy.
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! |
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
I will be interested to read the "dev blog", back when you guys initially stated your goals for revamping the wardec system you stated one thing - this changes that, the frustrating thing however is that its pretty much in faviour of the agressor.
People can talk about things being fair and locking folks in to combat - what i liked about the mutual thing however is that it actaully put some REAL consiquence behind that "declare" button, it would stop people doing it on a whim. Now your taking that away and we are back to some micky mouse system where people can dock up for 2 weeks if they want.
Thats a shame, because for all the nice mechanics you put in. they dont mean a dam thing if there is no consiquence for hitting the "declare" button. Troll wars in effect are back. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance. The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place! Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani. In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table. And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out. You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy.
Which devblog are you referring to? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Kashe Kadeshe
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful.
|
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1827
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. After all, someone who *wants* to fight the aggressor will likely just give the defender the ISK if its less than the cost of a wardec.
Also, as a real-world example, we had something like 30+ allies in a recent war, all offered free assistance, and none of who were involved in any kills/losses - its important to note that this isn't the 'mercenary marketplace' which was mentioned, and that should come later, but for now its a way to provide some repercussions for the aggressor.
All this will do is 'moderate' the numbers a little so the defender needs to be a little more selective.
Free 'mercs' != regular mercs who you hire to do stuff. Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war?
Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways. |
|
Ben Fenix
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:55:00 -
[28] - Quote
Even though I've always liked the idea of seeing missiles come from the old Drake's build in Missile Launchers I think the redesign looks pretty good. I'm kind of satisfied with it.
But my favorite feature on SISI right now is the Missile Flares. Finally Missiles aren't only almost unnoticable smokey trails on dark backgrounds.
Now just please redesign the Torpedo Explosion Effects, because they just look silly for a missile of that size. Almost undistinguishable compared to cruise or heavy missiles. Ben Fenix http://benplus.de |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance. The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place! Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani. In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table. And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out. You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy. Which devblog are you referring to?
I mispoke "patchnotes" :
I have underlined the bits that give a huge advantage to Goonswarm in the changes.
CCP Goliath wrote:Superfriends
GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Perhaps you'd care to explain how it is reasonable that:
A) it will become fiscally impractical to add enough allies (100+) into a war that only costs the attacker 50m isk to declare to make a difference.
B) by removing allies from mutual status you make it impossible to trap a very large attacker into a war with genuine consequernce.
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! |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
135
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful.
No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5). |
|
|
Severian Carnifex
185
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
yea... we see that...
if not only one... then few the largest ones... |
Faiunus KeDar
Green Void Inc Dark Taboo
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
Quote:Trilambda
GÇó Minmatar V3 GÇó Re-designed Caldari Drake GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship. GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
I love the V3'd minmatar ships, however the T1 ships I always imagined to be a bit darker, like the Tornado on TQ. With all the new shaders being brighter I also see another problem. The Caldari and Amarr ships I can live with, but Gallente ships does not look as good as they did once the first version of the new shaders came out. Personly I like the darker textures. Why? New Eden is not a stroll in the park, it is a dark universe we live in. I think that the darker textures fits better with that theme. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war?
The Honda Accord wardec has been running for several weeks longer and has created the same precedent.
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways.
What you have done is completely remove consequences from the largest entities in Eve. You have made it utterly impractical to add enough allies into a war to discomfort a very large alliance and made it impossible to lock such an alliance into a war so they are forced to consider surrender.
And the thing is - who was complaining about the way this was working? Certainly not the hundreds of small corporations getting to try empire war against large territorial alliances for the first time. The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really.
I don't think you have given the Inferno wardec system long enough in the wild to make any kind of rational assessments of how it is working in practise. And this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into.
These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliances in Eve and to the huge detriment of the smaller entities.
You have to acknowledge this stinks like a container of rotten fish in a cesspit.
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! |
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:02:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways.
You are TOTALLY missing the point - with all due respect. Its not the defnders ability to defend them selves thats at issue here.
Its the fact that your system had a built in consiquence for getting in over your head. Pressing the "I want to go to war" button should be something you think about as it is on TQ right now that is the case.
You could find yourself you cant get out of untill you surrender or leave your corp/allaince.
What these changes do is remove that consiquence, wars are now back to "it not a important decision, its a random gameplay distratction". In essance you have made war less important and i am dam sure that wasnt part of your original design - It sure as hell wasnt part of what we were told the design was, but i start to digress.
Defenders dont want additional toys, you gave them everything they need - they want to know if they go *all in* and get help from a wide range of people - that they can make sure that the allaince/corp/entity in question that agressed knows there are lasting consiquences.
A 100 man allaince (for example) might never do enough damage to seriously harm a 1000 man allaince - But if that 100 man allaince knows they might get stuck with a war forever - that is on terms they cant dictate - they might think twice about pushing that button.
consiquence's are core to eve stop removing them. (infuriatingly just affer you added them).
/trying not be be rant, just rather disapointed.
|
Cathrine Kenchov
Ice Cold Ellites
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful. No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).
-8.4 GJ/s is a little extreme, don't you think? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
523
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:04:00 -
[36] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war? The Honda Accord wardec has been running for several weeks longer and has created the same precedent. CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways. What you have done is completely remove consequences from the largest entities in Eve. You have made it utterly impractical to add enough allies into a war to discomfort a very large alliance and made it impossible to lock such an alliance into a war so they are forced to consider surrender. And the thing is - who was complaining about the way this was working? Certainly not the hundreds of small corporations getting to try empire war against large territorial alliances for the first time. The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really. I don't think you have given the Inferno wardec system long enough in the wild to make any kind of rational assessments of how it is working in practise. And this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into. These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliances in Eve and to the huge detriment of the smaller entities. You have to acknowledge this stinks like a container of rotten fish in a cesspit.
Not only do I not acknowledge it, I have and will continue to actively refute it. I want this thread to be relevant to teams collecting *valid* feedback on their features and so hereforth will be deleting any half baked conspiracy theories. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1985
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:07:00 -
[37] - Quote
Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war? The Honda Accord wardec has been running for several weeks longer and has created the same precedent. CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways. What you have done is completely remove consequences from the largest entities in Eve. You have made it utterly impractical to add enough allies into a war to discomfort a very large alliance and made it impossible to lock such an alliance into a war so they are forced to consider surrender. And the thing is - who was complaining about the way this was working? Certainly not the hundreds of small corporations getting to try empire war against large territorial alliances for the first time. The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really. I don't think you have given the Inferno wardec system long enough in the wild to make any kind of rational assessments of how it is working in practise. And this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into. These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliances in Eve and to the huge detriment of the smaller entities. You have to acknowledge this stinks like a container of rotten fish in a cesspit. Not only do I not acknowledge it, I have and will continue to actively refute it. I want this thread to be relevant to teams collecting *valid* feedback on their features and so hereforth will be deleting any half baked conspiracy theories.
Right so how about we have a proper discussion of the numbers and implications of changes to the wardec system based around some solid examples and see if we can come to some useful conclusions?
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! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2426
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it
it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:14:00 -
[40] - Quote
Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
So lets make a change the impacts allied lockin - allow allies to leave a mutual war with a 7 day down or whatever. Disallowing any allieds in a mutual war means that a large entity wardeccing a small one can never be effectively mutualled and thus cannot ever really be brought to a meaningful surrender. This change is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and the issue you raise could be addressed without wielding a baseball bat rather than a scalpel.
Two step wrote:Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.
Okay so lets make another small change instead.
If aggressing entity has a membership larger than the defending entity (+all their allies) then the defending entity can call allies exactly as the system works now.
If the aggressing entity has a membership smaller than the defending entity then the defender can still call allies but for every ally who is added the attacker can also add an ally.
This allows escalation on both sides and will lead to a more dynamic and evolving war environment.
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! |
|
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:15:00 -
[41] - Quote
Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.
In that case the only change needed is the 2 week rule for hires, the Mutual wars change is un-needed. see my above post as to why.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:16:00 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2426
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click
there's no right click on it... CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:21:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it... true but when people see that icon they think right click Overview works both ways.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. After all, someone who *wants* to fight the aggressor will likely just give the defender the ISK if its less than the cost of a wardec.
Also, as a real-world example, we had something like 30+ allies in a recent war, all offered free assistance, and none of who were involved in any kills/losses - its important to note that this isn't the 'mercenary marketplace' which was mentioned, and that should come later, but for now its a way to provide some repercussions for the aggressor.
All this will do is 'moderate' the numbers a little so the defender needs to be a little more selective.
Free 'mercs' != regular mercs who you hire to do stuff.
So once again.
A 9000 person entity wardecs a 100 person entity and needs to pay 50m a week (or something) They have enough isk (obviously) to maintain the wardec as long as they like.
To respond to this currently the defender has the option of adding an unlimited number of allies which might someday add up to a significant fraction of the aggressor entity.
But with these changes even if the concord fee per 2 week cycle was 1/2/4/8/16/32 etc for a baseline exponential increase it would cost a truly ridiculous sum of isk to add enough allies to reach that significant fraction.
Its just clumsy and poorly thought-out knee jerk change that is *EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath* There are other solutions to the perceived problems with Inferno Wardec system that do not involve *EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath*
Have the concord fee only kick in when the defender + allies has more total numbers than the aggressor (for example)
Keep the two week contract time and have the allies able to auto-renew if they like.
That solves all the issues raised without giving a vast advantage to people who really don't need it.
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! |
Mata1s
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:34:00 -
[46] - Quote
Fix Core Complexion skins |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: Trilambda
GÇó Minmatar V3 GÇó Re-designed Caldari Drake
And STILL, no love for the Myrmidon texture bug. Fix it, pretty please? |
Kashe Kadeshe
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:37:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful. No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5). Cheers mate.
Hmmm, not sure if want, then. Not that it's an especially big deal for me (more interested in shield tanking, currently) - but perhaps consider introducing a skill that reduces capacitor cost of RAH, but one that needs ARP as a prerequisite?
|
Di Jiensai
Domination. En Garde
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:55:00 -
[49] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially.
Indeed. Then you probably wont mind giving me 1 grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard and double that for each field. After all, the cost is only one grain of rice and that should not be a problem, even when it scales exponentialy.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:55:00 -
[50] - Quote
Removed a Inventory bug to its proper thread. |
|
Wu Jiaqiu
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:07:00 -
[51] - Quote
THE VAGOND AND TFI NO WINGY BITS . I CRY.
GIVE BACK THE SQUARE WINGY BITS NOOOUUUUUUUU...... |
c4 t
Push Pharmaceuticals Push Interstellar Network
48
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
filingo rapongo wrote:glad to see goons are ensuring that nothing like t20 ever happens again by placing goons into dev positions.
devswarm, its not good for goons - its good for all of us
Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:12:00 -
[53] - Quote
Wu Jiaqiu wrote:THE VAGOND AND TFI NO WINGY BITS . I CRY. GIVE BACK THE SQUARE WINGY BITS NOOOUUUUUUUU...... Its bug reported |
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
367
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
War dec changes make sense. You should have to shop and compare allies in the mercenary market place. Not have a free dog pile. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2004
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
Di Jiensai wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. Indeed. Then you probably wont mind giving me 1 grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard and double that for each field. After all, the cost is only one grain of rice and that should not be a problem, even when it scales exponentialy.
Yeah, shouldn't be that bad should it. After all in Star Fraction's defensive war against Goonswarm we currently have 33 allies. Lets assume that CCP kindly allow the exponential cost to begin scaling at 1m isk for one ally.
We'll pay.
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 8192 16384
etc
Well it'll probably cost us more ISK than exists in the Eve universe by the time we get half way through our allies list.
Fair to say it'll be considerably more expensive than the 50m per week that Goonswarm have to pay though.
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! |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:17:00 -
[56] - Quote
Just going to jump in this thread to say that, on average, I receive 20 "Ally has joined a war" notifications on any given day, and none of them are friendly. Eve Online: A Bad Game. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2004
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:21:00 -
[57] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:War dec changes make sense. You should have to shop and compare allies in the mercenary market place. Not have a free dog pile.
They make sense if you are a huge alliance wanting consequence-free wardecs against small alliances sure. They make absolutely no sense if you actually want meaningful numerical balance by involving significant numbers of allies.
All that will happen in this new system is that things go back the way there were pre Inferno and trade hub raiders join Privateers, Orphange and shares the dec cost vs Goons (or whoever) on one alliance and camps trade hubs.
Anyone decced by anyone bigger simply ignores the dec because there is no way to effectively rebalance the numbers via allies without being charged a massive isk disparity over the cost of the initial wardec.
No consequence for declaring entities anymore because there will be no mutuals and aggressors are always free to :forget: the bill.
The casualty of all this is the lovely rainbow coloured allied counter tactic which will be priced out of the game.
And Inferno becomes Damp Squib.
Nobody is going to be "shopping around" to hire mercs from the mercenary marketplace when it becomes effectively impossible to match numbers of aggressors in a cost effective fashion.
At best people may well charge mercs the cost of the concord fee so they can join a war for 2 weeks.
So rather than being able to advertise "come join this war for free" we'll have to say ...
"rather than paying 500m a week to dec goons" come and ally with SF and it'll cost you 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128 or whatever for two weeks."
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! |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
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. Eve Online: A Bad Game. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:24:00 -
[59] - Quote
Although I get the feeling Jade is upset because we singled out the Honda Accord because, and this is according to Goonswarm official policy, "Jade Constantine is a huge tool and we hate him." Certainly not the worst reason Goonswarm Federation has ever fought someone. Eve Online: A Bad Game. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2004
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:28:00 -
[60] - Quote
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?
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! |
|
Twg Memitim
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:28:00 -
[61] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Di Jiensai wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. Indeed. Then you probably wont mind giving me 1 grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard and double that for each field. After all, the cost is only one grain of rice and that should not be a problem, even when it scales exponentialy. Yeah, shouldn't be that bad should it. After all in Star Fraction's defensive war against Goonswarm we currently have 33 allies. Lets assume that CCP kindly allow the exponential cost to begin scaling at 1m isk for one ally. We'll pay. 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 8192 16384 etc Well it'll probably cost us more ISK than exists in the Eve universe by the time we get half way through our allies list. Fair to say it'll be considerably more expensive than the 50m per week that Goonswarm have to pay though.
hurr lets throw around random number to try and make myself look right. Alternativley, how about this for an exponential scale:
5mil 5.87mil 7.01mil 8.51mil 10.55mil 13.35mil etc..
that's not so bad is it? |
Jarnis McPieksu
398
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:33:00 -
[62] - Quote
I don't think you understand what the word "exponential" means.
Don't be sad. Most people don't.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:34:00 -
[63] - Quote
Ministry of Love is going to be so sad. They were very pleased with Jade's initiative - it gave them tons of targets. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3280
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:35:00 -
[64] - Quote
aww man now we won't be at war with every highsec shitlord in eve |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:35:00 -
[65] - Quote
This reminds me of my days of stomping all over little kids on the playground |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:36:00 -
[66] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:aww man now we won't be at war with every highsec shitlord in eve
WE ARE ALWAYS AT WAR WITH HIGHSEC |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:37:00 -
[67] - 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3280
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:37:00 -
[68] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance. The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place! Your devblog patchnotes could have been drafted by Mittani. In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table. And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out. You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy. you could, of course, declare your own war
but our wardec won't ever drop so don't worry toots |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:43:00 -
[69] - 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. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
526
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:47:00 -
[70] - Quote
Thread purged of offtopic/irrelevant replies. There are appropriate places for that and this is not one of the places. Let's keep focused on the features on Sisi. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3280
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:48:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Adding some new items to FW LP stores GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs
Isn't speedtanking FW complexes a huge issue? Shouldn't you be adding webs or something else to fix that inbalance (this is, apparently, completely breaking the caldari/gallente war)?
Also what kind of items - brand new items, or ones from other LP stores? |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2008
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:50:00 -
[72] - Quote
corestwo wrote: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. Jade Constantine wrote:corestwo wrote: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. Well given that most corporation/alliances are active only at a tiny fraction of their on the books numbers its a nonsense thing to argue about. Alliance membership is what it is. If I bring a 100 man ally corp into a war I expect to see 10% of them on the field really - thats eve. As for accepting I brought this on myself - lol, of course I did you silly goose, that was rather the point. I wanted to trap you guys into a genuine foreverwar that had enough people decced against you it would mess up your next burn jita event. Somebody needed to be the lightning rod for mittani's ego so he clicked the button. You'll see significantly fewer than the 10% (or whatever) that is active, because you live in empire, and goons do not. In most cases if goons had even 1% of our memberbase actively hunting for a fight in highsec, it would be considered an awe inspiring display of power. So, like I said - drop the strawman.
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.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1306
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:56:00 -
[73] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:NeoTheo wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ... This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response. [...] Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke. I guess you're going to post where all this QQ and whine was said, then? Or is it just more "waaaaaaaaaa goons!!" as per your usual recourse?
Admittedly my sample isn't statistically significant, but the people I know in TEST/GSF are having a lot of fun shooting the kind of terrible idiot who camps 4-4 for haulers. - "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 |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:58:00 -
[74] - 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? |
Isabella300
FinFleet Raiden.
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:59:00 -
[75] - Quote
Would be nice if some positive changes to making Titans usefull again was being looked at and implemented! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1111
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:01:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Goliath, who is your goon main?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
889
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:02:00 -
[77] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Goliath, who is your goon main?
It's me I'm the goon main.
Seriously guys now, this is a lot of whining for a permadec emanating from effectively 20 highsec goons.
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
Lord Zim
783
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:03:00 -
[78] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Goliath, who is your goon main? I'm Spartacus. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3280
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:04:00 -
[79] - Quote
When you say "re-designed caldari drake" do you mean the model, or you're going to be tweaking ship stats? |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:06:00 -
[80] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:When you say "re-designed caldari drake" do you mean the model, or you're going to be tweaking ship stats? lol the old missle launchers are gone. Come join us on Sisi and see for your self |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3280
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:11:00 -
[81] - Quote
Salpun wrote:Weaselior wrote:When you say "re-designed caldari drake" do you mean the model, or you're going to be tweaking ship stats? lol the old missle launchers are gone. Come join us on Sisi and see for your self that's sort of hard to do at work |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2008
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:14:00 -
[82] - Quote
corestwo wrote: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?
Well these changes would put a stop to all that.
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.
My issue btw about the 100 vs 9000 is not really a complaint about (oh noes we're being griefed 1111! etc) its because I don't see the point of a war unless one side can somehow lose. I did have a strategy for fighting the goon wardec and as you saw that strategy involved inviting as many allies as we could find and trying to fill hisec with people ganking goon ships. 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.
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.
Of course, now with these 1.1 patchnotes you'll never have to worry about that in the future because there will never be significant numbers of people wardecced against you in mutually-locked-in wardecs and you can always :forget: to pay the outgoing bills in advance of such events.
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.
But the patch notes as written are not tweaks and balances - they are nothing short of a frontal lobotomy on the wardec system and they will have the impact of returning hisec war mechanics to pre-inferno irrelevance.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1306
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:17:00 -
[83] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Salpun wrote:Weaselior wrote:When you say "re-designed caldari drake" do you mean the model, or you're going to be tweaking ship stats? lol the old missle launchers are gone. Come join us on Sisi and see for your self that's sort of hard to do at work Just the model, the launchers under the launchers are gone http://i.imgur.com/e2OwY.jpg - "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 |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
359
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:22:00 -
[84] - 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? |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1111
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:23:00 -
[85] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:CCP! Jade Constantine meta gamed us. Meta gamed the Goons!! *sniff* I want this fixed right now!!!!!!!!! *sniff*
By the way any word on when you will process my job application?
In all seriousness CCP, you just made the war dec system 100% in favor of large alliances picking on small ones and leaving no options for the small ones. I truly hope you fix this. I find it pretty much impossible that you did not see the large alliance vs very small alliance scenario happening.
I mean ****, why don't you just add this in your patch notes:
- Gave Goonswarm Federation a Sabre BPO so they would get over it already
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1306
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:24:00 -
[86] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:My issue btw about the 100 vs 9000 is not really a complaint about (oh noes we're being griefed 1111! etc) its because I don't see the point of a war unless one side can somehow lose. I did have a strategy for fighting the goon wardec and as you saw that strategy involved inviting as many allies as we could find and trying to fill hisec with people ganking goon ships. 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. I know you've probably never pushed the "declare war" button and so don't know how it works, but the aggressor can pull out at any point, for any reason, by pushing one button. There's no need to "surrender" or have any harm caused to you at all. Or, you just don't pay the wardec fee after a 7day period and it disappears.
Quote: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. You've willfully just made that up. They had more wardecs on them that weekend than ever before, there were as many "save jita" campaigners in Jita as the server would allow. Also, an alliance can't "shed" wardecs so I have literally no idea what you're talking about.
I assume it's just inflammatory language and limp posturing. - "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 |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:24:00 -
[87] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: My issue btw about the 100 vs 9000 is not really a complaint about (oh noes we're being griefed 1111! etc) its because I don't see the point of a war unless one side can somehow lose. I did have a strategy for fighting the goon wardec and as you saw that strategy involved inviting as many allies as we could find and trying to fill hisec with people ganking goon ships. 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.
have you ever used a neutral alt, it's pretty cool
Quote: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. I hear wardecs make it hard to shoot a ship once with a full rack of 1400s
Quote:Of course, now with these 1.1 patchnotes you'll never have to worry about that in the future because there will never be significant numbers of people wardecced against you in mutually-locked-in wardecs and you can always :forget: to pay the outgoing bills in advance of such events.
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.
But the patch notes as written are not tweaks and balances - they are nothing short of a frontal lobotomy on the wardec system and they will have the impact of returning hisec war mechanics to pre-inferno irrelevance.
wardecs have never affected my game experience because I can suckle enough space money out of the game to plex a second account for the very limited amount of time I do have to spend in empire
tech munnay |
Canned Yerins
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:25:00 -
[88] - Quote
It's not Goons you should be mad at for this change, Jade, it's Dovinian. TEST has been pushing for this change for weeks with the Honda Accord dec, because, you know, we actually have someone on the CSM. Wolololololo |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:27:00 -
[89] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:The Mittani wrote:CCP! Jade Constantine meta gamed us. Meta gamed the Goons!! *sniff* I want this fixed right now!!!!!!!!! *sniff*
By the way any word on when you will process my job application? In all seriousness CCP, you just made the war dec system 100% in favor of large alliances picking on small ones and leaving no options for the small ones. I truly hope you fix this. I find it pretty much impossible that you did not see the large alliance vs very small alliance scenario happening. I mean ****, why don't you just add this in your patch notes: - Gave Goonswarm Federation a Sabre BPO so they would get over it already
What do you mean no options. If I want to invite razor or test into a wardec I have with someone its free, I could literally invite all of 0.0 to kill 1 small alliance FOR FREE.
500million isk is nothing but a drop in the bucket if literally all of eve can join in for free. What ccp is trying to do here is to prevent alliances WHO WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE HAD TO PAY FOR A WARDEC just getting a free ride whenever they feel like.
Normally I avoid highsec like the plague, because of people like jade constantine crying and whining whenever a dev works on fixing the problems instead of keeping the system broken for himself. Today I login and see 80 alliances who either have died in 0.0 or now live only in highsec on a war with goons that they are not paying for. This change is better for everyone, and it is not like you cannot afford an extra few mil a week. |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:30:00 -
[90] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:corestwo wrote: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? Well these changes would put a stop to all that. 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. My issue btw about the 100 vs 9000 is not really a complaint about (oh noes we're being griefed 1111! etc) its because I don't see the point of a war unless one side can somehow lose. I did have a strategy for fighting the goon wardec and as you saw that strategy involved inviting as many allies as we could find and trying to fill hisec with people ganking goon ships. 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. 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. Of course, now with these 1.1 patchnotes you'll never have to worry about that in the future because there will never be significant numbers of people wardecced against you in mutually-locked-in wardecs and you can always :forget: to pay the outgoing bills in advance of such events. 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. But the patch notes as written are not tweaks and balances - they are nothing short of a frontal lobotomy on the wardec system and they will have the impact of returning hisec war mechanics to pre-inferno irrelevance.
You have been playing eve for how long. You where there when the good fight against BOB happened. You know damn well how much ccp works for the people THAT MATTER and not some ****** highsec only corperation called star fraction. When in the last 7 years have they ever worked for someone who refuses to take a fleet outside of highsec for fear that 10 newbies in rifters might kill him.
Keep getting mad. It will only make ccps reasons for doing so make it sound all the more correct. |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
261
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:33:00 -
[91] - Quote
can't you make an allies formula that only gets expensive when there are more allies than attackers? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3283
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:35:00 -
[92] - Quote
As a highsec coward who wants to hire as many useless corporations as i can find to swell my ranks and is completely unaware the ally system is intended to promote skilled mercs who you hire rather than just being used to evade the wardec cost at no cost to anyone, i disapprove of these changes |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2009
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:36:00 -
[93] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:I hear wardecs make it hard to shoot a ship once with a full rack of 1400s
They make it an awful lot easier to pod the ex tornado pilots with fast lock rifters post gank though - especially when said pods are not going properly gcc due to bizzaro inexplicable bugs.
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! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1046
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:38:00 -
[94] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:NeoTheo wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ... This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response. Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table. Think it through with this example. 9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance. Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke. Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.
waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah |
Elijah Craig
Trask Industries Li3 Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:39:00 -
[95] - Quote
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.
I appreciate your frustration at feeling like your gameplan has been nerfed, I really do, but at the same time your plan was to just have ~everyone~ in high sec join certain wardecs? Do you think all those folks would ~actively~ fight the aggressor on your behalf? In reality, they won't.
In fact, the emergent gameplay here is that you now need to choose and prioritise your Allies and work with those that are most effective.
Rather than going "Hey! Everyone pile on for free wardecs!", you are now going to have to consider who are the best partners to have in the war and, every two weeks, you can look at their effectiveness and reward those that are actually helping you and extend the deal, whilst weeding out the time wasters.
Imagine being a tight, well skilled Merc corp and seeing your entire business model be flooded by jokers looking to pile in on wardecs? How can you make a living when everyone is giving it away for free?
I figure that a single professional motivated Marc corp would do more harm to a large alliance than a huge bunch of dudes who don't do anything and dock up when it comes time to fight (see: Noir during Burn Jita). And one motivated corp defending his home, or being paid to do so, is more powerful than a 100 empty wardecs. |
Harold Tuphlos
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:39:00 -
[96] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:I hear wardecs make it hard to shoot a ship once with a full rack of 1400s They make it an awful lot easier to pod the ex tornado pilots with fast lock rifters post gank though - especially when said pods are not going properly gcc due to bizzaro inexplicable bugs.
I hear most bugs are normal gameplay features and are easily explained. |
space chikun
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:41:00 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking.
I just noticed these and well done! All we need now is corpse dressing! |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:42:00 -
[98] - Quote
Green around active ship nice |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1307
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:43:00 -
[99] - Quote
Canned Yerins wrote:It's not Goons you should be mad at for this change, Jade, it's Dovinian. TEST has been pushing for this change for weeks with the Honda Accord dec, because, you know, we actually have someone on the CSM. Wolololololo Clearly your tinfoil is too thin, as you've failed to notice he's just a Goon puppet.
Why, Mittens probably tells him what to eat.
- "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 |
space chikun
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:59:00 -
[100] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
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?
Sound reasoning? From Jade Constantine?
It must be a trap.
#4 is excluded from from the aforementioned sound reasoning.
If you mutual declare a war, you're not defending any more. You are saying you are not helpless and you will fight back. If you're needing allies to take the fight to them, that isn't necessarily true, is it? |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2010
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 16:59:00 -
[101] - Quote
Elijah Craig wrote:I appreciate your frustration at feeling like your gameplan has been nerfed, I really do, but at the same time your plan was to just have ~everyone~ in high sec join certain wardecs? Do you think all those folks would ~actively~ fight the aggressor on your behalf? In reality, they won't. In fact, the emergent gameplay here is that you now need to choose and prioritise your Allies and work with those that are most effective.
It really won't work that way.
What these changes will do is give people who have been wardecced by large alliances a limited commodity that can be resold to trade hub camping outfits so they get a discount on their normal business. Our wardec from goons for example is worth 500m - (whatever the ally escalation cost multiplier is x number of allies) and that means we could offer a service to Privateers, Orphanage etc to allow them to gain access to cheap 2 week cycle wardecs by paying us the concord escalator rather than wardeccing directly.
There will be no choosing of "serious mercs" because its literally impossible to win a serious empire war against a bunch of people whose income is not based in hisec anyway.
Elijah Craig wrote:Rather than going "Hey! Everyone pile on for free wardecs!", you are now going to have to consider who are the best partners to have in the war and, every two weeks, you can look at their effectiveness and reward those that are actually helping you and extend the deal, whilst weeding out the time wasters.
Unfortunately it'll be as described above. We'll sell slots to people who want a wardec discount and completely ignore it because the system CCP have foisted on us makes it fiscally impractical to add enough allies to make a difference. Nobody with any sense will throw money at concord to bring people into a war of this kind.
Elijah Craig wrote:Imagine being a tight, well skilled Merc corp and seeing your entire business model be flooded by jokers looking to pile in on wardecs? How can you make a living when everyone is giving it away for free?
Now it won't be given away for free - it'll be sold to you as a discount option.
Elijah Craig wrote:I figure that a single professional motivated Marc corp would do more harm to a large alliance than a huge bunch of dudes who don't do anything and dock up when it comes time to fight (see: Noir during Burn Jita). And one motivated corp defending his home, or being paid to do so, is more powerful than a 100 empty wardecs.
See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time the only people who would ever be interested will be those whose interest is in trade hub ganking and only because allying will give the possibility of a discount access to a wardec.
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! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1111
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:01:00 -
[102] - Quote
Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.
And yet CCP took the one fix that caters solely to large alliances instead of a real fix. Care to explain that Mr. CSM guy?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1049
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:02:00 -
[103] - Quote
hey guys we abused a game feature to the extent of making it an exploit now we're reaping the consequences why are you doing this to me ccp i bet mittani is actually hilmar. you're going to have to make me go back to running a spacebrothel ccp
-jade constantine
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1308
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:03:00 -
[104] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"?
Oh, christ.
No, just no so many times. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2010
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:05:00 -
[105] - Quote
space chikun wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
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?
Sound reasoning? From Jade Constantine? It must be a trap. #4 is excluded from from the aforementioned sound reasoning. If you mutual declare a war, you're not defending any more. You are saying you are not helpless and you will fight back. If you're needing allies to take the fight to them, that isn't necessarily true, is it?
well its a bit of a "making the best of a dogs dinner" option is number 4. What the mutual is making up for is the inability to force a failed attacker to actually pay a penalty for losing a war. Currently there is no option. Its consequence-free. But it appeared with Inferno that since a war continues as long as you pay - making the pay free *should* take away the easy escape from the attacker. But whats really needed is a way for an attacker to lose the war.
For example ... the goonswarm vs SF war they are currently losing 10billion isk to 1billion isk. But there is no penalty if they just let it drop. If we could work out a system that would penalize the attacker for declaring a nonsense war and losing it then that would take away the need for mutual shenanigans.
But I do take your point ... mutual mechanic is not really a good fit for bringing consequence to outcomes.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1310
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:07:00 -
[106] - Quote
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 - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2010
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:09:00 -
[107] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"? Oh, christ. No, just no so many times.
Well, war to a purpose. Thats a different matter. War to destroy a control tower, to take an outpost, to blow up a customs office, to drive a corp/alliance from their home, to grief them to non existence etc etc - all these things have a dynamic of their own and make the war interesting. Its why Faction Warfare is so good right now - there is a reason to fight, something to lose, something to win and it drives the narrative of the combat game.
Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it.
Thats the difference.
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! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1050
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:10:00 -
[108] - Quote
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
You beat me to this point. i'm sure if i was seriousposting with jade constantine i would've killed myself first though |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2010
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:11:00 -
[109] - Quote
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 Inferno wardec system.
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! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1050
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:13:00 -
[110] - 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.
difference being burn jita wasn't a test of "CCP's commitment to emergent gameplay". it was something incredibly different and incredibly simple. are you so blind as to not see it? |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2431
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:14:00 -
[111] - Quote
space chikun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. I just noticed these and well done! All we need now is corpse dressing!
Thanks!
(I'm going to read that corpse dressing thread again, best thread on eve-o today!) CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1986
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:14:00 -
[112] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that. And yet CCP took the one fix that caters solely to large alliances instead of a real fix. Care to explain that Mr. CSM guy?
This isn't the fix I would have chosen. Once again, the CSM is not in charge of what CCP does. Our feedback (which you will see when the summit minutes come out), was that unlimited free allies was dumb, and locking people into being allies forever was also dumb. Our role isn't to do game design, so it is up to CCP how they want to fix those issues. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:17:00 -
[113] - 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 -
[114] - Quote
You see, the reason that CCP are helping goons is because goons are CCP and therefore, |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2010
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:19:00 -
[115] - Quote
Haquer wrote:You see, the reason that CCP are helping goons is because goons are CCP and therefore,
hmmmm
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! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1052
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:20:00 -
[116] - Quote
nice one, haquer, you started him off again |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:23:00 -
[117] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:nice one, haquer, you started him off again
|
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:24:00 -
[118] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:I hear wardecs make it hard to shoot a ship once with a full rack of 1400s They make it an awful lot easier to pod the ex tornado pilots with fast lock rifters post gank though - especially when said pods are not going properly gcc due to bizzaro inexplicable bugs. oh no i was podded back to the bottom station in jita where goonwaffe has an office :ohdear:
also I hear it's hard to pop pods with thrashers |
Lord Helghast
Intergalactic Syndicate Nulli Secunda
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:26:00 -
[119] - Quote
no new mods :( was so looking forward to seeing the extreme rigs for frigates, or the micro jump drive get introduced, 1.1 seems a bit lackluster :(, i mean the v3 is pretty but :( still a sad panda |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3292
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:28:00 -
[120] - Quote
Lord Helghast wrote:no new mods :( was so looking forward to seeing the extreme rigs for frigates, or the micro jump drive get introduced, 1.1 seems a bit lackluster :(, i mean the v3 is pretty but :( still a sad panda Well, we're still waiting on what these new FW items are. |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1311
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:38:00 -
[121] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"? Oh, christ. No, just no so many times. Well, war to a purpose. Thats a different matter. War to destroy a control tower, to take an outpost, to blow up a customs office, to drive a corp/alliance from their home, to grief them to non existence etc etc - all these things have a dynamic of their own and make the war interesting. Its why Faction Warfare is so good right now - there is a reason to fight, something to lose, something to win and it drives the narrative of the combat game. Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it. Thats the difference.
The difference is you don't get to say what makes a valid "war."
Historically more people have died in more wars fought over grudges (be it racial, ethical, religious or for holy land, etc) than any idea of having a conflict with a positive aim.
You're literally saying "my version of a war is X and anything else is meany pants"
Grow up, or see reason, whichever works. - "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 |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:45:00 -
[122] - 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.
Wait, what? I don't see any downside to null sec alliances with the current war mechanics. Keep adding corps/alliances to the wars. It just makes high sec an increasingyl target rich environment for null alliances to roam. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2011
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:59:00 -
[123] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"? Oh, christ. No, just no so many times. Well, war to a purpose. Thats a different matter. War to destroy a control tower, to take an outpost, to blow up a customs office, to drive a corp/alliance from their home, to grief them to non existence etc etc - all these things have a dynamic of their own and make the war interesting. Its why Faction Warfare is so good right now - there is a reason to fight, something to lose, something to win and it drives the narrative of the combat game. Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it. Thats the difference. The difference is you don't get to say what makes a valid "war." Historically more people have died in more wars fought over grudges (be it racial, ethical, religious or for holy land, etc) than any idea of having a conflict with a positive aim. You're literally saying "my version of a war is X and anything else is meany pants" Grow up, or see reason, whichever works.
I think you are stretching things there.
Very few serious wars ever got started without there being some kind of casus beli or material motive. Even the crusades had a fair quanity of filthy lucre dangling in the sight of the holy warriors. But I'm not really sure what you are arguing about truth be told. I've told you that my preference when faced by a large alliance nonsense dec is generally to outsource it to the trade hub gankers. If it was a more serious dec - ie an attack on something I cared about then sure I'd look at finding some proper allies - but then thats not really what we're talking about.
Bah really, I think we've wandered too far from the point.
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! |
Kuroi Hoshi
Ajo Heavy Industries
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 17:59:00 -
[124] - Quote
Question from my last read through on the wardec cost system: Currently is only the defender's size considered for the war dec cost and not the attacker's?
If so may I recommend the formula instead being (attacker pilot count + defender pilot count)/2 being the new way to determine weekly wardec price. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1052
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:02:00 -
[125] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Bagehi wrote: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. Wait, what? I don't see any downside to null sec alliances with the current war mechanics. Keep adding corps/alliances to the wars. It just makes high sec an increasingly target rich environment for null alliances to roam. lol, nullsec alliances get farmed by hisec wardecs. Its simply the way these things work. Average nullsec pvpers are not very good at fighting when there is any actual interaction with the client beyond a click per minute. This isn't secret knowledge, its simply the way and history of Eve.
i suggest you stop hiding behind the safety of Concord and come to vfk!! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1052
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:03:00 -
[126] - Quote
jade constantine, king of the shittiest sandcastle in the world (hisec, hisec is the sandcastle) |
Mirrodin
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
43
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:04:00 -
[127] - Quote
Why do you need the allies system? Why don't the so-called smaller entities take a page from the books of the larger, nullsec blocks and make allies. Like. Real allies. Recruit corps into their alliance until you're of equal size to fight them legitimately? Why not just start camping them in the 0.0 entrances? Why not use the sandbox as a sandbox instead of relying on the game mechanics of a system you're complaining about?
Everyone but goons are worried/annoyed with these changes, that they will impact the "Small alliance's ability to field equal numbers"
Get the ******* equal numbers without the wardec ally system. Jesus. |
GokuZWar
Maverick Fleet Systems AAA Citizens
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:05:00 -
[128] - Quote
Two step wrote: This isn't the fix I would have chosen. Once again, the CSM is not in charge of what CCP does. Our feedback (which you will see when the summit minutes come out), was that unlimited free allies was dumb, and locking people into being allies forever was also dumb. Our role isn't to do game design, so it is up to CCP how they want to fix those issues.
So what you're saying is, being on the CSM you have no real power...why bother being a CSM then? What's the real point of it if they don't listen to you? Aren't you supposed to listen to us, and tell them what we say so we have a voice THROUGH you to the developers? Seems to me the CSM is rather pointless to have if they won't listen to the CSM. It's either that or the CSM isn't doing their part but is now saying this just because it's what we want to hear. Just my two cents on that. Not saying you guys are doing a bad job, but this just sounds like a cop out to me. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:06:00 -
[129] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Bagehi wrote:Wait, what? I don't see any downside to null sec alliances with the current war mechanics. Keep adding corps/alliances to the wars. It just makes high sec an increasingly target rich environment for null alliances to roam. lol, nullsec alliances get farmed by hisec wardecs. Its simply the way these things work. Average nullsec pvpers are not very good at fighting when there is any actual interaction with the client beyond a click per minute. This isn't secret knowledge, its simply the way and history of Eve.
Killing the players new to null, who don't have proper high sec hauling alts is not the same as beating null sec pvpers. You should know the difference. The mechanic continues much longer and null fleets will roam high sec regularly. |
Aethlyn
EVE University Ivy League
129
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:12:00 -
[130] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Okay so lets make another small change instead.
If aggressing entity has a membership larger than the defending entity (+all their allies) then the defending entity can call allies exactly as the system works now.
If the aggressing entity has a membership smaller than the defending entity then the defender can still call allies but for every ally who is added the attacker can also add an ally.
This allows escalation on both sides and will lead to a more dynamic and evolving war environment. I like this idea. Sounds more fair and interesting than simply adding lots of money involved.
As an alternative, I could think about a system defining the costs dynamically based on the ratio aggressors to defenders (with 20 aggressors and 10 defenders you pay a maximum of 50% of the standard fee; with 20 aggressors and 20 defenders you pay 100%; with 20 aggressors and 40 defenders you pay 200%). Looking for more thoughts? Read [url]http://aethlyn.blogspot.com/[/url] or follow me on [url]http://twitter.com/Aethlyn[/url]. |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1988
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:15:00 -
[131] - Quote
GokuZWar wrote:Two step wrote: This isn't the fix I would have chosen. Once again, the CSM is not in charge of what CCP does. Our feedback (which you will see when the summit minutes come out), was that unlimited free allies was dumb, and locking people into being allies forever was also dumb. Our role isn't to do game design, so it is up to CCP how they want to fix those issues.
So what you're saying is, being on the CSM you have no real power...why bother being a CSM then? What's the real point of it if they don't listen to you? Aren't you supposed to listen to us, and tell them what we say so we have a voice THROUGH you to the developers? Seems to me the CSM is rather pointless to have if they won't listen to the CSM. It's either that or the CSM isn't doing their part but is now saying this just because it's what we want to hear. Just my two cents on that. Not saying you guys are doing a bad job, but this just sounds like a cop out to me.
Huh? Where on earth did you get the "CCP doesn't listen to the CSM" thing from what I posted. In this case, CCP is listening to both the CSM and to the players who have been complaining about the issues I mentioned and are working to fix them. This is a perfect example of the CSM process working *exactly* the way it is supposed to work.
Since you are accusing me (and the other members of CSM 7) of not doing our jobs, would you be kind enough to fill me in on what exactly you think our job *is*? CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2013
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:16:00 -
[132] - Quote
Kuroi Hoshi wrote:Question from my last read through on the wardec cost system: Currently is only the defender's size considered for the war dec cost and not the attacker's?
If so may I recommend the formula instead being (attacker pilot count + defender pilot count)/2 being the new way to determine weekly wardec price.
Yeah its currently the defender size only hence the situation where a 9000 man alliance can wardec a 100 man alliance for 50m isk but in order to get parity in numbers (in the proposed 1.1 inferno patch) it will cost the defender a near infinite amount of isk in concord fees to get to a fraction of the aggressor's size.
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.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2013
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:19:00 -
[133] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Bagehi wrote:Wait, what? I don't see any downside to null sec alliances with the current war mechanics. Keep adding corps/alliances to the wars. It just makes high sec an increasingly target rich environment for null alliances to roam. lol, nullsec alliances get farmed by hisec wardecs. Its simply the way these things work. Average nullsec pvpers are not very good at fighting when there is any actual interaction with the client beyond a click per minute. This isn't secret knowledge, its simply the way and history of Eve. Killing a regular dose of players new to null, who don't have proper high sec hauling alts is not the same as beating null sec pvpers. You should know the difference. The mechanic continues much longer and null fleets will roam high sec regularly.
Well the mechanic is due to be horrendously nerfed in 1.1 so I guess we'll never know. But seriously, I do realize you play your own game in nullsec with vast numbers and well-organized fleets and such and it obviously works well for you there - but its an entirely different kettle of fish to small scale skirmishing in other avenues of the game. I honestly believe the average nullsec pvper is simply dead meat in a small scale engagement with the average lowsec pirate/faction warfare player/or hisec merc.
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! |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:20:00 -
[134] - 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. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:20:00 -
[135] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kuroi Hoshi wrote:Question from my last read through on the wardec cost system: Currently is only the defender's size considered for the war dec cost and not the attacker's?
If so may I recommend the formula instead being (attacker pilot count + defender pilot count)/2 being the new way to determine weekly wardec price. Yeah its currently the defender size only hence the situation where a 9000 man alliance can wardec a 100 man alliance for 50m isk but in order to get parity in numbers (in the proposed 1.1 inferno patch) it will cost the defender a near infinite amount of isk in concord fees to get to a fraction of the aggressor's size. 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 is not a terrible idea. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2013
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:23:00 -
[136] - Quote
GokuZWar wrote:Two step wrote: This isn't the fix I would have chosen. Once again, the CSM is not in charge of what CCP does. Our feedback (which you will see when the summit minutes come out), was that unlimited free allies was dumb, and locking people into being allies forever was also dumb. Our role isn't to do game design, so it is up to CCP how they want to fix those issues.
So what you're saying is, being on the CSM you have no real power...why bother being a CSM then? What's the real point of it if they don't listen to you? Aren't you supposed to listen to us, and tell them what we say so we have a voice THROUGH you to the developers? Seems to me the CSM is rather pointless to have if they won't listen to the CSM. It's either that or the CSM isn't doing their part but is now saying this just because it's what we want to hear. Just my two cents on that. Not saying you guys are doing a bad job, but this just sounds like a cop out to me.
I think the point is Two Step. Its fairly clear that a lot of eve developers lack actual gameplay experience with some of the systems they are designing and refining. This current wardec mechanism change indicates a startling lack of knowledge and understanding really - while sure, you guys on the CSM isn't game design - that doesn't mean you can't actually make some good suggestions and act as a sanity check on some of the craziest nonsense that comes out.
Would it have been that difficult to look at a couple of better suggestions for how to handle the problem of a small merc corp getting blobbed by a world of free allied decs ?
It took me 10secs to solve that problem for you on this thread.
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! |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:25:00 -
[137] - 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.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2013
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:25:00 -
[138] - Quote
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 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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1311
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:26:00 -
[139] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:I think you are stretching things there.
Very few serious wars ever got started without there being some kind of casus beli or material motive. Even the crusades had a fair quanity of filthy lucre dangling in the sight of the holy warriors. But I'm not really sure what you are arguing about truth be told. I've told you that my preference when faced by a large alliance nonsense dec is generally to outsource it to the trade hub gankers. If it was a more serious dec - ie an attack on something I cared about then sure I'd look at finding some proper allies - but then thats not really what we're talking about.
Bah really, I think we've wandered too far from the point.
It's exactly on point. You raised it. It was you who came into this thread with the notion of what type of wardecs are valid or not. Heck, I even quoted one such instance of it.
Here's another
Quote:For example ... the goonswarm vs SF war they are currently losing 10billion isk to 1billion isk. But there is no penalty if they just let it drop. If we could work out a system that would penalize the attacker for declaring a nonsense war and losing it then that would take away the need for mutual shenanigans It really shouldn't matter if you're winning or losing a war or by what ratio. The aggressor should be free to aggress as much as he wants to. You only need to look at examples like Stalingrad in WWII to realise that these scenarios play out in real war all the time, limiting them is pointless and counterproductive.
The CFC's casus beli is your bad posting, and they should be free to wardec you forever and a day at whatever cost it incurs on them, if they wish to. - "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 |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:27:00 -
[140] - 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 -
[141] - 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. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1114
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:30:00 -
[142] - Quote
*snip*
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:30:00 -
[143] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote: i suggest you stop hiding behind the safety of Concord and come to vfk!!
Don't come to VFK. They don't rat much or mine much there and the response time to aggression is short...The surrounding systems on the other hand... If I could figure out a way to rally everyone on the wardec list I'm sure we could sbu CCP-US or something.
And aside from when other folks visit and one unfortunate individual. Local's been pretty tame and civil. Come visit VFK. PS: Can anyone come deliver me some bombs...I'm getting practice in with them but they are huge (tm).
As for the changes. I approve. It will still cause the IEEE to shut its doors due to high operating expenses. But should I ever get past that. The infinite free allies were a large concern.
(It is still a concern, as even limited really cheap allies could throw a significant wrench into an investigation) You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:40:00 -
[144] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: The CFC's casus beli is your bad posting, and they should be free to wardec you forever and a day at whatever cost it incurs on them, if they wish to.
Right, of course you also believe they should be free to wardec forever and a day for 50m a week while it would cost the defending side in Inferno 1.1 a truly ridiculous sum of isk to bring an equivilent number of allies to the party so you opinion is somewhat biased.
I have absolutely no problem with being in foreverwar with Goonswarm. But clearly *someone* had a pretty huge problem with the notion it should be more of an even fight.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:43:00 -
[145] - Quote
Haquer wrote: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.
So you don't believe that an offensive power with 9000 people should produce a war that a defender with 100 should be able to enlarge for free to become 9000 vs 9000 through the wardec system if they can attract enough allies?
Why is that might I ask?
Could it be that you are the dog-in-the-manger with the 9000 person alliance and you want game changes made purely to your advantage?
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! |
Synthetic Cultist
Church of The Crimson Saviour
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:43:00 -
[146] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Adding some new items to FW LP stores.
I don't see any change in the minmatar lp store, perhaps I am missing it ? where should I be looking ? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3292
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:43:00 -
[147] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The CFC's casus beli is your bad posting, and they should be free to wardec you forever and a day at whatever cost it incurs on them, if they wish to. Right, of course you also believe they should be free to wardec forever and a day for 50m a week while it would cost the defending side in Inferno 1.1 a truly ridiculous sum of isk to bring an equivilent number of allies to the party so you opinion is somewhat biased. I have absolutely no problem with being in foreverwar with Goonswarm. But clearly *someone* had a pretty huge problem with the notion it should be more of an even fight. You could, of course, recruit people into your alliance with your charming wit and lovely posting. |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:45:00 -
[148] - Quote
i cannot believe how much stock people are seriously putting into highsec wars
this is amazing
it's like you're playing a completely separate, shittier game than the rest of us |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:48:00 -
[149] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:i cannot believe how much stock people are seriously putting into highsec wars
this is amazing
it's like you're playing a completely separate, shittier game than the rest of us
Don't worry, if this all goes through nobody much will care about hisec wars in the future.
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! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3292
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:52:00 -
[150] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:i cannot believe how much stock people are seriously putting into highsec wars
this is amazing
it's like you're playing a completely separate, shittier game than the rest of us Don't worry, if this all goes through nobody much will care about hisec wars in the future. It seems to me you're equating "people caring about highsec wars" with "jade being able to recruit people effortlessly into his titular 'alliance' in a desperate plea for relevance", while people who actually do highsec wars all approve |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1312
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:53:00 -
[151] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The CFC's casus beli is your bad posting, and they should be free to wardec you forever and a day at whatever cost it incurs on them, if they wish to. I have absolutely no problem with being in foreverwar with Goonswarm. But clearly *someone* had a pretty huge problem with the notion it should be more of an even fight. Yes, everyone did.
As much as it was fun for the first two days of signing up allies for free to grief the Russians who wardecced us I can't help but see it as ludicrously broken. Goonswarm, incidentally, have logically made the same points yet have also demonstrated having a lot of fun with the system, because they like shooting people, highsec or otherwise. They don't care if they lose badly, you just don't see that. Most of their highsec losses have been either newbees who don't know any better (literally, no idea there was a war on) or guys taking out whelp fleets and pew pewing for the fun of it. No one in the CFC is whining from the interests of personal gain, but are making logical points the system is broken. You're too blinded by your own ineffectual rage to see the difference.
It takes a twisted, conceited and incredibly biased mind to read a change that literally helps everyone in the merc marketplace (just look at all the threadnaughts on it, from Noir. and others - Moar Tears literally dispanded and did other things, others are incredibly handicapped) and see it as "Goonswarm asked for the nerf."
You of all people should know that if this is a change they wanted they would be singing from the rafters that they got it changed, tinfoil hats be damned (see: Titan changes, etc and etc). - "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 |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1312
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 18:56:00 -
[152] - Quote
Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.
Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.
Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen. - "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 |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:01:00 -
[153] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The CFC's casus beli is your bad posting, and they should be free to wardec you forever and a day at whatever cost it incurs on them, if they wish to. I have absolutely no problem with being in foreverwar with Goonswarm. But clearly *someone* had a pretty huge problem with the notion it should be more of an even fight. Yes, everyone did. As much as it was fun for the first two days of signing up allies for free to grief the Russians who wardecced us I can't help but see it as ludicrously broken. Goonswarm, incidentally, have logically made the same points yet have also demonstrated having a lot of fun with the system, because they like shooting people, highsec or otherwise. They don't care if they lose badly, you just don't see that. Most of their highsec losses have been either newbees who don't know any better (literally, no idea there was a war on) or guys taking out whelp fleets and pew pewing for the fun of it. No one in the CFC is whining from the interests of personal gain, but are making logical points the system is broken. You're too blinded by your own ineffectual rage to see the difference. It takes a twisted, conceited and incredibly biased mind to read a change that literally helps everyone in the merc marketplace (just look at all the threadnaughts on it, from Noir. and others - Moar Tears literally dispanded and did other things, others are incredibly handicapped) and see it as "Goonswarm asked for the nerf." You of all people should know that if this is a change they wanted they would be singing from the rafters that they got it changed, tinfoil hats be damned (see: Titan changes, etc and etc).
Yeah to me, the idea that this patch is a goon conspiracy so that they have LESS people to shoot at is beyond ********. Of course the Goons want you to recruit as many people as possible! How is it fun for them if you are the only people to shoot at? |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:01:00 -
[154] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: It takes a twisted, conceited and incredibly biased mind to read a change that literally helps everyone in the merc marketplace (just look at all the threadnaughts on it, from Noir. and others - Moar Tears literally dispanded and did other things, others are incredibly handicapped) and see it as "Goonswarm asked for the nerf."
I think you are in for a lot of disappointment if you think having a surcharge for allies is going to help mercs in the marketplace. In the future it simply means mercs will be charged to enter wars as allies (as a cheaper option to paying concord direct.)
Khanh'rhh wrote:You of all people should know that if this is a change they wanted they would be singing from the rafters that they got it changed, tinfoil hats be damned (see: Titan changes, etc and etc).
Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf.
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! |
Addrake
Origin. Black Legion.
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:02:00 -
[155] - Quote
You guys get fireline fixed yet? Gonna make me a sad panda if you don't get that **** sorted. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:04:00 -
[156] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.
Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.
Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen.
As long as the target can request allies and turn hisec into a maelstrom of chaos and mayhem and carnage then I don't really have a problem with that :)
Good we agree on something at least.
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! |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:08:00 -
[157] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.
Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.
Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen. As long as the target can request allies and turn hisec into a maelstrom of chaos and mayhem and carnage then I don't really have a problem with that :) Good we agree on something at least.
I still want you to explain how it makes sense that the goons would want LESS people to shoot at... |
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:14:00 -
[158] - Quote
Jade Constantwhine wrote:Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf. Um. Which dangers would our leaders see which our rank and file wouldn't see? |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:14:00 -
[159] - Quote
Tithi wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.
Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.
Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen. As long as the target can request allies and turn hisec into a maelstrom of chaos and mayhem and carnage then I don't really have a problem with that :) Good we agree on something at least. I still want you to explain how it makes sense that the goons would want LESS people to shoot at...
Perhaps you should write to the Test Alliance CSM rep and ask him what he thinks of the wardec changes.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2016
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:15:00 -
[160] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Jade Constantwhine wrote:Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf. Um. Which dangers would our leaders see which our rank and file wouldn't see?
If you have to ask you are obviously in no position to know.
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! |
|
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:19:00 -
[161] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Jade Constantwhine wrote:Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf. Um. Which dangers would our leaders see which our rank and file wouldn't see? If you have to ask you are obviously in no position to know. I'll help you: your claim makes no sense at all. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3292
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:22:00 -
[162] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf.
i'm goonswarm leadership and if i cared one whit about this i would be doing exactly what the smart man said |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:23:00 -
[163] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Jade Constantwhine wrote:Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf. Um. Which dangers would our leaders see which our rank and file wouldn't see? If you have to ask you are obviously in no position to know. I'll help you: your claim makes no sense at all.
What doesn't make sense about this argument?
"The Goonswarm CSM plants have no idea what their constituents want and they are using their influence to change game mechanics in ways that their alliance players won't actually like, just to make life harder for pubbies."
Seems totally logical to me. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3296
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:25:00 -
[164] - Quote
Tithi wrote: What doesn't make sense about this argument?
"The Goonswarm CSM plants have no idea what their constituents want and they are using their influence to change game mechanics in ways that their alliance players won't actually like, just to make life harder for pubbies."
Seems totally logical to me.
jade is claiming the reverse: that our rank-and-file don't care but goonswarm leadership is quaking in its boots at jade
which is so hilarious words can't do it justice |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:28:00 -
[165] - Quote
what exactly does goonswarm have to lose by being in a highsec war with anyone
answer: nothing, because we've been using neutral alts in empire since 2006 |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3296
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:29:00 -
[166] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:what exactly does goonswarm have to lose by being in a highsec war with anyone
answer: nothing, because we've been using neutral alts in empire since 2006 dont give away our secrets! |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1054
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:33:00 -
[167] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:what exactly does goonswarm have to lose by being in a highsec war with anyone
answer: nothing, because we've been using neutral alts in empire since 2006
jesus christ OPSEC |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1313
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:35:00 -
[168] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf.
a) You "imagining" things is not fact. Show where they whined. I asked you before but you ignored it. Surely whine loud enough to make CCP instantly renege on a headline feature change would be massive, no? i.e. the kind you're seeing from the actual mercs and NOT Goonswarm.
b) You are insufferably obtuse. You realise if, at any point, the live wars were a hassle they'd just drop them, right? You can do that at ANY time with no penalty. There's literally no downside to wanting to stop the war. You also "accused" GSF of doing this ahead of Burn jita, so which is it? Can they stop the wars when they want or not? There's no logical chain of thought in what you're saying at all, there is absolutely no harm that can be caused to your alliance by an OUTWARD facing wardec since you control it entirely.
You've not got a single point to make nor any evidence to present other than your vague hand-waving and "oh of course!" assuagions.
No wonder they're after you. - "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 |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1243
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:37:00 -
[169] - Quote
While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system:
Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here. 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! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2433
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:44:00 -
[170] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system: Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here.
Yeah, it's still not listed anywhere who declared war. It's something that would be really cool to get in, along with putting names to other actions in the war, but we didn't have time to do it for Inferno 1.1. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1243
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:48:00 -
[171] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system: Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here. Yeah, it's still not listed anywhere who declared war. It's something that would be really cool to get in, along with putting names to other actions in the war, but we didn't have time to do it for Inferno 1.1. Awesome! That would be great. Looking forward to it! 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! |
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:48:00 -
[172] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system: Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here. Sounds more like a "worst case scenario" than something which'll actually become a real problem, since you'll probably know ahead of time if a CEO or director would do something like this.
Nothing wrong with naming and shaming though. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1313
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:48:00 -
[173] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system: Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here. Much like there not being a log on who removed all the stuff from your corp hangers, it's pretty much a "give the roles to people responsible and trustworthy" thing.
My sense of mischief wants it left how it is. - "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 |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1115
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:55:00 -
[174] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:what exactly does goonswarm have to lose by being in a highsec war with anyone
answer: nothing, because we've been using neutral alts in empire since 2006
Oh, so the last six years of Privaters and Orphanage killing thousands of you in high sec are all fake kill mails?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Dramaticus
Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 19:55:00 -
[175] - Quote
The last time my GoonSwarm affiliated characters undocked in highsec I was slaughtering miners so no I really don't have much to worry about. |
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:01:00 -
[176] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:what exactly does goonswarm have to lose by being in a highsec war with anyone
answer: nothing, because we've been using neutral alts in empire since 2006 Oh, so the last six years of Privaters and Orphanage killing thousands of you in high sec are all fake kill mails? Those are newbies or dumbasses. What does that have to do with "our leaders" apparently shitting their pants to the effect of having CCP make mechanics changes? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2434
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:04:00 -
[177] - Quote
Everyone please, this has gone on long enough. Sorry to spoil all the fun, but I thought I'd clear this little debate up right now. I might lose my council seat but I just can't hide the truth any longer.
What the CSM has been hiding is that Trebor Daehdoow is actually "Future Mittani" - sent back through a wormhole in order to rewrite history. Apparently during the Great Carebear uprising of 2027 Goonswarm is all but annihilated after a mining boycott forces the Goonies into retrievers and a massive wardec fueled by insane profits off custom capsuleer-created NEX clothing leaves them helpless and vulnerable.
Now Future Mittani must get the war dec changes tweaked in order to prevent certain disaster! I also have it on good authority that Hilmar is personally responsible for letting the wormhole technology fall into the wrong hands.... Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1705
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:06:00 -
[178] - Quote
Aside from the fact that unlimited allies completely **** over any chance of mercenaries having a chance, it was just a dumb thing. When all of this came up at the CSM Summit the primary examples discussed were about what had happened with EVE Uni and how it would affect the Mercenary profession, which is something CCP does intend to keep working toward making viable. Unlike in the past, CCP has recognized this was a dumb thing and have acted to fix it quickly. I'm not a fan of this EXACT fix but maybe it'll change a bit more between now and release. Regardless, unlimited allies was a dumb thing.
However, this tinfoil idiocy is an even dumber thing. You want to argue about the mechanics, fine. If you don't like the way they are now or the way the changes will make them, that's fine too. But check the tinfoil crap at the door.
I cannot fathom how after nine years of this game being live anyone could really BELIEVE that the people that work on it give two ***** about the colors on a map or what corp / alliance is affected by balance changes. I worked at CCP in Game Design for over three years and I never made a decision or a change based upon how it would affect in game ~politics~ and no one I worked with did either. It's completely off the rails to suggest that someone like CCP Soundwave takes his cues from anyone other than CCP Unifex, the guy that does his salary reviews. It's even more absurd to bring CCP Screegs into anything related to Game Design because the guy is too busy hammering bots and RMTers; he's got nothing to do with this stuff.
It's just too dumb; I refuse to believe that you believe this stuff, Jade. The more you rabble about it along those lines, the less attention anyone is going to pay to you. Stick to talking about the actual mechanics and stop this nonsense.
CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
645
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:10:00 -
[179] - Quote
I personally think that a better solution to ally spamming would have been to allow the aggressor to bring in an ally for every ally the defender brought in. Escalation is good because more war is better. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3297
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:14:00 -
[180] - Quote
Seleene wrote: It's just too dumb; I refuse to believe that you believe this stuff, Jade. The more you rabble about it along those lines, the less attention anyone is going to pay to you. Stick to talking about the actual mechanics and stop this nonsense.
You are not familiar with Jade, I see. Not a customer, back in the day? |
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1705
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:16:00 -
[181] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Seleene wrote: It's just too dumb; I refuse to believe that you believe this stuff, Jade. The more you rabble about it along those lines, the less attention anyone is going to pay to you. Stick to talking about the actual mechanics and stop this nonsense.
You are not familiar with Jade, I see. Not a customer, back in the day?
OFC I am. I'm just mad posting a bit. I thought that's what this thread was about? Did I make error?! CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:17:00 -
[182] - Quote
You crossed the streams. :colbert: |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1025
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:23:00 -
[183] - Quote
By Odin's veiny, throbbing meat piston, what the blazes is happening in this thread? Mane 614
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1315
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:24:00 -
[184] - Quote
Seleene wrote:I'm just mad posting a bit. I thought that's what this thread was about? Did I make error?! I dearly hope so. - "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 |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3297
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:27:00 -
[185] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Weaselior wrote: You are not familiar with Jade, I see. Not a customer, back in the day?
OFC I am. I'm just mad posting a bit. I thought that's what this thread was about? Did I make error?! you were a customer? not sure I'd have admitted that. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2021
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:27:00 -
[186] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Aside from the fact that unlimited allies completely **** over any chance of mercenaries having a chance, it was just a dumb thing. When all of this came up at the CSM Summit the primary examples discussed were about what had happened with EVE Uni and how it would affect the Mercenary profession, which is something CCP does intend to keep working toward making viable. Unlike in the past, CCP has recognized this was a dumb thing and have acted to fix it quickly. I'm not a fan of this EXACT fix but maybe it'll change a bit more between now and release. Regardless, unlimited allies was a dumb thing.
This EXACT fix is pretty terrible and there are far better ways for this to be resolved that would not result in a massive advantage to giant alliances over small alliances.
Seleene wrote:However, this tinfoil idiocy is an even dumber thing. You want to argue about the mechanics, fine. If you don't like the way they are now or the way the changes will make them, that's fine too. But check the tinfoil crap at the door.
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.
Seleene wrote:I cannot fathom how after nine years of this game being live anyone could really BELIEVE that the people that work on it give two ***** about the colors on a map or what corp / alliance is affected by balance changes. I worked at CCP in Game Design for over three years and I never made a decision or a change based upon how it would affect in game ~politics~ and no one I worked with did either. It's completely off the rails to suggest that someone like CCP Soundwave takes his cues from anyone other than CCP Unifex, the guy that does his salary reviews. It's even more absurd to bring CCP Screegs into anything related to Game Design because the guy is too busy hammering bots and RMTers; he's got nothing to do with this stuff.
Not entirely who brought Screegs into it - I certainly didn't. But I do think it is entirely possible that this current CSM has done a very poor job setting forth balanced feedback on the wardec changes. I do not say that CCP developers are being corrupt here Seleene, but I do think it is very possible they are badly informed and inexperienced with the practise of hisec wardecs and the mechanics of war-fighting on the live server. One of the things you guys on the CSM are supposed to provide is a breadth of experience to help avoid this kind of fiasco.
Quote:It's just too dumb; I refuse to believe that you believe this stuff, Jade. The more you rabble about it along those lines, the less attention anyone is going to pay to you. Stick to talking about the actual mechanics and stop this nonsense.
So do we still have room to manouver on the mechanics or is this a done deal ?
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! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
360
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:29:00 -
[187] - 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. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1025
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:32:00 -
[188] - Quote
If Goons do indeed have the devs working for them, then why in the name of Loki's thorny codpiece cobra do you expect that posting on the forums will help? Mane 614
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1243
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:34:00 -
[189] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:If Goons do indeed have the devs working for them, then why in the name of Loki's thorny codpiece cobra do you expect that posting on the forums will help? Shaming CCP into doing the opposite to prove they're not allied with Goonswarm. 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! |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1028
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:35:00 -
[190] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Shaming CCP into doing the opposite to prove they're not allied with Goonswarm.
And how, pray tell, by Thor's immense spam hammer, do you expect that to work? Mane 614
|
|
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:36:00 -
[191] - Quote
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. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2441
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:37:00 -
[192] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:One of the things you guys on the CSM are supposed to provide is a breadth of experience to help avoid this kind of fiasco.
Well, what if we don't think its a fiasco? This is one of those cases where the breadth of experience provided by the CSM led to a fairly consistent conclusion - unlimited allies doesn't make for good gameplay. Not that the CSM was unanimous, but most of us though this was a bad idea and that it defeated the whole purpose of having a competitive "mercenary marketplace" in the first place.
Having a "breadth of experience" doesnt mean the feedback has to be split 50/50 on every issue. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
158
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:38:00 -
[193] - Quote
speaking as the rank and file i do care SO SUCK ON THAT LORD ZIM Follow me on twitter |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:39:00 -
[194] - 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! |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1243
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:39:00 -
[195] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:Shaming CCP into doing the opposite to prove they're not allied with Goonswarm. And how, pray tell, by Thor's immense spam hammer, do you expect that to work? If CCP wants to prove the "devswarm" accusations false, they would make all wardecs against Goons free, implement targeting stacking penalty, and enable entire alliances to be banned from Eve with a majority vote of all other players, consequences of these actions be damned. Until then, they will keep getting accused of making Goonswarm win Eve. 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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2021
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:41:00 -
[196] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:If Goons do indeed have the devs working for them, then why in the name of Loki's thorny codpiece cobra do you expect that posting on the forums will help?
Its just possible the developers in question might be open to doing some better with the wardec changes than just handing the whole mechanic over to giant alliances as a expensive toy priced out of the reach of the little guys.
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! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:43:00 -
[197] - Quote
I'm the one spearheading for reforms to the Inferno war dec system and the CSM has pretty solidly been behind the changes we discussed prior to and during the CSM summit.
The slight cost added to taking new allies was not one of those changes, I do not support it, and I do not think the CSM as a whole is too enthused (though Issler doesn't support it for different reasons than the rest of us do: it's still ****). Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2021
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:43:00 -
[198] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:One of the things you guys on the CSM are supposed to provide is a breadth of experience to help avoid this kind of fiasco. Well, what if we don't think its a fiasco? This is one of those cases where the breadth of experience provided by the CSM led to a fairly consistent conclusion - unlimited allies doesn't make for good gameplay. Not that the CSM was unanimous, but most of us though this was a bad idea and that it defeated the whole purpose of having a competitive "mercenary marketplace" in the first place. Having a "breadth of experience" doesnt mean the feedback has to be split 50/50 on every issue.
So what about the compromise solution where you don't pay concord for allies as long as the total headcount of defender + all allies is less than the total headcount of the aggressor?
This puts an upper limit on allies for most smaller wars - while allowing proper countering of a giant alliance wardeccing a smaller alliance.
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! |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1028
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:44:00 -
[199] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:If CCP wants to prove the "devswarm" accusations false, they would make all wardecs against Goons free, implement targeting stacking penalty, and enable entire alliances to be banned from Eve with a majority vote of all other players, consequences of these actions be damned. Until then, they will keep getting accused of making Goonswarm win Eve. By Baldur's delicate but well-proportioned passion plunger! I almost want to see this implemented, just to see what would happen. Mane 614
|
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:45:00 -
[200] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:One of the things you guys on the CSM are supposed to provide is a breadth of experience to help avoid this kind of fiasco. Well, what if we don't think its a fiasco? This is one of those cases where the breadth of experience provided by the CSM led to a fairly consistent conclusion - unlimited allies doesn't make for good gameplay. Not that the CSM was unanimous, but most of us though this was a bad idea and that it defeated the whole purpose of having a competitive "mercenary marketplace" in the first place. Having a "breadth of experience" doesnt mean the feedback has to be split 50/50 on every issue. So what about the compromise solution where you don't pay concord for allies as long as the total headcount of defender + all allies is less than the total headcount of the aggressor? This puts an upper limit on allies for most smaller wars - while allowing proper countering of a giant alliance wardeccing a smaller alliance. Frankly Jade this whole concord fees issue is the wrong direction entirely. Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
831
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:46:00 -
[201] - Quote
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. ~ |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2021
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:47:00 -
[202] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I'm the one spearheading for reforms to the Inferno war dec system and the CSM has pretty solidly been behind the changes we discussed prior to and during the CSM summit.
The slight cost added to taking new allies was not one of those changes, I do not support it, and I do not think the CSM as a whole is too enthused (though Issler doesn't support it for different reasons than the rest of us do: it's still ****).
I'm glad to hear that Alekseyev - thanks for your comment. I mean when/if this thing does go live it will create some ridiculous situations. I mean Seleene can froth at me all he likes saying "how dare you accuse CCP of being unbalanced in favour of goons" but thats exactly how its going to look when the goons can wardec at target for 50m isk and it takes potentially unlimited ISK to count the dec through the allied system.
It will be a simple matter of ISK comparison. When the largest entity in the game can wardec for peanuts and you can't bring allies for less than an emperor's ransom then something is very fishy with the system.
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! |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1028
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:48:00 -
[203] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Its just possible the developers in question might be open to doing some better with the wardec changes than just handing the whole mechanic over to giant alliances as a expensive toy priced out of the reach of the little guys. By Ymir's ponderous joy-juice javelin, why do you think, if the evs were so blatantly in the pocket of Goonswarm, they'd change course simply because you complained about it? Mane 614
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:48:00 -
[204] - 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!!! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1115
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:51:00 -
[205] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Players will always look at extremes when it comes to game mechanics. When I say extremes I am referring to scenarios. Because the war dec mechanic is based off member count; one extreme is the one man corp, the other will be the current largest alliance. That current one is Goonswarm Federation. If they did not exist it would be TEST. If not them, then xxxRMTxxx or something like that.
My point is you know damn well players were going to look at extremes to see how balanced things are. Hell I'm will to bet you guys did too. So why did you release a war dec over haul that makes the largest, richest null alliance also the safest in high sec??
It looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
...your telling everyone it's not a duck?!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:53:00 -
[206] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:I'm glad to hear that Alekseyev - thanks for your comment. I mean when/if this thing does go live it will create some ridiculous situations. I mean Seleene can froth at me all he likes saying "how dare you accuse CCP of being unbalanced in favour of goons" but thats exactly how its going to look when the goons can wardec at target for 50m isk and it takes potentially unlimited ISK to count the dec through the allied system. I'm still waiting on the elucidation on your reasoning behind why the GSF leaders should be afraid of hisec, whereas the rank and file isn't. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2021
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:54:00 -
[207] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Its just possible the developers in question might be open to doing some better with the wardec changes than just handing the whole mechanic over to giant alliances as a expensive toy priced out of the reach of the little guys. By Ymir's ponderous joy-juice javelin, why do you think, if the evs were so blatantly in the pocket of Goonswarm, they'd change course simply because you complained about it?
You see its the wrong imagery entirely ...
CCP on this issue is a bit like slumbering King Th+¬oden and there are some evil Gr+¡ma Wormtongue's on the CSM whispering to his ear that anybody who isn't a member of 5000 man alliance is a traitor to Rohan.
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! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:54:00 -
[208] - Quote
God, I sure do hate those goons and the way they bring 9000 players out to fight in highsec!
Wait. What? |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1028
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
OK, I'm starting to run low on colourful synonyms for the genitalia of Nordic deities, so I'm going to simply state that I think the idea that Goons particularly care about hi-sec wars is far-fetched. Mane 614
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1029
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:59:00 -
[210] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP on this issue is a bit like slumbering King Th+¬oden and there are some evil Gr+¡ma Wormtongue's on the CSM whispering to his ear that anybody who isn't a member of 5000 man alliance is a traitor to Rohan.
Why do you believe CCP as a whole would compromise their integrity for one alliance? Mane 614
|
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2022
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:59:00 -
[211] - 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.
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.
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! |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1710
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 20:59:00 -
[212] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I'm the one spearheading for reforms to the Inferno war dec system and the CSM has pretty solidly been behind the changes we discussed prior to and during the CSM summit.
The slight cost added to taking new allies was not one of those changes, I do not support it, and I do not think the CSM as a whole is too enthused (though Issler doesn't support it for different reasons than the rest of us do: it's still ****). I'm glad to hear that Alekseyev - thanks for your comment. I mean when/if this thing does go live it will create some ridiculous situations. I mean Seleene can froth at me all he likes saying "how dare you accuse CCP of being unbalanced in favour of goons" but thats exactly how its going to look when the goons can wardec at target for 50m isk and it takes potentially unlimited ISK to count the dec through the allied system. It will be a simple matter of ISK comparison. When the largest entity in the game can wardec for peanuts and you can't bring allies for less than an emperor's ransom then something is very fishy with the system.
Jade, my 'frothing at the mouth' is actually quite measured compared to the rampant paranoia you've attempted to foster over the last several pages. Don't backpedal by saying it's a lack of dev experience or CSM inaction now. As I said in my post, I don't believe you are dumb enough to believe in that tinfoil crap (quite the opposite really) so this coy "what it will look like" routine just falls flat. Yeah, it makes me a little ~mad~ because I honestly thought we were past that sort of nonsense, especially someone like you that has been on the CSM and met some of these guys.
As for the CSM, we're not watching this from the sidelines and were already asking after it before this forum madness kicked off. As Alek said, I'm not sure how the wires got crossed here but I'm pretty sure we can resolve it with a few good posts internally. That doesn't mean the ally system should allow 20,30 or 70 corps, etc... to bandwagon tho. v0v CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2022
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:02:00 -
[213] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP on this issue is a bit like slumbering King Th+¬oden and there are some evil Gr+¡ma Wormtongue's on the CSM whispering to his ear that anybody who isn't a member of 5000 man alliance is a traitor to Rohan. Why do you believe CCP as a whole would compromise their integrity for one alliance?
I'm not sure King Th+¬oden willingly compromised his integrity to Grimir ... he was ensorcelled by evil magicks and lies.
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! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:03:00 -
[214] - 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. |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2075
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:05:00 -
[215] - Quote
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.
We are 150 person alliance being prema-dec-ed by the two largest alliances in Eve. How could we possible fight them in any fair manner? The war dec war-dec fees will never be factor to these big alliances, they print isks with their tech moons for example.
The current allies system at least let them pay in actually combat losses for their nonsense. But making us have to start paying a lot for allies will be a burden for us. Where is that fair given the huge difference in size 150 vs 12000!
So what I hoped for and don't see yet are changes that address these issues.
1. Something that takes into account the difference in the sizes of the corps/alliances involved. 2. Some clear reasonable "win" condition, like driving someone out of some part of space or some amount of isk loss that triggers surrender. 3. An allies system that takes into account the relative sizes of the parties, I should be allowed to have a lot of allies if I am fighting 12K folks with my 150. 4. Something that makes it more attractive to me to hire a merc as compared to free allies. If there has to be a cap for the number allies we can have, then we should be able to make any fees that have to pay past that maximum of free allies go to mercs we can hire, not concord. 5. Fees sustainable by smaller organizations under siege.
I don't see these changes addressing any of those items.
So I don't think the goons got this because of plants in the CSM or CCP, but I think its clear from my perspective if this change goes forward it eliminates the only way a small outfit like the Honda Accord can survive against such an unbalanced war and definitely favors larger aggressors in a very unbalanced manner.
Issler
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1029
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:05:00 -
[216] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:I'm not sure King Th+¬oden willingly compromised his integrity to Grimir ... he was ensorcelled by evil magicks and lies.
Are you trolling? At this point, it sounds like you're just having a laugh. Mane 614
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3297
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:05:00 -
[217] - Quote
jade needs everyone he can get because he is terrified its as simple as that
any amount of goons will beat him so he needs as much cannon fodder and chaff as he can find |
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:07:00 -
[218] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: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 don't you want to elucidate on your claim that GSF leaders were supposed to be scared enough of the wardec mechanics that they got CCP to change them to suit, while the rank and file isn't scared?
Riddle me that. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2022
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:11:00 -
[219] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Jade, my 'frothing at the mouth' is actually quite measured compared to the rampant paranoia you've attempted to foster over the last several pages. Don't backpedal by saying it's a lack of dev experience or CSM inaction now. As I said in my post, I don't believe you are dumb enough to believe in that tinfoil crap (quite the opposite really) so this coy "what it will look like" routine just falls flat. Yeah, it makes me a little ~mad~ because I honestly thought we were past that sort of nonsense, especially someone like you that has been on the CSM and met some of these guys.
Its precisely because I have been on the CSM I know quite how persuasive the attempts to influence game development from the CSM representatives to the benefit of particular interest groups can be. Sometimes to the clear detriment of the game for the general player base. My perception from the outside on this case is that a pretty damned appalling one-sided fiasco of a change has been allowed to pass without appropriate challenge from some of the CSM.
Seleene wrote:As for the CSM, we're not watching this from the sidelines and were already asking after it before this forum madness kicked off. As Alek said, I'm not sure how the wires got crossed here but I'm pretty sure we can resolve it with a few good posts internally. That doesn't mean the ally system should allow 20,30 or 70 people to bandwagon tho. v0v
Okay let me ask you again Seleene - why shouldn't 70 corporations be allowed to bandwangon on a wardec made by a giant organization against a small organization as long as they don't take the total headcount of the defenders above the attackers?
How does it damage the game to let 70 mom and pops trade hub raider corps join a war to defend a small target wardecced by a huge one.
By all means look at ways of ensuring that a small wardec corp doesn't get hungely outnumbered by free allies when it attacks an equal sized or larger target - but that is a different issue and can be solved without the broad stroke devastation of the initial proposal.
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
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:17:00 -
[220] - Quote
I'm curious, why was it determined that only defenders could bring in mercs, sorry, "allies" (don't we already have alliances?) in the first place? Why not allow anyone, attacker or aggressor, to bring in as many mercs as they can afford (with an adjustable contract length, much like price is negotiable?) I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3297
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:19:00 -
[221] - Quote
Mechael wrote:I'm curious, why was it determined that only defenders could bring in mercs, sorry, "allies" (don't we already have alliances?) in the first place? Why not allow anyone, attacker or aggressor, to bring in as many mercs as they can afford (with an adjustable contract length, much like price is negotiable?) an agressor can just get their buddies to wardec the target themselves |
Uranium 242
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:19:00 -
[222] - Quote
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. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:21:00 -
[223] - 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. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:23:00 -
[224] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:an agressor can just get their buddies to wardec the target themselves
True, but it's not under any sort of obligatory contracted system. Right now, I can't (as say, an industrial corp that wants to push out competition), go look up some mercs to hire and set up a legitimate contract that says, "You will wardec x corporation for y ISK and z length of time." It's all scouts honor, which in EVE generally means it's not going to happen as often as would be nice.
When I first heard about the mercenary marketplace, that's what I was hoping for.
The current system doesn't make much sense to me any way you slice it. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3297
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:25:00 -
[225] - Quote
Well, you're still stuck hoping they actually do anything instead of issue a wardec and then just ignore the corp. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
105
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:26:00 -
[226] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Well, you're still stuck hoping they actually do anything instead of issue a wardec and then just ignore the corp.
True, but that's why we can look up a corp's war history now, isn't it? I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3297
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:28:00 -
[227] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Weaselior wrote:Well, you're still stuck hoping they actually do anything instead of issue a wardec and then just ignore the corp. True, but that's why we can look up a corp's war history now, isn't it? have you considered hiring goonswarm to fight your wars? we come cheap, only 500k isk per member! |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2075
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:29:00 -
[228] - 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.
What I'm saying is that I don't buy into the idea that there are CCP or CSM that have worked to bring these changes to Eve because Mittens has applied some secret influence. I'm saving my tin foil for the next time I bake a turkey.
Issler
|
Lord Zim
785
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:30:00 -
[229] - Quote
I guess I'll just take Jade's avoidance on the questions about goon leaders "being deathly afraid" as confirmation that he's just full of ****. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
543
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 21:33:00 -
[230] - Quote
This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Markius TheShed
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
60
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 09:48:00 -
[231] - Quote
So we were waiting for a reply to the question "why can't the defenders hire allies for FREE until both side have the same numbers" ??
As this would mean more pilots fighting, More explosions and more ships burning.
Is'nt that what Inferno is suppose to be about? **Murientor Tribe** Killing Slavers, Ammatar and Nafantar Traitors since YC107 |
Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
59
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 09:54:00 -
[232] - Quote
re the cost of adding allies: the problem does seem to stem from the fact that these changes are looking at the corp/alliance level when applying a cost, when it should be looking at member numbers.
Would it be possible to apply a cost to calling in allies only if your "side" as a whole has more numbers than the other "side"?
Ie 50man corp decs a 10man corp; the 10man corp can pull in allies for free until they become a 50man entity making the war "balanced"*, be that 4 other 10man corps, or one 40man corp, or whatever.
Once the defenders are at 50, they can continue to pull in allies but it costs them as they are turning the numbers in their favour.
Making the allies system look at the number of pilots on each side conceptually ties in with the war cost being based on pilot numbers too, although there is some work to be done here for timings and edge cases and the like.
* as much as pvp is ever balanced Curiosity killed the Kata...
... but being immortal he wasn't too worried about keeping a count. |
Zilero
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 10:34:00 -
[233] - Quote
Just limit the wars you can be an ally in to ONE war. Would solve the problem |
Serge SC
Inglorious Waffles
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 11:18:00 -
[234] - Quote
Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but I'd like to reiterate on it.
The V3 Minmatar ships have lost their personality. No longer does the Vagabond have that unique look with the wingy bits at the sides, now it doesn't look different from a Stabber, just a darker Stabber at it. Same applies to the Claymore/Cyclone. The dark pattern doesn't sit well.
The Tempest Fleet issue is no longer easily recognizable. Out squared wingy bits are gone too. Now it is just another Tempest with a different paint job, and what's worse, the model wasn't even fixed. The exhaust still has the 2 plates at the side floating and not attached, and the tower to the right, on top of the right turrets, is also floating. The telephone poles are also nowhere to be found and the cockpit looks like a lighter green blob on top of the rest.
The regular Tempest, I can live with it, not fan, but not hating it. The Vargur looks kinda neat, and out of the Tempest hulls, it's the best. The Fleet Tempest is now unimaginative. The Tribal Tempest however, our unique and best ship, just looks terrible - sorry, but it does.
The lighter tone on the staple Minmatar ship, the Hurricane, looks bad all around as well. The Cyclone pattern is nice, but the Hurricane's looks are not up to par - and the new Tornado, why? It looked well already.
On that note, uniformed, perfectly painted, all-equal ships are not Minmatar-looking. They feel more Gallentean/Amarrian rather than Minmatar. I fly mostly Minmatar ships, and I've always loved the unique look, the missmatched colours, the blocky and improvised feel they have, those random bits attached to the hull, those solar panels that protrude sometimes, or how well and recognisable they are. It just feels like the newer versions have taken that away. And the lighter colours feel out of place on the ships.
Sorry to be this negative, but it just doesn't feel right/ Serge SC Le Frenchman Friendly FC |
impli
Tr0pa de elite. Against ALL Authorities
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 11:23:00 -
[235] - Quote
Feedback : GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out.
Threat: Forum url
Please add more brighter light to the flares or more flares, because missiles still are difficulty to see when zoomed out. |
Mata1s
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 11:32:00 -
[236] - Quote
After checking out the new V3 Minmatar skins for a forth time I now actually quite like them all, apart from the pitch black Core Complexion skins, the Claymore and Scimitar in particular look ridiculous. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 11:59:00 -
[237] - Quote
Updated OP with Five-0 incursion changes and some GoD Unified Inventory fixes CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
310
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:06:00 -
[238] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Updated OP with Five-0 incursion changes and some GoD Unified Inventory fixes Green around active ship is not in your patch notes |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
310
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:28:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:blah blah....tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity.
LOLOL
If you took ANY notice at ALL over GÇ£feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on SingularityGÇ¥ this pile of unified directory crap would NOT be on TQ in the first place. So PLEASE donGÇÖt pretend that you do.
Enjoy, unlike most people have been doing while playing this game during the last few weeks.
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:34:00 -
[240] - Quote
Goliath,
any word on if we're gonna get any new goodies in 1.1 as i thought there was going to be a trickle of new modules throughout inferno?
also is that really all five-0 are doing for 1.1? 2 rollbacks? |
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:34:00 -
[241] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Updated OP with Five-0 incursion changes and some GoD Unified Inventory fixes Green around active ship in inventory and ships window in Station Services is not in your patch notes
i know lol and it actually looks kinda sexy and standoff |
Jared Tobin
Bloodstone Industries B.S.I.
182
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:35:00 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it...
...Yeah, you asked for feedback... he gives you feedback, and you response this way??
What in gods' names is going on with the developers with this?
One thing is for sure, "Intrinsic motivation" is NOT working, Mr. Roy Lantz....
If it was, no one would be griping about updates exceeding once a week, after admitting there is a major problem is still in existence in the game..........
[sighs]
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2437
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:39:00 -
[243] - Quote
Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it... ...Yeah, you asked for feedback... he gives you feedback, and you response this way?? What in gods' names is going on with the developers with this? One thing is for sure, " Intrinsic motivation" is NOT working, Mr. Roy Lantz.... If it was, no one would be griping about updates exceeding once a week, after admitting there is a major problem is still in existence in the game.......... [sighs]
I didn't understand his feedback since he implied there was right click on the control which there isn't..
edit: Salpun has given me a bunch of good feedback before and I've often had conversations with him so I'm sure he didn't take it as negatively as you seem to have done CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:43:00 -
[244] - Quote
Whoever did that job on the Prowler. Lets that man/women/diety redesign all the T2 ships. Seriously that is some awesome spaceshit. I really like it when T2 ships are modded heavily from their T1 counterparts.
Shame the prowler is cloaked all the time. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:45:00 -
[245] - Quote
I miss improvements to this horrible unified UI. No independent windows, adjustable in size and position? Where did you listen to the feedback of this unified UI, when all said: "WE WANT THE OLD UI BACK!" Or at least the behavior of the old one? Come one CCP.. show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!
NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You are real nasty liars CCP!
It seems that I have to cancel my subscription for ever. **** you CCP. I hope the company "CCP" will crash "SoonGäó". I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
salfun
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:49:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it... ...Yeah, you asked for feedback... he gives you feedback, and you response this way?? What in gods' names is going on with the developers with this? One thing is for sure, " Intrinsic motivation" is NOT working, Mr. Roy Lantz.... If it was, no one would be griping about updates exceeding once a week, after admitting there is a major problem is still in existence in the game.......... [sighs] I didn't understand his feedback since he implied there was right click on the control which there isn't.. edit: Salpun has given me a bunch of good feedback before and I've often had conversations with him so I'm sure he didn't take it as negatively as you seem to have done Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason |
salfun
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:53:00 -
[247] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:I miss improvements to this horrible unified UI. No independent windows, adjustable in size and position? Where did you listen to the feedback of this unified UI, when all said: "WE WANT THE OLD UI BACK!" Or at least the behavior of the old one? Come one CCP.. show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!
NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You are real nasty liars CCP!
It seems that I have to cancel my subscription for ever. **** you CCP. I hope the company "CCP" will crash "SoonGäó". Have you been on Sisi this week at all. Alot of those issues have been steelth fixed. If there is a use case you still do not like list it so they can focus on it directly. |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:55:00 -
[248] - Quote
CCP Punkturis, 1 thing.
1) Make that lil thingy right clickable also so people dont spaz out and omg. Otherwise I like it. Was going to say that it needs the back arrow, but it opens it in a new window so not needed.
And to those wondering, they added clothes to the FW LP store. |
impli
Tr0pa de elite. Against ALL Authorities
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:55:00 -
[249] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:I miss improvements to this horrible unified UI. No independent windows, adjustable in size and position? Where did you listen to the feedback of this unified UI, when all said: "WE WANT THE OLD UI BACK!" Or at least the behavior of the old one? Come one CCP.. show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!
NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You are real nasty liars CCP!
It seems that I have to cancel my subscription for ever. **** you CCP. I hope the company "CCP" will crash "SoonGäó".
if that tries to be constructive .. it failed completely. The UI is faster than the old one and just needs tweaks. And btw. you should not answer if you didn't try the UI with independent windows, adjustable in size and position.. I tried it and they are adjustable in size and position... So please be mor constructive or stay unsubbed and out of the forum...
And yeah there is no "unlike" button !!!
|
Cathrine Kenchov
Ice Cold Ellites
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 12:58:00 -
[250] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote: It seems that I have to cancel my subscription for ever.
Jesus, please do, it would be a service to the community |
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
571
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:03:00 -
[251] - Quote
salfun wrote:Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason Do you get some sort of an error? Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
salfun
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:06:00 -
[252] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:salfun wrote:Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason Do you get some sort of an error? Yep two BR 138450 and 135680 "error while searching" Its like I hit the upper limit of searchs or something switching to an alt works |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
571
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:10:00 -
[253] - Quote
salfun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:salfun wrote:Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason Do you get some sort of an error? Yep two BR 138450 and 135680 "error while searching" Its like I hit the upper limit of searchs or something switching to an alt works We're looking into this issue. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:12:00 -
[254] - Quote
salfun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:salfun wrote:Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason Do you get some sort of an error? Yep two BR 138450 and 135680 "error while searching" Its like I hit the upper limit of searchs or something switching to an alt works
When I get the constant "Error while searching" I Ctrl+F5 the page and it usually works. If not, I just open a different browser. Pew Pew Pew! |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:12:00 -
[255] - Quote
Ok, kinda disappointing with the clothes you added. Just some more sterling red jackets and some black coat. Enough of the recolored clothes. They look bad, they look unoriginal, and it is a slap in the face that you add the same cut of cloth with a different color into our LP store and say "hey, check em out" at least give us the bondage suit or some new clothes. You want people to think that Incarna isnt spaceshit, give us some new threads already. Please.
Now, because I was raised semi decently, I will give some positives on this change.
I think it is a good idea to start adding clothes and whatnot to LP stores. Considering the price of them in the LP store, and with the SISI fw lvls being what they are. The male/female sterling clothes (which are reskinned, and dont look that bad) cost more than a spaceship. +1 on that.
+1 on starting the iteration on people actually making the clothes. Gonna be sweet.
I've seen more and more clothing assets since the incarna inception, you have an awesome amount. Why still give us the same old stuff. Instead of the sterling shirts, what about racial tats, like the ones on the brand new website thats meant to draw in new players, then see that sweet Vherikor tat, then get in game and its 'lol no tats'.
Please, more variety, stuff that hasn't been seen before should be added to the FW LP store. Or, at least give me a minnie symbol on my shirt. It doesn't scream, 'I got this from TLF LP Store!1" right now as it should. It doesn't scream that someone actually 'worked' for the shirts instead of using the NEX store.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2437
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:15:00 -
[256] - Quote
M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis, 1 thing.
1) Make that lil thingy right clickable also so people dont spaz out and omg. Otherwise I like it. Was going to say that it needs the back arrow, but it opens it in a new window so not needed.
Thanks, I'll ask the UI Designer what he thinks about this I'm not sure he'll like it because it's supposed to be more of a button that opens a utility menu, rather than the good 'ol right click menu CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
310
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:17:00 -
[257] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:salfun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:salfun wrote:Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason Do you get some sort of an error? Yep two BR 138450 and 135680 "error while searching" Its like I hit the upper limit of searchs or something switching to an alt works When I get the constant "Error while searching" I Ctrl+F5 the page and it usually works. If not, I just open a different browser. 3 X Ctrl+F5 did not work for me. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
310
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:19:00 -
[258] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis, 1 thing.
1) Make that lil thingy right clickable also so people dont spaz out and omg. Otherwise I like it. Was going to say that it needs the back arrow, but it opens it in a new window so not needed.
Thanks, I'll ask the UI Designer what he thinks about this I'm not sure he'll like it because it's supposed to be more of a button that opens a utility menu, rather than the good 'ol right click menu Its about familarity. If you want to not use a right click make it a diffrent icon. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:20:00 -
[259] - Quote
M'nu wrote:Ok, kinda disappointing with the clothes you added. Just some more sterling red jackets and some black coat. Enough of the recolored clothes. They look bad, they look unoriginal, and it is a slap in the face that you add the same cut of cloth with a different color into our LP store and say "hey, check em out" at least give us the bondage suit or some new clothes. You want people to think that Incarna isnt spaceshit, give us some new threads already. Please.
Now, because I was raised semi decently, I will give some positives on this change.
I think it is a good idea to start adding clothes and whatnot to LP stores. Considering the price of them in the LP store, and with the SISI fw lvls being what they are. The male/female sterling clothes (which are reskinned, and dont look that bad) cost more than a spaceship. +1 on that.
+1 on starting the iteration on people actually making the clothes. Gonna be sweet.
I've seen more and more clothing assets since the incarna inception, you have an awesome amount. Why still give us the same old stuff. Instead of the sterling shirts, what about racial tats, like the ones on the brand new website thats meant to draw in new players, then see that sweet Vherikor tat, then get in game and its 'lol no tats'.
Please, more variety, stuff that hasn't been seen before should be added to the FW LP store. Or, at least give me a minnie symbol on my shirt. It doesn't scream, 'I got this from TLF LP Store!1" right now as it should. It doesn't scream that someone actually 'worked' for the shirts instead of using the NEX store.
Tats are being worked on by Team Avatar. It's not their main focus and due to prioritisation I believe it took a bump down the ladder. Getting there though. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:21:00 -
[260] - Quote
Silly Slot wrote:Goliath,
any word on if we're gonna get any new goodies in 1.1 as i thought there was going to be a trickle of new modules throughout inferno?
also is that really all five-0 are doing for 1.1? 2 rollbacks?
Superfriends can shed more light on modules - not really my department. Five-0 were not actually part of the Inferno release cadence - they produced the bulk of their work in Escalation and are now working on a future release. These rollbacks are reactions to player feedback. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Jared Tobin
Bloodstone Industries B.S.I.
182
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:23:00 -
[261] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it... ...Yeah, you asked for feedback... he gives you feedback, and you response that way? [I suppose it sjpcked me slightly... not sure if it was how your responded, or the fact that you are one of the VERY FEW CCP dev's who responds quick [if at all]... ) Makes me think: What in gods' names is going on with the developers with this this Inferno upgrade (+12 patches)? One thing is for sure, " Intrinsic motivation" is NOT working, Mr. Roy Lantz.... If it was, no one would be griping about updates exceeding once a week, after admitting there is a major problem is still in existence in the game.......... [sighs] I didn't understand his feedback since he implied there was right click on the control which there isn't.. edit: Salpun has given me a bunch of good feedback before and I've often had conversations with him so I'm sure he didn't take it as negatively as you seem to have done
Well obviously, CCP Punkturis.... If you took claim you took it "unsuredly" not knowing how to take it, then what gives you the idea or right that I'm suddenly taking is "as negatively [...] as I seem to have done"?
All I was responding to was towards the reaction in which the (now-decidely claimed "unsuredly taken") feedback was taken... That's all.
[sighing] Seriously, if I got this quick of a response on the 9+ Issues/Feedback forums whom I've responded to with noted issues about the UI, then I'd be happy with the reactionary results.
You, CCP Punkturis are either very quick, freshly on the job for today (coffee in hand, if so, I envy you at the present moment [smirk] ), or you are selective in which things you wish to respond and further "jab" at. Please take a jab at the factual, non-"jabbing" posts that have gone unanswered in the following posts (over the course of the post-Inferno timeline and 10+2 patches):
[constructive issues and feedback] [constructive issues and feedback] [constructive issues and feedback] [constructive issues and feedback] [constructive issues and feedback] [constructive issues and feedback] [constructive issues and feedback]
from the original post:
And tell me when I've taken "jabs". If you (or others at CCP) can be this quick in response to the aforementioned posts, I'd be literally be "all ears"...
Because I've waited for over 3 weeks for responses.... and I have received none (lot of "likes" but no official CCP responses)... so please forward this along as an example of how quick you were able to assimilate, postulate, and publicly respond.... versus everyone else labeled "CCP _______" and I will be much more entertained by your your reponse.
No, really.... I'm being very seriously. One day i will make it to Iceland (if the game and corp still exists then) and I would love to have a beer with you and others... non-confrontational, as I seem to be "interpretted" by the vibes of...
I am just really, really trying to help, but cetain moments, or things I experience in-game or read out-of-game have me baffled at times...
I'm glad someone is working there in Iceland, right now... I just wish your dedication would be spread across the board.... However, "Thanks for responding and have a good one."
(Gods, I think I'm pulling an all-nighter going into the next day.... at past 9:30am.... ugh)
JT
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:26:00 -
[262] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis, 1 thing.
1) Make that lil thingy right clickable also so people dont spaz out and omg. Otherwise I like it. Was going to say that it needs the back arrow, but it opens it in a new window so not needed.
Thanks, I'll ask the UI Designer what he thinks about this I'm not sure he'll like it because it's supposed to be more of a button that opens a utility menu, rather than the good 'ol right click menu
If thats the case, which I dont mind either way tbh just giving feedback, should look different than the horizontal 3 bars. Cuz, when I see that, I right click. Just an idea.
@CCP Goliath. Good to know, hope you guys add them in LP stores. Or w/e you do, I think the lp store clothes is an amazing idea, and harkens back to a player driven economy these clothes should be in.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2437
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:28:00 -
[263] - Quote
Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it... ...Yeah, you asked for feedback... he gives you feedback, and you response that way? [I suppose it sjpcked me slightly... not sure if it was how your responded, or the fact that you are one of the VERY FEW CCP dev's who responds quick [if at all]... ) Makes me think: What in gods' names is going on with the developers with this this Inferno upgrade (+12 patches)? One thing is for sure, " Intrinsic motivation" is NOT working, Mr. Roy Lantz.... If it was, no one would be griping about updates exceeding once a week, after admitting there is a major problem is still in existence in the game.......... [sighs] I didn't understand his feedback since he implied there was right click on the control which there isn't.. edit: Salpun has given me a bunch of good feedback before and I've often had conversations with him so I'm sure he didn't take it as negatively as you seem to have done Well obviously, CCP Punkturis.... If you took claim you took it "unsuredly" not knowing how to take it, then what gives you the idea or right that I'm suddenly taking is "as negatively [...] as I seem to have done"? All I was responding to was towards the reaction in which the (now-decidely claimed "unsuredly taken") feedback was taken... That's all. [sighing] Seriously, if I got this quick of a response on the 9+ Issues/Feedback forums whom I've responded to with noted issues about the UI, then I'd be happy with the reactionary results. You, CCP Punkturis are either very quick, freshly on the job for today (coffee in hand, if so, I envy you at the present moment [smirk] ), or you are selective in which things you wish to respond and further "jab" at. Please take a jab at the factual, non-"jabbing" posts that have gone unanswered in the following posts (over the course of the post-Inferno timeline and 10+2 patches): [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] from the original post: And tell me when I've taken "jabs". If you (or others at CCP) can be this quick in response to the aforementioned posts, I'd be literally be "all ears"... Because I've waited for over 3 weeks for responses.... and I have received none (lot of "likes" but no official CCP responses)... so please forward this along as an example of how quick you were able to assimilate, postulate, and publicly respond.... versus everyone else labeled "CCP _______" and I will be much more entertained by your your reponse. No, really.... I'm being very seriously. One day i will make it to Iceland (if the game and corp still exists then) and I would love to have a beer with you and others... non-confrontational, as I seem to be "interpretted" by the vibes of... I am just really, really trying to help, but cetain moments, or things I experience in-game or read out-of-game have me baffled at times... I'm glad someone is working there in Iceland, right now... I just wish your dedication would be spread across the board.... However, "Thanks for responding and have a good one." (Gods, I think I'm pulling an all-nighter going into the next day.... at past 9:30am.... ugh) JT
I'm not going to respond in unified inventory threads because I have nothing to do with them implementation of it. I can't post for other people, but the war dec UI is "my" feature so I try to follow up on any feedback related to that. I'm sorry I can't be of more help for you. If you have any feedback on the new utility menu I implemented in the wars lists, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say. CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2437
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:32:00 -
[264] - Quote
M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis, 1 thing.
1) Make that lil thingy right clickable also so people dont spaz out and omg. Otherwise I like it. Was going to say that it needs the back arrow, but it opens it in a new window so not needed.
Thanks, I'll ask the UI Designer what he thinks about this I'm not sure he'll like it because it's supposed to be more of a button that opens a utility menu, rather than the good 'ol right click menu If thats the case, which I dont mind either way tbh just giving feedback, should look different than the horizontal 3 bars. Cuz, when I see that, I right click. Just an idea.
Maybe we should use another icon for this, I'm not sure. I didn't realize people usually right-clicked on the menu icon because I always left click on it.
We're talking about like in the top-left of the overview window, top-left of the mail window, left to the system name in the location info, etc?
Thanks for telling me about it CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:33:00 -
[265] - Quote
Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it... ...Yeah, you asked for feedback... he gives you feedback, and you response that way? [I suppose it sjpcked me slightly... not sure if it was how your responded, or the fact that you are one of the VERY FEW CCP dev's who responds quick [if at all]... ) Makes me think: What in gods' names is going on with the developers with this this Inferno upgrade (+12 patches)? One thing is for sure, " Intrinsic motivation" is NOT working, Mr. Roy Lantz.... If it was, no one would be griping about updates exceeding once a week, after admitting there is a major problem is still in existence in the game.......... [sighs] I didn't understand his feedback since he implied there was right click on the control which there isn't.. edit: Salpun has given me a bunch of good feedback before and I've often had conversations with him so I'm sure he didn't take it as negatively as you seem to have done Well obviously, CCP Punkturis.... If you took claim you took it "unsuredly" not knowing how to take it, then what gives you the idea or right that I'm suddenly taking is "as negatively [...] as I seem to have done"? All I was responding to was towards the reaction in which the (now-decidely claimed "unsuredly taken") feedback was taken... That's all. [sighing] Seriously, if I got this quick of a response on the 9+ Issues/Feedback forums whom I've responded to with noted issues about the UI, then I'd be happy with the reactionary results. You, CCP Punkturis are either very quick, freshly on the job for today (coffee in hand, if so, I envy you at the present moment [smirk] ), or you are selective in which things you wish to respond and further "jab" at. Please take a jab at the factual, non-"jabbing" posts that have gone unanswered in the following posts (over the course of the post-Inferno timeline and 10+2 patches): [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] [ constructive issues and feedback] from the original post: And tell me when I've taken "jabs". If you (or others at CCP) can be this quick in response to the aforementioned posts, I'd be literally be "all ears"... Because I've waited for over 3 weeks for responses.... and I have received none (lot of "likes" but no official CCP responses)... so please forward this along as an example of how quick you were able to assimilate, postulate, and publicly respond.... versus everyone else labeled "CCP _______" and I will be much more entertained by your your reponse. No, really.... I'm being very seriously. One day i will make it to Iceland (if the game and corp still exists then) and I would love to have a beer with you and others... non-confrontational, as I seem to be "interpretted" by the vibes of... I am just really, really trying to help, but cetain moments, or things I experience in-game or read out-of-game have me baffled at times... I'm glad someone is working there in Iceland, right now... I just wish your dedication would be spread across the board.... However, "Thanks for responding and have a good one." (Gods, I think I'm pulling an all-nighter going into the next day.... at past 9:30am.... ugh) JT
Just because your post has not been directly responded to does not mean that it has not been read and taken on board by one of the Game of Drones team (which FYI Punkturis is not a part of). We as a company cannot possibly respond to each individual post made on any given topic. You may feel you are entitled to a response but I am afraid that it is not always possible. I would say though that, if some developer were to glance over your post without taking time to fully read it, they may be put off by the volume of caps which to us can appear like a rant. Not a criticism, nor saying that your feedback won't be read if it contains caps, or that it will be read if it does not, just a suggestion. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:35:00 -
[266] - Quote
M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis, 1 thing.
1) Make that lil thingy right clickable also so people dont spaz out and omg. Otherwise I like it. Was going to say that it needs the back arrow, but it opens it in a new window so not needed.
Thanks, I'll ask the UI Designer what he thinks about this I'm not sure he'll like it because it's supposed to be more of a button that opens a utility menu, rather than the good 'ol right click menu If thats the case, which I dont mind either way tbh just giving feedback, should look different than the horizontal 3 bars. Cuz, when I see that, I right click. Just an idea. @CCP Goliath. Good to know, hope you guys add them in LP stores. Or w/e you do, I think the lp store clothes is an amazing idea, and harkens back to a player driven economy these clothes should be in.
I agree. I think it's an interesting addition that fits very well in a flavour perspective and should provide a nice twist to LP. Will you be farming some up to buy them? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jared Tobin
Bloodstone Industries B.S.I.
182
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:37:00 -
[267] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote: I'm not going to respond in unified inventory threads because I have nothing to do with them implementation of it. I can't post for other people, but the war dec UI is "my" feature so I try to follow up on any feedback related to that. I'm sorry I can't be of more help for you. If you have any feedback on the new utility menu I implemented in the wars lists, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say.
Understood... And so far, I have nothing positive or newgative to say. Luckily, your work has been focussed on something that is NOT troublesome to my gamining experience or my corp/alliance experience.
[needing a moke] Thanks for actually responding, though, even when I apparently posted int he wrong section! THANK YOU! You're one of the few CCP'ers to respond rather fast and punctually.
Cheers.
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:38:00 -
[268] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Maybe we should use another icon for this, I'm not sure. I didn't realize people usually right-clicked on the menu icon because I always left click on it. We're talking about like in the top-left of the overview window, top-left of the mail window, left to the system name in the location info, etc? Thanks for telling me about it
Exactly what I was talking about.
Then I left clicked on it, and it worked. For the first time since I have played EvE, I left clicked that button. Had no idea it was left clickable.
Oh well, it's your job to figure this out |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:39:00 -
[269] - Quote
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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2031
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:40:00 -
[270] - Quote
Markius TheShed wrote:So we were waiting for a reply to the question "why can't the defenders hire allies for FREE until both side have the same numbers" ??
As this would mean more pilots fighting, More explosions and more ships burning.
Is'nt that what Inferno is suppose to be about?
This is the most important question that I think most people would like the developers to answer?
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! |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2031
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:40:00 -
[271] - 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.
Good post.
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! |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:42:00 -
[272] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).
In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!
NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!
Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this.
I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2031
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:42:00 -
[273] - Quote
Kata Amentis wrote:re the cost of adding allies: the problem does seem to stem from the fact that these changes are looking at the corp/alliance level when applying a cost, when it should be looking at member numbers.
Would it be possible to apply a cost to calling in allies only if your "side" as a whole has more numbers than the other "side"?
Ie 50man corp decs a 10man corp; the 10man corp can pull in allies for free until they become a 50man entity making the war "balanced"*, be that 4 other 10man corps, or one 40man corp, or whatever.
Once the defenders are at 50, they can continue to pull in allies but it costs them as they are turning the numbers in their favour.
Making the allies system look at the number of pilots on each side conceptually ties in with the war cost being based on pilot numbers too, although there is some work to be done here for timings and edge cases and the like.
* as much as pvp is ever balanced
And this too. (apologies for bumping these but this is a pretty important issue and I'd hate to have it forgotten about).
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! |
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:43:00 -
[274] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:
I agree. I think it's an interesting addition that fits very well in a flavour perspective and should provide a nice twist to LP. Will you be farming some up to buy them?
Only if its that black bondage suit. But if you throw something in there that hasn't been seen, like that Solid Snake eye patch, I am sure people would grind for it. I would grind for it.
I can see it now, have the LP/ISK for a Typhoon Fleet Issue, or that shirt that says 'Winmatar=Secksmatar'. Everyone would choose the shirt. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2437
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:43:00 -
[275] - Quote
Jared Tobin wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote: I'm not going to respond in unified inventory threads because I have nothing to do with them implementation of it. I can't post for other people, but the war dec UI is "my" feature so I try to follow up on any feedback related to that. I'm sorry I can't be of more help for you. If you have any feedback on the new utility menu I implemented in the wars lists, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say.
Understood... And so far, I have nothing positive or newgative to say. Luckily, your work has been focussed on something that is NOT troublesome to my gamining experience or my corp/alliance experience. [needing a moke] Thanks for actually responding, though, even when I apparently posted int he wrong section! THANK YOU! You're one of the few CCP'ers to respond rather fast and punctually. Cheers.
good we're on good terms here then, I just like everybody to be friends
M'nu wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Maybe we should use another icon for this, I'm not sure. I didn't realize people usually right-clicked on the menu icon because I always left click on it. We're talking about like in the top-left of the overview window, top-left of the mail window, left to the system name in the location info, etc? Thanks for telling me about it Exactly what I was talking about. Then I left clicked on it, and it worked. For the first time since I have played EvE, I left clicked that button. Had no idea it was left clickable. Oh well, it's your job to figure this out
haha okay, I didn't realize people right clicked on that
Thanks for your feedback
@CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
|
CCP Paradox
294
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:44:00 -
[276] - 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.
You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec? CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
Jared Tobin
Bloodstone Industries B.S.I.
182
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:44:00 -
[277] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Just because your post has not been directly responded to does not mean that it has not been read and taken on board by one of the Game of Drones team (which FYI Punkturis is not a part of). We as a company cannot possibly respond to each individual post made on any given topic. You may feel you are entitled to a response but I am afraid that it is not always possible. I would say though that, if some developer were to glance over your post without taking time to fully read it, they may be put off by the volume of caps which to us can appear like a rant. Not a criticism, nor saying that your feedback won't be read if it contains caps, or that it will be read if it does not, just a suggestion.
Thank you, and I understand. I've just been posting all observations, "seeming bugs/issues" as well as relevant feedback (instead of "rage quitting/cancelling" (?)...)
My capitalization is due to the fact that the limit of letters actually is "more" than what is allowable for a post... So I couldn't underline or bolden items, so for differentialization, I used caps when "citing" a main topic.... followed by the lowercase response... and happily, some of the issues have bee responded to and patch....
Cheers. [I am so tired and now the cigarette is eminent... FYI to readers: I'm not advocating smoking cigarettes to anyone... Don't due it if you don't want a risk of cancer in your future.... It's my personal choice after 37+ years...)
Jared Tobin |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:44:00 -
[278] - 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). |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:46:00 -
[279] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this.
Actually I deleted your previous post because it was a rant, it was extremely rude and totally non constructive. We have stated numerous times that while a rollback is not possible, we will do everything we can to work on the current functionality. There have been quite a few fixes in this update, there may be more. Noone at any time promised "hundreds of independant windows" (which you can get by the way, use shift click). I'm going to let this post stand as I'm replying to it directly. Improve your tone and calm down on the hyperbole if you choose to make a reply in this thread. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:47:00 -
[280] - Quote
You've done something to your protocols again/the Socket Closed connection problem has returned. Can't keep a Sisi client connected for long. Last time it came and went with Sisi updates, so I'm blaming your end. |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:48:00 -
[281] - Quote
M'nu wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:
I agree. I think it's an interesting addition that fits very well in a flavour perspective and should provide a nice twist to LP. Will you be farming some up to buy them?
Only if its that black bondage suit. But if you throw something in there that hasn't been seen, like that Solid Snake eye patch, I am sure people would grind for it. I would grind for it. I can see it now, have the LP/ISK for a Typhoon Fleet Issue, or that shirt that says 'Winmatar=Secksmatar'. Everyone would choose the shirt.
I am going to try to get one of my more artistically enabled friends to make me that shirt IRL. For some reason it makes me laugh a lot
Thanks for your feedback. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
544
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:49:00 -
[282] - Quote
Daneel Trevize wrote:You've done something to your protocols again/the Socket Closed connection problem has returned. Can't keep a Sisi client connected for long. Last time it came and went with Sisi updates, so I'm blaming your end.
Is it occurring during active gameplay or are you leaving your client alone for periods of time? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
311
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:50:00 -
[283] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:salfun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:salfun wrote:Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason Do you get some sort of an error? Yep two BR 138450 and 135680 "error while searching" Its like I hit the upper limit of searchs or something switching to an alt works We're looking into this issue. Its working again for me thanks |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1357
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 13:50:00 -
[284] - 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 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. |
|
Markius TheShed
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:00:00 -
[285] - Quote
CCP Paradox 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 recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars. You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?
It's not just about the 5000 coming to high sec it's also the logistics and isk / purchasing power that said alliance has, They have unlimited reships available in high sec So how does that make for a good war??
All this will do is make people avoid wars again and we are back to before inferno.
What a waste.
**Murientor Tribe** Killing Slavers, Ammatar and Nafantar Traitors since YC107 |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:01:00 -
[286] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Actually I deleted your previous post because it was a rant, it was extremely rude and totally non constructive. We have stated numerous times that while a rollback is not possible, we will do everything we can to work on the current functionality. There have been quite a few fixes in this update, there may be more. Noone at any time promised "hundreds of independant windows" (which you can get by the way, use shift click). I'm going to let this post stand as I'm replying to it directly. Improve your tone and calm down on the hyperbole if you choose to make a reply in this thread.
Read all feedback! Shift+x or something else is in NO WAY acceptable. Doubleclicks and right clicks MUST be re implemented. I do not demand a rollback. I demand a 85%-100% re build of the old UI with the new code! That is something different. To remind you of something look here (2012.05.30 10:03:55 )
CCP Soundwave wrote: GÇóWhen you want to open an inventory in a separate window, you can now drag and drop it out of the main window as an alternative to the shift + click way of opening it.
Where can I find this function? I calm down, when you brought back the old UI. Not one second earlier. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1357
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:02:00 -
[287] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Actually I deleted your previous post because it was a rant, it was extremely rude and totally non constructive. We have stated numerous times that while a rollback is not possible, we will do everything we can to work on the current functionality. There have been quite a few fixes in this update, there may be more. Noone at any time promised "hundreds of independant windows" (which you can get by the way, use shift click). I'm going to let this post stand as I'm replying to it directly. Improve your tone and calm down on the hyperbole if you choose to make a reply in this thread. Read all feedback! Shift+x or something else is in NO WAY acceptable. Doubleclicks and right clicks MUST be re implemented. I do not demand a rollback. I demand a 85%-100% re build of the old UI with the new code! That is something different. To remind you of something look here (2012.05.30 10:03:55 ) CCP Soundwave wrote: GÇóWhen you want to open an inventory in a separate window, you can now drag and drop it out of the main window as an alternative to the shift + click way of opening it.
Where can I find this function?
Not in yet due to bugs being fixed taking higher priority. Once we go back to general feature iteration (there are still some bigger bugs that need to be ironed out) this is a top 3 item. |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
311
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:07:00 -
[288] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Not in yet due to bugs being fixed taking higher priority. Once we go back to general feature iteration (there are still some bigger bugs that need to be ironed out) this is a top 3 item.
This patch cycle? Will we see a sleeker window this cycle? |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:08:00 -
[289] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: GÇóWhen you want to open an inventory in a separate window, you can now drag and drop it out of the main window as an alternative to the shift + click way of opening it.
Where can I find this function? Not in yet due to bugs being fixed taking higher priority. Once we go back to general feature iteration (there are still some bigger bugs that need to be ironed out) this is a top 3 item.
Fine. I do not notice your new bugs. Because I do not play since 22.05.2012. And I wont play and pay till I can play at a normal level again. Whipe out some bugs no one cares and expulse all other old players who plays and paid more than 4 years. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:11:00 -
[290] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this.
You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam.
I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself.
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.
Constructive feedback - this is how it is done.
|
|
M'nu
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:12:00 -
[291] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:
Fine. I do not notice your new bugs. Because I do not play since 22.05.2012. And I wont play and pay till I can play at a normal level again. Whipe out some bugs no one cares and expulse all other old players who plays and paid more than 4 years.
lulwut? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:20:00 -
[292] - 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.
Thanks for the quick response SW.
I understand your thought process but I think you are prioritising addressing the wrong problems. You need to address the "massive group vs tiny group" imbalance that currently exists first before you worry about mercenaries.
If you nevertheless decide to stick to your current route vis-a-vis allies, you should instead re-visit the cost associated with wardeccing a 500 man alliance with a 5000 man one. The imbalance should have a cost associated with it, one that makes it very expensive to do.
Another, more nuanced mechanic might be to have the game identify aggressor entities that outnumber their targets significantly, and reduce the war cost against that aggressor for third party entities as a result until the number of "enemies" of the aggressor matched its own headcount. This would mean an entity could wardec who it liked as currently but if it was in highly imbalanced wars it would be opening itself up to cheaper counter-wardecs. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2033
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:21:00 -
[293] - Quote
CCP Paradox 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 recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars. You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?
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.
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! |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
748
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:23:00 -
[294] - Quote
don't forget FW people. There are 20 threads around disussing issues with the current mechanics alowing no recovery and other well known issues like useless amarr npcs a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:25:00 -
[295] - Quote
Markius TheShed wrote:It's not just about the 5000 coming to high sec it's also the logistics and isk / purchasing power that said alliance has, They have unlimited reships available in high sec So how does that make for a good war??
All this will do is make people avoid wars again and we are back to before inferno.
What a waste.
Any corp/alliance that gets wardecced that doesn't want to fight, won't. No amount of mechanic changes will fix that, and even this short-lived system of letting every 2-man "merc" corp dogpile onto a wardec didn't change that fact.
Also, for all of the "well they have X pilots, we should get free mercs until we have X as well!" folks, would you agree to a system that counted a "fighting force" by using killmail data to determine just how many people are fighting on either side of the war and adjust allowed ally totals that way? That'd be "fair", right? It'd also be really easy to manage for you too, since you'd only be able to hire about 15 pilots or so once real participation numbers started to show up.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2034
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:32:00 -
[296] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.
1. Fees per allies are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.
2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.
3. Consideer leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).
Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration.
Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.)
I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.
Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.
This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
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! |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:35:00 -
[297] - 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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:39:00 -
[298] - Quote
Lallante wrote: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. Thanks for the quick response SW. I understand your thought process but I think you are prioritising addressing the wrong problems. You need to address the "massive group vs tiny group" imbalance that currently exists first before you worry about mercenaries. If you nevertheless decide to stick to your current route vis-a-vis allies, you should instead re-visit the cost associated with wardeccing a 500 man alliance with a 5000 man one. The imbalance should have a cost associated with it, one that makes it very expensive to do. Another, more nuanced mechanic might be to have the game identify aggressor entities that outnumber their targets significantly, and reduce the war cost against that aggressor for third party entities as a result until the number of "enemies" of the aggressor matched its own headcount. This would mean an entity could wardec who it liked as currently but if it was in highly imbalanced wars it would be opening itself up to cheaper counter-wardecs.
I personally think it would be a great shame if the allied system was thrown under a bus at this point - effectively making it financially impossible to add enough allies to content with a 9000 vs 100 dec. But if it is going to be then yes, the imbalance in wardec fees will need to be dealt with and the whole cost of declarations will need to be looked at. It is not good game balance that a 9000 strong entity pays 50m isk to dec a tiny one but the tiny one pays 500m isk to dec back.
But I do repeat - I think it would be a very bad development for Eve if rather than coming to a sensible compromise on the allied situation (ie allies+defenders smaller than attacker numbers = allies are free of concord fees) instead we got involved on chasing higher wardec fees in general simply to address the imbalance in the current system with declaration charges.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2035
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:42:00 -
[299] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: 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.
You could also dec them back for 50m isk. Now it costs 500m
You have already received a tenfold defense from hostile decs in the Inferno wardec system. Adding more concord charges to the cost of bringing allies to fight a much larger foe is pretty broken in favour of one side over another.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2038
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:48:00 -
[300] - Quote
Haquer wrote: 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).
Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity.
With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec.
Fair enough?
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! |
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:53:00 -
[301] - 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? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
546
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:53:00 -
[302] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Haquer wrote: 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).
Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity. With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec. Fair enough?
What would then stop an alliance from padding their ranks with hi-sec home dwelling alts? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2038
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:58:00 -
[303] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Haquer wrote: 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).
Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity. With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec. Fair enough? What would then stop an alliance from padding their ranks with hi-sec home dwelling alts?
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.
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! |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
311
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:59:00 -
[304] - Quote
When did drones start gettting fitted when you auto fit. Was that the last patch? |
Daddy Thundercock
Corsair Tactical Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:00:00 -
[305] - Quote
just my two cents on the wardec system:
it does appear, upon looking at it, that is does greatly benefit the larger entities. Now I'm not here to pick on goons or anyone else for that matter. However it does seem more logical and rational to me that the a larger entity wardeccing a smaller one would pay 500m isk rather than 50 m. I mean....a small corp/alliance paying 500m isk to wardec a huge one? as if being at war with an entity that could outnumber you 100:1 isn't bad enough, you have to spend a plex on wardeccing them too. Now, i realize that 500 m isk is toilet paper to some people, but for my corp, for example, it's a fortune.
Just saying, if a large entity wants to wardec a small one, they should have to pay the 500m isk, not 50m isk, simply for wardeccing an entity that they outnumber by as much as 100:1 (think of it as a griefing tax...or something.). With the current system as it stands, it opens the door to allow large corps/ alliances to wardec small ones indefinitely and small entities would simply be unable to fight back (without draining their bank accounts on buying PLEX, but then again maybe that's what ccp wants....)
Just sayin, yeah, maybe the system was broke with allies, that I can't say for sure as I haven't dealt with the wardec system first hand. I mean, yes, being able to hire an infinite number of free allies is stupid, but it's even stupider to allow large entities to effectively grief smaller ones with no real consequences.
As for not seeing nullsec players in empire.......uhmmm....have you heard of burn jita? On top of which, I know i've seen a few null players here and there....not saying they live in empire, but they do come up here. as I will once i get to null, which will happen after my corp recruits about 200 more players....
Anyway, not picking on anyone or anything in particular, actually have alot of repect for goonswarm being the only alliance in the game with enough stones to pull off something like burn jita......no tinfoil hat here. Just some feedback from a smaller entity with very little isk to spare.
|
Cheekything
Dark-Rising
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:01:00 -
[306] - Quote
I think the war changes are completely wrong and do not serve EVE well.
I actually think that money should be removed out of the equation with the cost of creating a war.
I also think that there should be a 3rd/4th currency (sorry but it's come to this) that is used solely for creating wars, that way it can still cost isk but you can limit the amount a alliance/corp can have and can use, I'm not going to explain how it should work quite frankly the devs should be thinking about this sort of thing.
I am still a big supporter of small corps declaring war on big alliances because they have always worked at keeping most big alliances in null sec which means the smaller players are free to roam low and high sec to explore eve before they get mixed up in the drama that is null sec.
However you should be looking to achieve the following for wars:
The cost for multiple people in the same war should be cheap/free so long as their total number of people does not exceed half of the target corp/alliance.
Small waring big should be cheap.
Big waring small should be expensive.
Also the length should be determined by how many people are involved in the war including allies.
I.e. 5000 v 100 it should be a 24 hour war, 100 v 5000 it should be 24 hours again. If it's even with some margin of error say 50% then it should be the full length.
This way if people who are wardeccing the same person can ally up and make it last longer and single man corp who are waring just to raise the price of people declaring war will be kick out within 24 hours.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:05:00 -
[307] - 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. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:06:00 -
[308] - 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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2040
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:17:00 -
[309] - Quote
Incidently I've just been on the test server and wardecced my own alliance with an alt corp and then added some allies.
The proposed system on the test server for Inferno 1.1 is currently.
First Ally is Free. Second Ally is 10m isk Third Ally is 20m Isk Fourth Ally is 40m Isk
So yes its exponential.
To illustrate the likely costs ...
9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.
100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.
This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.
So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.
Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.
Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!
And to quote a player from Failheap who responds quite pertinently I think.
Quote:I'm so dissapointed on the outcome of this...
large player bloc says -> we will make high-sec a living hell, therefore we will wardc or gank everyone there small player bloc says -> i'll use the tools at my disposal to fight back
CCP sees a problem there and "fixes" it..
i mean, these were wardec people were paying, let them cut their throats if they so want to
So many options to make wardecs meaningful and CCP chose the less interesting options....
I think thats pretty much the point right there.
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! |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:17:00 -
[310] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam. I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself. 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. Constructive feedback - this is how it is done. Sorry but you are a little bit wrong. Any kind of Hotkey/ shortcut is IN ABSOLUTE NO WAY acceptable. The function, to doubleclick and/or rightclick at the icons, to pop up the independent windows MUST be restored. Why does someone want a hotkey when it once was fine to just doublecklick. I hate the idea to have hundreds of shortcuts to load my hundreds of windows again. Why not just a doublecklick at a icon? Why should I play a text controlled game with this crap shortcuts, when I have a mouse and double- rightclicks? Really.. Who loves all this shortcuts? I use 3 different shortcuts currently. All for drone control. I do not want further shortcuts to control a game which was playable with a mouse till 22.05.2012!
What feature rich function Do you mean? The Tree view - No one likes? The estimated price that is always wrong and not useable but laggy? The circles which you can see till the server loads the WHOLE inventory? ... I can not find ANY improvement, compared to the old UI, which would do this unified crap useful.
And why is the demand to absolute rebuild the old UI with the new code not a constructive feedback? The few lovers of this unified UI just say: "Give 'constructive feedback' as long as it don't include ANY functionality from the old UI." ? I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:20:00 -
[311] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: 9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.
100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.
This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.
So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.
Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.
Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!
It's almost like it's designed to make you think about who you ally with, to gauge the actual force you're fighting (i.e. not just looking at how many members are in the alliance and throwing a tantrum from there) and to hire accordingly. Funny that! |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:23:00 -
[312] - 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.
Fuujin wrote: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
Well, then would an after-the-fact wardec fee/tax be more appropriate? That is, to declare war, some amount of ISK is deposited (like a retainer), then at set times (daily downtime? weekly?) the system examines actual highsec combats for combatants, and calculates the appropriate fee/tax at that time, then deducts it from the retainer.
I've no dog in this hunt, just musing about possible outside-the-box solutions.
MDD |
Ponder Yonder
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:23:00 -
[313] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam. I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself. 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. Constructive feedback - this is how it is done. Sorry but you are a little bit wrong. Any kind of Hotkey/ shortcut is IN ABSOLUTE NO WAY acceptable. The function, to doubleclick and/or rightclick at the icons, to pop up the independent windows MUST be restored. Why does someone want a hotkey when it once was fine to just doublecklick. I hate the idea to have hundreds of shortcuts to load my hundreds of windows again. Why not just a doublecklick at a icon? Why should I play a text controlled game with this crap shortcuts, when I have a mouse and double- rightclicks? Really.. Who loves all this shortcuts? I use 3 different shortcuts currently. All for drone control. I do not want further shortcuts to control a game which was playable with a mouse till 22.05.2012! And why is the demand to absolute rebuild the old UI with the new code not a constructive feedback? The few lovers of this unified UI just say: "Give 'constructive feedback' as long as it don't include ANY functionality from the old UI." ?
Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
|
Tlat Ij
Hedion University Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:26:00 -
[314] - Quote
Hooray! You guys finally fixed the logos on the Carthum ships! Although, the red parts look a bit too dark tbh, looks like a color you would expect on rusty old minmatar ships. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2042
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:28:00 -
[315] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: 9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.
100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.
This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.
So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.
Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.
Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!
It's almost like it's designed to make you think about who you ally with, to gauge the actual force you're fighting (i.e. not just looking at how many members are in the alliance and throwing a tantrum from there) and to hire accordingly. Funny that!
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 ?
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! |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:30:00 -
[316] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:34:00 -
[317] - 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 ?
Not even remotely. I guess if anything about this was "complex" it'd be your bleating about needing your ally list to be a "fair" number when in practice it was...well, I'll quote your sig: "sign up and shoot Goons for free!".
But back to non-complex things: surely you can recognize that the ally system was at least in part to invigorate the idea of being a professional mercenary corporation, and that "come shoot Goons for free!" accomplishes the exact opposite of that.
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:35:00 -
[318] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue
Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:38:00 -
[319] - 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. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:41:00 -
[320] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription! Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please.
Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now? I repost ths demand so often because I feel ignored from CCP. I write something and CCP doesnt reply to that or say YES or NO. Than I must ask a few times more. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:42:00 -
[321] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
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? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2043
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:42:00 -
[322] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote: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 ? Not even remotely. I guess if anything about this was "complex" it'd be your bleating about needing your ally list to be a "fair" number when in practice it was...well, I'll quote your sig: "sign up and shoot Goons for free!". But back to non-complex things: surely you can recognize that the ally system was at least in part to invigorate the idea of being a professional mercenary corporation, and that "come shoot Goons for free!" accomplishes the exact opposite of that.
If you would care to look at my proposal for resolving this problem you will see that it does both - it will invigorate the ideal of the merc corp while still allowing a small power decced by a massive power to invite for a free dogpile and fight back.
Quote:Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.
1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.
2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.
3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).
4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.
I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.
Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.
This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.
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! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:44:00 -
[323] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription! Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please. Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now?
Seriously who exactly do you think you are? President of the World Aspergers League? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:44:00 -
[324] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription! Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please. Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now?
I have actually replied to this topic extensively in another thread. I have requested that the team investigate the option to have clicking and shift-clicking exchangeable via the shortcut menu (for inventory only) so that advanced players have the choice of functionality. The team was interested and are examining the feasibility of such a feature. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
669
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:45:00 -
[325] - Quote
Here's a different take on the ideas presented for Warfare:
The issue of an XYZ sized alliance able to cheaply war dec a smaller alliance is totally irrelevant. You could do this before and you can still do it now.
The perceived unfairness is the ability for a smaller alliance to war dec a bigger alliance for "more".
I think the solution is simple, for Inferno.
Make the cost be the difference in members. Both ways.
For a smaller alliance to war dec a bigger one, you pay per member the difference. For a bigger alliance to war dec a smaller one, you pay the difference, per member.
Now, two BIG alliances, pay smaller payments. Two Small alliances of the same size, pay smaller payments.
Why do this? Well. One of the reasons to pay PER member is to stop one or two small corps from harassing a huge corp without any retaliation. And the concern of a huge alliance war deccing a smaller alliance. When the odds are the same, the war fees go down, and then we can truly have inferno.
Mega alliances that want mega alliance warfare will pay cheaply, and INFERNO happens because you better be ready to defend your mega huge size. Meanwhile small alliances that want small wars can have them and they should GROW bigger to defend themselves/make it more expensive to war dec.
So, what will happen is huge alliances will have an incentive to war dec other huge alliances, and smaller alliances will have an incentive to grow. The bigger alliances still get an advantage in terms of ISK and numbers. But, it motivates people to grow or shrink based on their environment.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:46:00 -
[326] - 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? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:47:00 -
[327] - Quote
corestwo wrote: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?
As long as it's constructive and on-topic, we're glad to hear from as many people who would like to post. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2046
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:47:00 -
[328] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Fuujin wrote: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. 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?
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."
This Warfare change on the other hand is a pretty horrible thing. Its massively unbalanced in favour of the largest and richest alliances in Eve and gives them an even bigger advantage than the 50m -> 500m wardec fee did with Inferno 1.0.
What I'd like is for developers and goonswarm posters to actually look at the proposed solution I've put on the table and critique it. Let me know why you think it doesn't work if its no good - otherwise please consider adopting it.
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! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:49:00 -
[329] - 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. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:50:00 -
[330] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: I have actually replied to this topic extensively in another thread. I have requested that the team investigate the option to have clicking and shift-clicking exchangeable via the shortcut menu (for inventory only) so that advanced players have the choice of functionality. The team was interested and are examining the feasibility of such a feature.
OK.. than I must have missed that. We have NOW more threads about the issues / feedback of this UI, than windows in this UI itself. Is there a statement from this team? Is it possible to avoid this shift+x to have a seperate window as default per double or rightclick? I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1360
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:50:00 -
[331] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription! Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please. Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now? I repost ths demand so often because I feel ignored from CCP. I write something and CCP doesnt reply to that or say YES or NO. Than I must ask a few times more.
I can say with complete certainty that I'll continue to ignore you. |
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:51:00 -
[332] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
Why should the system be biased in favour of the attacker though - if only 1% of the attacker is actually taking part in the attack surely thats the attacker's fault and therefore problem - why should the system compensate for that by not allowing the defender equal treatment?
Furthermore if I am the defender and bring in, say, 9 more 500 man allies who is to say more than 1% of the players in those allies will actually be involved in the fighting.
Its an argument that if you want to make, you need to apply evenly to both attackers and defenders. The principal should always be that it is not prohibitively costly to match the attacker's numbers. It should cost basically the same to bring in equal numbers as it cost the attacker to wardec the outnumbered enemy.
The real possibilities for abuse all relate to highsec warfare corps taking on loads of cheap wars through the ally mechanic. If this is undesirable then we should use a mechanic of escalating fees per war involvement NOT escalating fees per ally requested. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:51:00 -
[333] - Quote
Lallante wrote: Seriously who exactly do you think you are? President of the World Aspergers League?
Its not just about ME. Many others had this request and many others where ignored. Not just me. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:53:00 -
[334] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I can say with complete certainty that I'll continue to ignore you.
Its OK Soundwave. CCP does not only ignores me. Have a look at the forum and try to find out how many other players feel ignored from you. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:54:00 -
[335] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote: Seriously who exactly do you think you are? President of the World Aspergers League?
Its not just about ME. Many others had this request and many others where ignored. Not just me.
Oh I see. I assume you are canvassing all of the people you claim to speak for and getting a consensus before each of your beautifully constructed posts?
No?
Your request has been noted and if there is a compelling case for it an no technical issues preventing it, it will probably get implemented. What more are you actually asking for? Just chill now ffs. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1360
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:56:00 -
[336] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:
I can say with complete certainty that I'll continue to ignore you.
Its OK Soundwave. CCP does not only ignores me. Have a look at the forum and try to find out how many other players feel ignored from you.
Oh I'm reading most other peoples posts, don't worry. |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
311
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:01:00 -
[337] - Quote
The cannot open the main inventory when you open a ship cargo hold by using double click is bug report # 138465.
The main inventory needs a cargo holds to read like the drone bay does with the name of the thing you are viewing listed.
Maybe list it in the cargo area if it is empty? |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:02:00 -
[338] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote: Seriously who exactly do you think you are? President of the World Aspergers League?
Its not just about ME. Many others had this request and many others where ignored. Not just me. Oh I see. I assume you are canvassing all of the people you claim to speak for and getting a consensus before each of your beautifully constructed posts? No? Your request has been noted and if there is a compelling case for it an no technical issues preventing it, it will probably get implemented. What more are you actually asking for? Just chill now ffs. What? I do NOT claim to speak in the name of any group or persons in EVE! What are you talking about? But it is a fact that CCP gives very less statements concerning the changes they PLAN. I know that they can not undo this mess within two weeks. But I (and many many others who where ignored) wants to know what CCP TRIES to re implement but barely got an answer to this. I do NOT need a hightech masterplan with a detailed time frame. Just a few hints and headwords, what CCP is planning.
Then try reading the various devblogs and posts on the subject as it is pretty clear that they are making every effort to make the system more functional, and that obviously includes reintroducing any lost functionality. You know, as an alternative to sperging out over your own lack of comprehension. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:06:00 -
[339] - Quote
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)
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! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:07:00 -
[340] - Quote
Fuujin wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: This Warfare change on the other hand is a pretty horrible thing. Its massively unbalanced in favour of the largest and richest alliances in Eve and gives them an even bigger advantage than the 50m -> 500m wardec fee did with Inferno 1.0.
What I'd like is for developers and goonswarm posters to actually look at the proposed solution I've put on the table and critique it. Let me know why you think it doesn't work if its no good - otherwise please consider adopting it.
Because it merely takes blanket numbers into account. Inaccurate numbers at that. It does nothing to force you to consider merc quality, just numbers. You're still consigning the "pro" merc groups to be on par with the mob and unable (or just difficult) to break out and shine. Also, you ignore the war dec multiplier cost. A single alliance cannot wardec 10 targets for 50m apiece. The cost scales, rather quickly, for each concurrent war.
I agree counting numbers alone doesnt account for merc quality, number of people in high-sec, number of people involved in the war actively, number of mains rather than alts, variety in ships/equipment used, player skill etc.
Its quite obviously a flawed method of measuring "power".
Its also pretty obviously the most accurate single measure - most of the factors I've described above aren't measurable at all, the rest are not measurable in any easy, sensible way.
I think you are right regarding the multiplier cost - in my view the cost of a wardec should scale with the size of a target so that deccing 10 x 100man corps costs the same as deccing 1x1000 man corp. This combined with equivalent changes to defender allies would be a way better system.
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. |
|
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:08:00 -
[341] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
Then try reading the various devblogs and posts on the subject as it is pretty clear that they are making every effort to make the system more functional, and that obviously includes reintroducing any lost functionality. You know, as an alternative to sperging out over your own lack of comprehension.
I read this dev blogs. I could only find out what they will do NEXT (next 3 days till next patchday). But it is not possible to have a look at the planned road map from CCP. So, before you write something about comprehension; I would suggest that you also read the dev blogs and try to find out what they will do more than just "Improve" and "listen to feedback". Or what functions they plan I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:09:00 -
[342] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:
Then try reading the various devblogs and posts on the subject as it is pretty clear that they are making every effort to make the system more functional, and that obviously includes reintroducing any lost functionality. You know, as an alternative to sperging out over your own lack of comprehension.
I read this dev blogs. I could only find out what they will do NEXT (next 3 days till next patchday). But it is not possible to have a look at the planned road map from CCP. So, before you write something about comprehension; I would suggest that you also read the dev blogs and try to find out what the will do more than just "Improve" and "listen to feedback".
Perhaps I can arrange for a developer to visit you in person with a flipchart and take you through the code proposals line by line? |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
311
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:11:00 -
[343] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:
Then try reading the various devblogs and posts on the subject as it is pretty clear that they are making every effort to make the system more functional, and that obviously includes reintroducing any lost functionality. You know, as an alternative to sperging out over your own lack of comprehension.
I read this dev blogs. I could only find out what they will do NEXT (next 3 days till next patchday). But it is not possible to have a look at the planned road map from CCP. So, before you write something about comprehension; I would suggest that you also read the dev blogs and try to find out what they will do more than just "Improve" and "listen to feedback". Or what functions they plan As per his post bugs then original fuctionality then new better fuctionality. With easy to emplement ideas as they go. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:11:00 -
[344] - Quote
Is the first entity a defender allows to ally with him free?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1363
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:12:00 -
[345] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem. 1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight. 2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew. 3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave). 4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation. I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that. Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired. This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another. Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
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.
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.
|
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:12:00 -
[346] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Is the first entity a defender allows to ally with him free?
I think so |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:12:00 -
[347] - 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. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:13:00 -
[348] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:
Then try reading the various devblogs and posts on the subject as it is pretty clear that they are making every effort to make the system more functional, and that obviously includes reintroducing any lost functionality. You know, as an alternative to sperging out over your own lack of comprehension.
I read this dev blogs. I could only find out what they will do NEXT (next 3 days till next patchday). But it is not possible to have a look at the planned road map from CCP. So, before you write something about comprehension; I would suggest that you also read the dev blogs and try to find out what the will do more than just "Improve" and "listen to feedback". Perhaps I can arrange for a developer to visit you in person with a flipchart and take you through the code proposals line by line? Not necessary. But thanks. A short list would be more than enough. If I know what they TRY to implement I can wait till it IS implemented. But to wait without ANY information is bad for me. I would suggest a website with this list which would be updated with every further idea they want to TRY to implement. Nothing more. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1363
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:14:00 -
[349] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:
Then try reading the various devblogs and posts on the subject as it is pretty clear that they are making every effort to make the system more functional, and that obviously includes reintroducing any lost functionality. You know, as an alternative to sperging out over your own lack of comprehension.
I read this dev blogs. I could only find out what they will do NEXT (next 3 days till next patchday). But it is not possible to have a look at the planned road map from CCP. So, before you write something about comprehension; I would suggest that you also read the dev blogs and try to find out what the will do more than just "Improve" and "listen to feedback". Perhaps I can arrange for a developer to visit you in person with a flipchart and take you through the code proposals line by line? Not necessary. But thanks. A short list would be more than enough. If I know what they TRY to implement I can wait till it IS implemented. But to wait without ANY information is bad for me. I would suggest a website with this list which would be updated with every further idea they want to TRY to implement. Nothing more.
Maybe if you post even more. |
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:14:00 -
[350] - 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. |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:15:00 -
[351] - Quote
Fuujine wrote: Because it merely takes blanket numbers into account. Inaccurate numbers at that.
Why are they inaccurate? The numbers are precise, they are used to calculate precisely how much a 3rd party entity has to pay concord to wardec them.
Fuujine wrote:It does nothing to force you to consider merc quality, just numbers. You're still consigning the "pro" merc groups to be on par with the mob and unable (or just difficult) to break out and shine.
I'll really not. I am not considering this kind of large alliance general bullying/griefing dec to be the equvilent of a proper wardec for a purpose. General mayhem is good for dogpile allies - but a specific serious war threat would be good for professional merc involvemlent - but again, both of these cases are covered by the mechanic I have proposed.
Fuujine wrote:Edit: Here's a scenario: you (74 man alliance) dec a 10 man. That 10 man brings in goonswarm. Per your system, no concord fees (first ally, was below the cap prior).
By my system that would then mean as the attacker I could then bring in free allies until such point as we reach parity. Same result, good mayhem, fun for everyone.
Quote:Also, having to actively pay your allies as opposed to blanket man count also helps reduce the 1% issue on the part of your allies; if they aren't participating or pulling their weight you can fire them.
For a serious war sure. For one of these eternal random trade hub griefing wars - no way. You wouldn't ever pay a merc a penny to fight that kind of thing. Even in this new system it simply wouldn't happen. SF would offer the free ally slot to Orphanage/Privateers or something like that. And we'd sell the cheaper ones on the market for people who wanted a discount wardec on GS below 500m.
Fuujine wrote:Just to reiterate, I don't care about GSF wars; I'm enjoying shooting the multitudes you've put together--I'd probably have chewed off my own arm out of boredom otherwise. My main concern is that you are devaluing the committed mercs from the :effort: gankers, and chilling out small/mid size corp wardecs.
And I maintain that if you think through the implications of the solution I have proposed it will draw a CLEAR line between the massive alliance on tiny target dogpile fights and the serious medium sized merc on target fights.
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! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:18:00 -
[352] - Quote
Has those not involved in a war assisting those in combat via assist modules (remote repair, remote sensor boosting, etc) been addressed? As in not allowed?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1367
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:19:00 -
[353] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
Adding to this discussion is that while it might be very difficult to get the same number of people on paper, it's not necessarily the same effort getting the same number of people in practice. How many people will an empire focused merc corp have in an organized fashion in empire compared to GF for example? The total number of people in an alliance for that purpose isn't necessarily relevant. |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:19:00 -
[354] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Is the first entity a defender allowed to ally with him free?
Yeah it appears so - your FHC foreign legion alliance might still be on the cards.
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! |
Ponder Yonder
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:20:00 -
[355] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:
Then try reading the various devblogs and posts on the subject as it is pretty clear that they are making every effort to make the system more functional, and that obviously includes reintroducing any lost functionality. You know, as an alternative to sperging out over your own lack of comprehension.
I read this dev blogs. I could only find out what they will do NEXT (next 3 days till next patchday). But it is not possible to have a look at the planned road map from CCP. So, before you write something about comprehension; I would suggest that you also read the dev blogs and try to find out what the will do more than just "Improve" and "listen to feedback". Perhaps I can arrange for a developer to visit you in person with a flipchart and take you through the code proposals line by line? Not necessary. But thanks. A short list would be more than enough. If I know what they TRY to implement I can wait till it IS implemented. But to wait without ANY information is bad for me. I would suggest a website with this list which would be updated with every further idea they want to TRY to implement. Nothing more.
Did you read this:
CCP Goliath wrote:So I spoke to the team about the shortcut option I referred to earlier in the thread. They are going to look into the feasibility of this now and seemed pretty positive about it.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:22:00 -
[356] - 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.
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.
Sorry mate but you are missing a trick here - its not about forcing fairness through mechanics, its about not PREVENTING the defender from evening the odds itself. Its absolutely in keeping with the Eve sandbox philosophy that the outcome of a war is down to player actions, metagaming (i.e. finding the right allies, paying them, etc) rather than incredibly restrictive mechanics that FORCE the defender to fight vastly outnumbered or stump up enormous amounts of cash.
You arent introducing forced fairness by implementing Jade's proposals, you are giving the players the tools needed to ensure fairness or unfairness as they see fit. Most, maybe even all empire corporations wont have the allies or isk to buy them necessary to match, say, Goonswarm's numbers man for man - there aren't many situations where this will make things "fair" but what it will do is stop actively forcing them to accept the unfair position (i.e. that they cant bring in more allies or have their friends wardec back because the mechanics make it prohibitively expensive to do so).
Basically the way you are proposing it means a large alliance can wardec whichever small entities they want and are protected from being wardecced back or from allies joining the fight. The numbers restrictions only hurt the defending side!
Quote:
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.
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.
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:26:00 -
[357] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Is the first entity a defender allowed to ally with him free? Yeah it appears so - your FHC foreign legion alliance might still be on the cards.
Sounds good then. Well hold on, let me ask CCP if they will nerf that too...
CCP, Goons, TEST and the mighty CSM,
I would like to create an alliance for the purpose of letting those corps willing to fight the evil large null power blocks who think the new war dec system is a toy for them. Said alliance would not charge anything to ally with a defender. Such defenders that those large alliance war dec over some butt hurt post on the forums, different play style of the game or against someone who did not welcome having their online CV hacked and molested.
Mainly just to have fun. I hope fun is still ok.
Anyways, please let me know! Feel free to openly reply right here on the forums too. Considering the forums is where the real PvP happens.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:27:00 -
[358] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:
Maybe if you post even more.
Standard CCP behavior? Customer has a request and CCP says something that don't help or upset the customer more? Listen Soundwave.. more than 4 years continued subscription and "Cry a little bit more" is all you can say to this loyal customer? Shame. No it's just you pretty much. And now you are wondering why you get so upset forum posts? You can no longer keep a friendly tone if you where constantly ignored or trolled from a CCP. At the beginning I had made neutral forum posts. But with growing ignorance and denial of any statement, what comes next, it IS only possible to get more upset. But you did not do anything against it. You just pick a few post from me and excites me a little bit more? No 'constructive' answers; just trolling - the same action you accuse me? I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:27:00 -
[359] - 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. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
548
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:29:00 -
[360] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Is the first entity a defender allowed to ally with him free? Yeah it appears so - your FHC foreign legion alliance might still be on the cards. Sounds good then. Well hold on, let me ask CCP if they will nerf that too... CCP, Goons, TEST and the mighty CSM, I would like to create an alliance for the purpose of letting those corps willing to fight the evil large null power blocks who think the new war dec system is a toy for them. Said alliance would not charge anything to ally with a defender. Such defenders that those large alliance war dec over some butt hurt post on the forums, different play style of the game or against someone who did not welcome having their online CV hacked and molested. Mainly just to have fun. I hope fun is still ok. Anyways, please let me know! Feel free to openly reply right here on the forums too. Considering the forums is where the real PvP happens.
An alliance built to fight evil large power blocks... Sounds pretty rebellious to me. I like it! CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:29:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Fuujin wrote: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. Adding to this discussion is that while it might be very difficult to get the same number of people on paper, it's not necessarily the same effort getting the same number of people in practice. How many people will an empire focused merc corp have in an organized fashion in empire compared to GF for example? The total number of people in an alliance for that purpose isn't necessarily relevant.
While that is obviously true your mechanics penalise the defender for GF not being organised or committing to their empire wars. If they cant commit a sizeable force to fight a war they declared, they have three options: 1) accept that there is a possibility that they will be fighting outnumbered IF the defender is highly organised and can afford allies; 2) create a separate entity (alliance or corp) dedicated to the war with the people who will be involved in it; or 3) not declare war.
I don't really understand why you are penalising the defenders because the attacker only brings a fraction of its possible power into play. Every one of the 9000 players is -capable- of being involved in the war. Why should the defender suffer because only a fraction bother to do so in practice? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
383
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:33:00 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem. 1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight. 2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew. 3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave). 4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation. I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that. Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired. This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another. Can you see anything wrong with this solution? 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. 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.
so pretty much before inferno i get war decced i stay inside of station and now since i cant get enough peeps to help me out i have to sit in station?
good job...
whats to stop mercs from joining up like the old MA and have 4000 peeps then you are only hiering one ally?
can me being a mego merc allinace be allies for eveyone who is war decced in high sec? PLEX FOR PIZZA!
tech III industrial ships! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:33:00 -
[363] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
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). |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:38:00 -
[364] - Quote
Lallante wrote:I don't really understand why you are penalising the defenders because the attacker only brings a fraction of its possible power into play. Every one of the 9000 players is -capable- of being involved in the war. Why should the defender suffer because only a fraction bother to do so in practice? Oooo, now there's an interesting mechanic: Let's make the 2nd and following weeks' wardec fees proportionate to the proportion of pilots in the attacking corp/alliance who DO NOT participate in the war's combat during the preceding weeks of the wardec. That way attackers are financially incentivized to bring their pilots.
MDD |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:42:00 -
[365] - 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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:44:00 -
[366] - 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.
I'm not sure that is the issue to be honest. I accept you are trying to bring the merc trade back to eve but I don't think your proposal will work the way you think it will. Adding a concord penalty fee to allies simply means that a certain number of allies will get in as a way of discounting their ordinary concord declaration fee. But nobody is going to be paying mercenaries for random unspecificied trade hub ganking. Your ambition to give mercenary's meaning again will not be met until you are in the position to give specific war aims and goals that people can set their mercs. For example.
If the Goonswarm vs SF war had a default win condition of "do 100b isk damage" and came with a way of winning the war then sure - I'd be hiring decent mercs to do it. But there is no win condition, no structure, no real purpose apart from "go have fun blowing each other up" - and why am I paying other players to have fun? This is eve not themepark friendly cuddly creatures online :)
CCP Soundwave wrote:Why would I want to balance a fight?
Thats a big question and it deserves a proper answer. You want to balance a fight because then people will take it seriously and try. The biggest problem with eve's combat system is that sure you can create unbalanced fights, but then you can also run away and avoid them. Try roaming lowsec in a giant T3 ahac gang with 10 guardians and triage carriers on station and see who engages you. Sure eve is not fair but all you are going to get from that play is a blue-balls. Go roaming in something that looks more engageable and you'll get fights.
Now there is something key here. Sure in the purity of Eve's jungle wardecs are not fair (and lets ignore for a moment the way you rebalanced Inferno to give huge alliances a 10x wardec fee protection bonus in boosting the default from 50-500m). But sure you let the large bully the small and sit back and call it the sandbox. Thats great, but as with the roaming ahacs they are not going to find people very interested in fighting and the targets will generally ignore the wardec. Why would anyone sensible engage massively outnumbered in a war that is completely biased in the attackers favour? This is why people getting a wardec from GS/TEST etc just outsource it to the trade hub raiders and forget about it.
If instead you give the defender tools to fight back if they can find and motivate allies then fighting the war becomes something sensible to consider and people will do it. People will take an interest and put some effort into engaging with the war rather than just shrugging and ignoring it.
Inferno is an expansion about war. But it should be an expansion about how to seduce people into war, how to excite people about war, how to make people see the possibilities in war. Thats how it becomes successful. While sure, its good old mittani style soundbite to talk about how eve isn't fair and the big crush the small and the aristocracy of 0.0 has all the advantages and if you don't like it HTFU and get out etc etc. This message has tactical limits - because if you can't interest people in the possibilties of the wardec system through the changes you roll out in Inferno then its going to be a failure - if people don't care about wars because they perceive the big guys have ALL the advantages they'll just keep wardec evading and ignoring and nobody is going to be hiring mercs to fight these things.
CCP Soundwave wrote:The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them.
See I had no problem with that thinking coupled with the allied system which could potentially even the field while adding targets (value) to the attack wardec. Take the example that is discussed widely in this thread. I have been attracting allies to the GS vs SF wardec. GS people say they like more targets. Every ally I bring adds more targets to the dec. I am effectively giving more specific value to the 50m per week that goonswarm are paying. Now either the goonswarm dec should increase in value to reflect the total number of the defending coalition - OR increasing the size of the defending coalition should be free because frankly (I'm giving GS more targets). Giving them more targets AND costing me money is just being double charged - sure eve is not fair but there has to be a point where you realize giving a double benefit to the largest alliances is just not really on.
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.
But it does massively boost the Mercenary Market and will make good merc corps excellent allies to have. Allowing a war to grow organically and dynamically as allies join will create a good balanced war which will interest people, will enthuse people, will suck people in. Why should a war be an arbitary one punch tilt for the attacker? What is the problem with having Inferno wardecs grow large and involve large numbers of corps and alliances?
Thats consequence. Why should the largest alliances in Eve be protected from consequence by arbitary wardec mechanics? This is eve. Design a system where we can play war for real. Take off the training wheels and let the chips fall.
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! |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
846
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:50:00 -
[367] - 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.
I'm suuuuuuuuper sorry. I thought that since you framed a grievance over an upcoming mechanic under the guise that it was implemented to generate favoritism for an alliance (which will be largely unaffected by said change) that you weren't into having an actual discussion. Regardless, let's delve into the mysteries of this war mechanic. We'll start small.
First I guess we should look at your main point - that this change will unfairly affect enemies of Goonswarm. Goonswarm is a very large alliance, and like most very large alliances they live in Nullsec. VFK, the home system for Goons, is the most active market in all of Nullsec. Using Eve-kill data, in the last two years over 99% of their kills have been in Nullsec or Lowsec - an area of the game where war decs are irrelevant.
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!
So this is why the community at large is laughing at you. I know this feeling isn't new to you and you don't care, but can you at least understand why nobody is taking what could be a rightful gripe seriously? Instead of rallying support for your cause, you just come across as some spergy badposter who really doesn't like Goons. Not putting words into your mouth, just giving you honest feedback.
Let's keep going onto the actual point. Why do I think that having (free) 50 allies, of which 80% have scored fewer than 10 kills, is a bad thing? I think we can agree that scarcity breeds competition. From the mercenary perspective, there is no scarcity when you can call in unlimited help. Why should a mercenary alliance strive to better than someone else? The current system is effectively "hi Moar Tears - how many free war decs do you want?" instead of providing an environment for mercenary corps to flourish.
Hope this cleared things up.
~ |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:54:00 -
[368] - 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. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:56:00 -
[369] - Quote
Hi Elise - Do you think after this change the war dec mechanic is perfect?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:04:00 -
[370] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
I guess this just comes down to whether you think the "relatively simple" mechanic is better as number of corp/alliances or number of players.
I think the latter is, though a bad indicater of power, a huge amount better than the former.
PS: I'm not trying to make highsec safer or wars less common or more consensual, I want more glorious deaths not less. |
|
Dovinian
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1075
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:04:00 -
[371] - Quote
Hi Elise, what changes would you make to the current system to make it viable and awesome? EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath
Please use bulleted points
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:07:00 -
[372] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: snipped general ranting
So now you've got all that off your chest would you like to address the specifics of my proposal?
Quote: Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.
1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.
2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.
3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).
4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.
I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.
Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.
This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
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! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:09:00 -
[373] - Quote
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? |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:12:00 -
[374] - 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? |
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:12:00 -
[375] - Quote
Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.
Also stop with the tinfoil hat bullshit.
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
353
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:14:00 -
[376] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Has those not involved in a war assisting those in combat via assist modules (remote repair, remote sensor boosting, etc) been addressed? As in not allowed? We are going to be addressing that in the next phase of crimewatch work that Team Five-0 has planned. This is general aggression issue rather than a specific war issue (since wars are just another form of legalised aggression, much like loot-theft and kill-rights) and we want to fix the general problem of interfering in someone else's fight.
So yes, it is going to be sorted, but no, not in an Inferno point release (and so let's not derail this thread away from 1.1 feedback) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
363
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:15:00 -
[377] - 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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:17:00 -
[378] - 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?
The arguement is (and I really don't think its a good one) is that mercenaries are being disadvantaged by the fact that random hisec trade hub raiders offer their services for FREE.
ie "good mercenaries" can't make any money from being defensive allies.
Also,
traditional merc contracts (where entity A pays entity B to wardec C for some purpose) are being ruined because entity C can call in free allies and make it difficult for entity B to complete its job.
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.
The second stage is a little more convincing but isn't resolved by the Inferno 1.1 changes either. Nothing would stop GS from allying for free with anybody wardecced by a merc in new eden in the new system. Instant blob same result.
So basically these changes to boost mercs are simply not happening.
There is a different solution needed.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:19:00 -
[379] - Quote
Syndic Thrass wrote:Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.
So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?
Quote:Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.
1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.
2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.
3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).
4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.
I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.
Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.
This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
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! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
552
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:23:00 -
[380] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?
I understand what you're trying to do, but please stop requoting yourself in every post. It's OK to turn the other cheek and ignore people once in a while. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:23:00 -
[381] - Quote
corestwo wrote: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.
Because it is funny.
Also it is fun for the ragtag guys (and hopefully for the attacker too - more defenders should mean more kills), while being a reasonably balanced method of defence (albeit not the most effective one, by far) against abusive wardecs. It encourages more PvP basically. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:29:00 -
[382] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?
I understand what you're trying to do, but please stop requoting yourself in every post. It's OK to turn the other cheek and ignore people once in a while.
Yeah fair enough, guess its okay if I link them instead :)
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! |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:29:00 -
[383] - 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.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:31:00 -
[384] - 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. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:31:00 -
[385] - Quote
Syndic Thrass wrote:Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.
Also stop with the tinfoil hat bullshit. It has been done multiple times in this thread, but you as well as others just ignore them and focus on Jade's posts. Lallente has been making very good posts in regards to the war dec mechanic. Why don't you go toe-to-toe with him. I would very much like to see that.
Unless of course you are not ready for that.
/popcorn
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:36:00 -
[386] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: 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?
If I was wardecced by an entity that wanted to blow up my towers I'd consider hiring mercs to help defend at the reinforcement timer. I wouldn't be adding freebie "mercs" through the ally system. There is a world of difference between getting defenders for a specific purpose and simply reacting to a generalized trade hub ganking dec. But that pretty much goes for anybody else. No small entity that gets randomly decced and never sees its attackers is going to hire "serious mercs" to defend them -
Quote: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.
Come again? How does that work ?
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:38:00 -
[387] - Quote
corestwo wrote: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.
Well its actually seeking a discussion on a solid proposal rather than random trolling and argument. Soundwave made a post, it had his opinion. I disagreed with his approach in many respects and answered in turn. It appears many other players disagreed with his post as well. Hopefully he'll come back and respond.
This is how a conversation works.
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! |
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:39:00 -
[388] - Quote
It's all a Goon conspiracy, Soundwave only smacked your post down because he is favoring the Goonies, isn't that right Jade?
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:40:00 -
[389] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec? A number of others have pointed out the silliness of this question. According to CCP's reasoning, the attacker must pay more for more targets. If only high sec targets count then large null sec alliances should cost less. Obviously the assumption is that equivalent numbers will do something else. Some possible other motives are: area protection (make high sec as hostile as null sec), unify towards an actual threat on null sec territory, or deterrence against large vs small wars. There are probably many more reasons to create numerically equal sides.
CCP Soundwave wrote:making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. Thank you for your entire response. At least now I understand why you are doing this and I even like the goal, although I disagree with the method. Thinking as a mercenary's customer these changes do not change the reasons why I would not hire a merc corporation. The war system needs a method by which a defender can actively remove the war declaration by fighting (and hiring mercenaries to do that fighting).
The free allies seem to be high sec ganking corps. These corporations provide one function, area harassment in trade hubs. Given significant numbers of opponents in non-industrial ships and they will dock. Now let us look at Noir.'s (a merc corp) list of services and compare that with these new allies and the solution suggested.
1) Declarations of War 2) System/Regional Assault (0.0 or anti-piracy) 3) Asset Denial These three require focus which high sec gankers do not seem to have outside of the trade hubs.
4) Small/Medium POS Destruction A free ally is looking for cheap targets not coordinated actions to benefit you.
5) Surveillance/Reconnaissance 6) Consulting 7) Scouting/Escort These seem like generally non-war related items, and require communication, which a free ally is not likely to bother with.
8) OPFOR Unless you fancy docking games an opposing force needs to be someone with some coordination.
9) Force Multiplication Requires coordination, again not in the province of free mercs.
10) Corporate Expansion/Alliance Creation Not wardec related.
From my perspective, the only three reasons to hire a merc outfit remain the same both before and after this change. 1) Harass someone you don't like. 2) POS destruction. 3) Training. Perhaps there are other cost effective tasks that mercenaries can do that I have not heard about. Based on this perspective what mercs need is a real way to benefit people not methods to hinder war dec defenders.
If you want to aid mercs add a method for defenders to actively fight against a war dec. Mercs can then be hired to reach this goal when the corporation does not feel it is capable. It seems like this idea has been dismissed by CCP because they think it constrains the activity in war. This is wrong.
A new option besides hide or fight a more powerful enemy could make the wars about fighting, which would encourage the hiring of mercs. The old wars were boring because you felt like there was nothing you could actually do to change the situation or encourage a fight. Allowing the defender to try and end the war through an activity will cause the inferno you actually wanted, instead of boredom that often results.
|
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:46:00 -
[390] - Quote
Dovinian[b wrote:EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath[/b] So that is who keeps deleting all of my comments poking Jade.
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:49:00 -
[391] - Quote
Syndic Thrass wrote:It's all a Goon conspiracy, Soundwave only smacked your post down because he is favoring the Goonies, isn't that right Jade?
Well I certainly don't think he "smacked down" my post and on the evidence of responses I believe most people see a problem with his reasoning. Lets hope he goes back to the drawing board on this one.
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! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:53:00 -
[392] - 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? |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:00:00 -
[393] - 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. |
Kuroi Hoshi
Ajo Heavy Industries
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:02:00 -
[394] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
But if you're deccing a smaller group then for any fight you engage in you have a higher chance of winning as its less likely for them to have corp mates nearby and available. I'd count that as a valuable advantage. Also 50 million ISK can be a good deal of ISK to a 3 man corp, to a 500 man alliance 50 million ISK is nothing.
I think the total number of pilots on both sides should be taken into account for the wardec and 20 vs 500 and 500 vs 20 should cost the same as 520 people are involved in both cases. Nothing complicated, whichever has the larger pilot base is used as the pilot number for determining the cost of the dec. So if its 500 vs 20 or 20 vs 500, you judge the wardec price off of the 500 pilot number.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:03:00 -
[395] - Quote
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 guess thats consequence of being the aggressor in a wardec.
In the system I'm proposing as long as the size of the defending coalition is smaller than the aggresssor its okay to add people to the war and see the overall size of the conflict increase. It means more fighting, more pvp, more kills and more chaos in hisec. And I'd see it as a natural consequence of a vast nullsec alliance issuing a wardec against a much smaller target.
I mean rl wise (these are always terrible).
Germany invades Poland. UK allies with Poland. German allies wardec UK UK allies wardec German Coalition. German allies wardec UK coalition. German allies **** off US. US wardecs German allies. Soon all the world is at WAR.
Things spiral out of control and end up much bigger than they started.
Its war baby.
Effectively the choice needs to be made between Inferno wardecs being.
A) A griefing tool for large alliances against small alliances while being defended from consequence or counteraction.
or
B) Genuine dynamic evolving war situations that can grow larger and more impressive through player ingenuity.
Option A is rather sadly limiting and definitely doesn't let players play with the sandbox.
What we have in Inferno currently is a superpower wardeccing a small alliance that is being joined by a coalition of small allies and widening the war. Decision is whether that kind of thing is good for eve or not.
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! |
Markius TheShed
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:04:00 -
[396] - Quote
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?
Because this is a evil sandbox and bad things happen.
And this patch is called Inferno because everyone is suppose to be on fire and fighting.
Instead of making it easier to get fights 1.1 is bringing in more rules to stop fights, The Inferno is having cold water poured on it. **Murientor Tribe** Killing Slavers, Ammatar and Nafantar Traitors since YC107 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:08:00 -
[397] - Quote
Markius TheShed wrote: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? Because this is a evil sandbox and bad things happen. And this patch is called Inferno because everyone is suppose to be on fire and fighting. Instead of making it easier to get fights 1.1 is bringing in more rules to stop fights, The Inferno is having cold water poured on it.
Inferno 1.1 "guys guys people took us seriously and tried settting the wardec system on fire - quick set off the sprinkler system!"
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! |
PinkKnife
The Scope Gallente Federation
115
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:15:00 -
[398] - Quote
Just chiming in that I think the idea of limiting mercs is good. Unlimited allies means you just bring in whoever you want, and in the future marketplace makes little sense.
The idea being to work with limited resources, and thus hire the best mercs you can for your situation and your wallet.
Having it be unlimited means just blanket adding anyone who wants in, and negates any reputation or negotiation a merc corp may have/want to make.
Why would you pay "super awesome merc corp X" 300m Isk to ally with you, when you can get 4 other corporations for free getting the same number of people.
Adding cost, and limitations, means having to make a choice in your allys, the best mercs will command the highest premiums, and the market will decide their worth.
Having unlimited, essentially negates that market ability.
Things that get pink's approval:
-Missile flares -Drake thing (i don't fly them but they look better) -Incursion Rollbacks, These have been DEAD since the nerf. -The amount of dev feedback in this thread. Players appreciate it, despite the outrage some players have.
Things that pink has mixed feelings on: -Minmatar V3'ing. I don't fly them, so I don't really care much, but I do think the core complexion color scheme should be changed. I dislike that they essentially just stole the Khanid scheme, there are plenty of different options available, why make them so similar? -V3 brightening...Just how bright <.< I like the new darker amarr ships despite those who want hello kitty in space brightness. Those Carthum ships make it painful to loose simply because they are so pretty to look at. (given the guardian face plate is strange)
|
Markius TheShed
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
64
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:16:00 -
[399] - Quote
Seriously don't any of you who are supporting Goons see the irony in them complaining about it not being fair that people can Dec them for free, When their whole ethos is that eve is unfair?? **Murientor Tribe** Killing Slavers, Ammatar and Nafantar Traitors since YC107 |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:18:00 -
[400] - 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. |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:20:00 -
[401] - Quote
corestwo wrote: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.
As I said thats the consequence of you making wardecs. If you want the hordes of corps to have to pay to wardec you then don't dec people. Thats a strategic decision your leadership can make.
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! |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2079
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:22:00 -
[402] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
Actually, we will hire mercs if required, we've done it in the past and folks like Noir have been awesome for us. I also hope we can get to a solution that lets us still have a reasonable number of "free" help to even the numbers then pay to add "specialist" to make it even more painful to an aggressor.
I just wanted to say I hope for an outcome that results in a healthy merc market too.
Issler |
Markius TheShed
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
65
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:25:00 -
[403] - Quote
corestwo wrote: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.
Why is it fair that your war dec cost is 50m and the small corp you decced would have to pay 500m to dec you? When you have Trillions of isk and they only have a billion.
Like i said Eve isn't fair but when its you it seems that's not allowed **Murientor Tribe** Killing Slavers, Ammatar and Nafantar Traitors since YC107 |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:30:00 -
[404] - Quote
Should the war dec fee take into account the actual 'real' member count who actually visit/live in high sec?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
108
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:32:00 -
[405] - Quote
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. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3302
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:32:00 -
[406] - Quote
Not to interrupt Jade's fifteenth page of "**** the mercs only care about me", have the new FW LP store items been listed? |
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
127
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:33:00 -
[407] - Quote
Guys, fofo causes lag.
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:34:00 -
[408] - 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. |
Synthetic Cultist
Church of The Crimson Saviour
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:46:00 -
[409] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Not to interrupt Jade's fifteenth page of "**** the mercs only care about me", have the new FW LP store items been listed?
There's new shirts in the FW Lp stores, that aren't available elsewhere.
might be other items, but those are the only ones I know are new. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2050
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 18:49:00 -
[410] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:As I said thats the consequence of you making wardecs. If you want the hordes of corps to have to pay to wardec you then don't dec people. Thats a strategic decision your leadership can make.
Obviously, CCP disagrees.
Not entirely - just adds an administrative overhead. In 1.1 we'll need a "foreign legion" alliance in as our zero cost ally and allow any corp in that wants to dec you for free to join up without rules or restriction.
Will still be effectively unlimited and free but simply rules alliances out of the equation which is a shame.
Shrug really.
The unfortunate thing is the wardec system could be so much more if only some thought had gone into this change.
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! |
|
Markius TheShed
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
66
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 19:11:00 -
[411] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Not to interrupt Jade's fifteenth page of "**** the mercs only care about me", have the new FW LP store items been listed?
There are 2 new shirts male and female and they cost 2/3 the price of a typhoon fleet issue.
So must be made of unobtanium **Murientor Tribe** Killing Slavers, Ammatar and Nafantar Traitors since YC107 |
Artik Fawkes
Aerospace Dynamics
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 19:34:00 -
[412] - Quote
War mechanics aside, there's an art issue I saw that's pretty pressing. This issue existed with the Fleet Tempest for years, but now it's present with all Tempest variants. I have images here to illustrate. The piece below the bridge is a normals issue: one side is textured, but the other isn't. The gunnery bridge, as it appears to be, is supposed to have a cylindrical piece connecting it to the actual gunnery platform. I love this hull, and would like to see this issue taken care of. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2456
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 19:50:00 -
[413] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: As I said thats the consequence of you making wardecs. If you want the hordes of corps to have to pay to wardec you then don't dec people. Thats a strategic decision your leadership can make.
Jade, I think the bottom line is that we are trying to *encourage* war, and encourage the use of mercenary forces to fight wars.
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. But to approach the game design with this in mind assumes that major alliances like Goonswarm targeting smaller entities for griefing is a commonplace and game-breaking occurrence.
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.
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.
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. 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. I think that is a lot to toss away just to protect against a menace that isn't a well-known, well-documented threat to the universe.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 19:59:00 -
[414] - Quote
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. 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.
Wouldn't creating a real mercenary marketplace where anyone could go to hire mercenaries for wars, limited only by a negotiable price (with factors such as duration, number of entities to declare war on, and taking into account a merc corp's war history), be much more conducive to this idea?
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I think that is a lot to toss away just to protect against a menace that isn't a well-known, well-documented threat to the universe.
You sound like a politician from the Mass Effect series. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:01:00 -
[415] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Daneel Trevize wrote:You've done something to your protocols again/the Socket Closed connection problem has returned. Can't keep a Sisi client connected for long. Last time it came and went with Sisi updates, so I'm blaming your end. Is it occurring during active gameplay or are you leaving your client alone for periods of time? Trying to be active but it kicks in pretty randomly and often near instantly. If anything like last time, there's not obvious timing or pattern to the thing, I must have tried getting past the first or second login/char selection screens at least many 10s of times over that week or 2, yet sometimes an alt would stay connected for whole minutes while either being used in space, fitting in station, or just docked and left to see. Frankly I don't want to bother see if it's similar this time around, having it start happening again is enough for me to leave it to you guys to resolve for a day or so. Keep up the good work. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1316
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:05:00 -
[416] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem. 1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight. 2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew. 3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave). 4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation. I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that. Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired. This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another. Can you see anything wrong with this solution? 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. 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. Quite honestly, I want to manhug you for this post.
- "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 |
Mira Lynne
State War Academy Caldari State
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:05:00 -
[417] - Quote
Looking forward to missile Flare, New Drake, and minmatar V3. I have two questions though: -V3ed ships are getting brighter - how much brighter? And why? IMO Current Amarr, Caldari and Gallente ships look great (Havent seen Minmatar V3 so i cant comment) and making them any brighter would reduce the overal effect. -What is the reasoning behind the changes to the Rifter, Stabber and Variations' Sizes? Support the Return of Realistic Module Icons! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114818&find=unread |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2440
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:08:00 -
[418] - Quote
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 @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
263
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:10:00 -
[419] - Quote
why does the new drake have 8 hardpoints on the sides? makes no sense :( |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1248
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 20:11:00 -
[420] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I think that is a lot to toss away just to protect against a menace that isn't a well-known, well-documented threat to the universe. You sound like a politician from the Mass Effect series. Ah yes, 'Reapers'. The immortal fleet of newbie starships allegedly waiting in dark space. We have dismissed that claim. 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! |
|
|
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. |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:46:00 -
[451] - Quote
By the way, in the one or two instances where GSF actually acted on their wardecs (i.e. messing with Krixtal, etc) they numbered less than 20.
Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:50:00 -
[452] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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.
No real surprise I am not convincing you of that because nowhere in any of my posts am I claiming that. You are still responding to your internal dialogue rather than addressing what is actually being said.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: 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.
I'm obviously not going to try to convince you that "wardec-griefing" is out of control because I want more war not less of it.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:51:00 -
[453] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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. There's no rule stopping me from forming an alliance, wardeccing anyone I want to, and then offering corps to join the alliance to fight the war for free.
I could be 1 person declaring war on day one and 50,000 active in week two, and it's all allowable under the rules and there's a single flat cost capped at 500mil per week.
But hey, that's like, effort man. Why not design the game so that in the specific example of my specific grudge it is easier for me? - "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 |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:57:00 -
[454] - Quote
To much stupidity here
Because A helps B does not mean that A was designed with that in mind. It may in fact be a small downside to a score of positives.
All this conspiracy nonsense is getting out of hand. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:58:00 -
[455] - 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.
Let me give you a couple of reasons.
1. SF is not a mass recruiting alliance. We generally only recruit mature individuals with a good sense of humour and laid back attitude to life, culture and alternative sexuality - we don't really hit the mass demographic of most internet spaceship guilds.
2. SF is NRDS - we don't shoot neutrals, we take our diplomacy seriously and we don't recruit people who just want to shoot random noobs in lowsec, nullsec, wherever.
3. SF is currently in Minmatar Faction warfare, that means we're at war with the entirety of the 24th Crusade and State Protectorate and we can't even go to Jita without getting chased by the space-po-lice.
Hence adding random people and corps to the alliance is not really an option.
Azual Skoll wrote: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.
Well the opposite is going on really. The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.
Azual Skoll wrote: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.
Really doesn't matter what their 9000 membership does in space - its already had an impact in setting the price of any third party wardec against them at 500m per week.
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! |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:59:00 -
[456] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: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.
The request is for the mechanic to not be changed. If the resolution of the edge case does not impede the design of the system for many people what is the harm?
Khanh'rhh wrote:Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir.
So you think that Noir. could defeat the Goons, or at least bring them to terms?
Khanh'rhh wrote:There's no rule stopping me from forming an alliance, wardeccing anyone I want to, and then offering corps to join the alliance to fight the war for free.
There are alliance mechanics which allow the executor corporation to be changed. A free invite policy can result in you losing the alliance rather quickly.
Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:00:00 -
[457] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote: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.
****?!
We're in Orwell-land I'm afraid Marlona - the doublethink is getting thick in here.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:02:00 -
[458] - Quote
Kadl wrote: Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars.
Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered by this CSM (or apparently) team BFF.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:05:00 -
[459] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote: @ 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.
Best bet is probably Marlona's alliance that we'll work out a deal with so she gets the zero cost ally slot. In addition I'll probably offer in trade hub raiding allies for cost (ie 10,20,40,80,160,320,640m isk per two week slot)
Its a bit of a pain but those sums paid to Star Fraction will get anti Goon fighter a better deal than paid directly to concord (obviously we then have to pay concord for the ally).
Quote:@ 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.
Of course if any of us are too successful it'll be nerfed again :)
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! |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:09:00 -
[460] - 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.
With all due respect Soundwave, this is a load of absolute bull, and you all all should know better.
If a nullsec alliance today finds itself attacked by a numerical superior enemy, the game DOES NOT penalize it if it finds allies.
Increased risk forces higher level of coorporation and larger numbers to survive, which is why you find the biggest and best organized player entities in EVE in nullsec. Highsec is by comparison badly organized, badly led and fragmented. This is NOT likely to change any time soon. So even if a higsec entity where to achive parity, it would still be (presumably) inferior in organisation and leadership.
Then there is the argument that "just a small portion" of a nullsec entity will fight i highsec war. So basically, the argument is that a nullsec entity is entitled to a cake and get to eat it too? "we must keep the higsec entity numbers low, so the nullsec wardeccing party can fight them without really commiting". Is that it?
|
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:13:00 -
[461] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??!
Some fencing at fanfest would be awesome! |
Finde learth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:14:00 -
[462] - 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.
So why we need ship balance ? Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE.
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:15:00 -
[463] - Quote
Question. Based on:Jade Constantine wrote:Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered and
Quote:The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances and earlier
Quote:Goonswarm have whined CCP into nerfing the Inferno Wardec System because they hated the idea of ever losing even a fraction of their numerical advantage [..] we'll call it a form of moral victory that Mittani was forced to beg his mates at CCP to nerf the Inferno Wardec System
I really want to know why you think, after rampant lies, tinfoil hattery and tabloid style posturing that anyone would ever see anything you said on the matter as un-biased?
The system is NOT being changed for you. This has been said now a dozen times or more and you are still posting as though CCP have stepped in to put a stop to the specific examples here.
They haven't. Get over yourself.
I posed you a challenge a page back, go have a crack at it. - "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 |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:16:00 -
[464] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:@ 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. We will see. Keep in mind this alliance will not be exclusive to just FHC, but to everyone. Also it will be targeting whatever the largest alliance in the game hiding behind the Inferno war dec mechanic.
CCP introduced a new war dec mechanic that just so happens to protect large bloated alliances. Someone (just happens to be Jade - get over it) finds a way to fight back. Days later CCP announce a change that just so happens to add another layer of protection for the large bloated alliances. If CCP make another change to add a third layer of protection for them...
Well it will be crystal clear what the agenda is.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:16:00 -
[465] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:By the way, in the one or two instances where GSF actually acted on their wardecs (i.e. messing with Krixtal, etc) they numbered less than 20. Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir.
And who the hell is going to pay a proper merc's going rate for a wardec (1-2billion a week) to defend a nonsense dec from a 9000 man alliance that has to pay 50m a week for the pleasure.
Thats so out of kilter its beyond lunacy.
Even if no shots are ever fired and nothing explodes that means the defender is losing 1950m a week for nothing.
Are you actually a goon scammer?
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:22:00 -
[466] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:And who the hell is going to pay a proper merc's going rate for a wardec (1-2billion a week) to defend a nonsense dec from a 9000 man alliance that has to pay 50m a week for the pleasure of putting 1% into clown ships in Jita?
Anybody on the CSM who thinks that is going to revitalize the "Merc Profession" is smoking serious blunts and should probably have a nice cup of tea to calm down
You are 100% right.
This, by the way, is why the changes aren't about large nullsec alliances trolling empire dwellers but all about actual situations that would be aided by actual mercs doing actual work, and not having that eroded by Jita being 50% wartargets that were hired for no ISK.
But you just can't see past "and what about Goonswarm?" in anything so nothing makes sense to you. - "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 |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1993
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:25:00 -
[467] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Azual Skoll wrote: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. Well the opposite is going on really. The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.
For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:30:00 -
[468] - Quote
Two step wrote: For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
I'd like to hear the CSM position on mechanics that hurts only after parity is achieved. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:31:00 -
[469] - Quote
Two step wrote: For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
For what seems the hundreth time will you please actually read the thread including the detailed proposal I made that addressed this specific issue.
There is no point you accusing me of having the universe revolve around me when you are refusing to discuss a proposal I've made to precisely resolve the problem you are raising.
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! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2462
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:32:00 -
[470] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.
See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are, you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.
On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:35:00 -
[471] - Quote
Two Step - Then push for some changes that revitalize the merc market without tossing a safety blanket over the large alliances. Can you do that??
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:40:00 -
[472] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are ...
Actually both groups have claimed their motivations are to protect and nurture merc corps. As I reference in the post you quote this will not work and you are doing absolutely nothing to actually boost the merc profession while doing an awful lot to protect large alliances from the Inferno allies system.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.
In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue?
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.
And one more time. I am saying that if you think these changes will boost the merc profession you are very wrong. The only thing these changes will do is protect large alliances from the consequences of the Inferno allies system. If you've reached this position through genuine ignorance of the war-dec system then fair enough. But its not beyond the grounds of all rational argumentation to assume that a change solely in the benefit of large alliances might somehow somewhere have been the intended outcome on the agenda.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:41:00 -
[473] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Two Step - Then push for some changes that revitalize the merc market without tossing a safety blanket over the large alliances. Can you do that?? It doesn't toss a safety blanket over large alliances, since they are a) not asking for this change and b) it doesn't benefit them
The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.
The only people whining about this change are the people who were exploiting the system to get an infinite number of free wardecs against people they were at war with.
The more they post, the more they discredit their own position. It's really quite beautiful. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:42:00 -
[474] - Quote
Finde learth wrote:And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?
Because unlimited free allies might actually let the little guy win for a change :)
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:43:00 -
[475] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread. In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will. Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it? - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:44:00 -
[476] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.
And what pray tell happens to those small corps when the targets ask for allies and each one accepts the request from a 1000 man alliance looking for ganks in empire? This change does absolutely nothing to improve the situation of small merc corps or small wardec declarers. It only defends and protects very large alliances.
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! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2445
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:45:00 -
[477] - Quote
I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1
it's a bit tiring
here, have this @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:46:00 -
[478] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:And one more time. I am saying that if you think these changes will boost the merc profession you are very wrong Actually, these changes are to stop it from harming the merc outfits, not necessarily boost them. We can discuss how and what would do that in another place but these changes actually suit their aim pretty well. - "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 |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:46:00 -
[479] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kadl wrote: Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars.
Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered by this CSM (or apparently) team BFF.
Although I appreciate the support, I must disagree with a conspiracy mindset (shocking for an EVE player!) There may be a subtle bias towards seeing war decs on the part of the CSM, but I believe in time they could be convinced. I also think that CCP might be convinced in time. They are focused on possibility of improving merc environment. The argument is quite simple: Fewer allies -> Pick best -> Yay mercs! The problem is that they are not seeing that the mercs they are trying to help are not in the same market as these free allies. An additional problem is that they have rejected and therefore not developed any active targets for defenders. Those targets would be something to hire mercs for to handle. So we have some stumbling around, not a conspiracy. I am not optimistic that enough parties can be convinced in time to change this, but it is worth some reason and effort.
Two step wrote:If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
Then the proposed modification of the change will not harm their goals in the least. The first ally would be free for the 5 man corp. Assuming that first ally is at least 15 people the special exception to ally costs is now removed. Any allies above that first group of 15 can cost whatever CCP deems is balanced.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are, you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.
On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue?
Please listen to this Hans in this Jade. No conspiracy just people who we may be able to convince.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:47:00 -
[480] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread. In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will. Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it?
Am I really supposed to be surprised that nobody claimed this change "screws over the fatcats" in Han's internal ccp discussions?
You need to go have a cup of tea Khanh'rhh, you really aren't making any sense.
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! |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:48:00 -
[481] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.
And what pray tell happens to those small corps when the targets ask for allies and each one accepts the request from a 1000 man alliance looking for ganks in empire? This change does absolutely nothing to improve the situation of small merc corps or small wardec declarers. It only defends and protects very large alliances. Oh man, you're right.
Also, what happens if 200,000 players all form an alliance and wardec me, and it only costs them 50million ISK?
Luckily neither of us are talking about likely scenarios but extreme edge cases, and I can only say so many times that designing a system around edge cases is a fundamentally bad thing. - "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 |
Finde learth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:48:00 -
[482] - Quote
Two step wrote: For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
but ccp don't want to balance a fight because it never really been the goal in EVE.
so ccp keep allowing unlimited numbers of allies. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:49:00 -
[483] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread. In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will. Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it? Am I really supposed to be surprised that nobody claimed this change "screws over the fatcats" in Han's internal ccp discussions? You need to go have a cup of tea Khanh'rhh, you really aren't making any sense. Do you want to play a semantics game or make a point?
I love how you willfully insinuate with absolutely nothing to show for it, whilst brushing aside any logical refute as meaningless because you apparently already know better. - "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 |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:49:00 -
[484] - 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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:52:00 -
[485] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker. This resolves the problem you highlight right?
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! |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:52:00 -
[486] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies.
The proposal that free allies be allowed to even out the two sides does nothing to hinder this goal. |
Finde learth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:55:00 -
[487] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
Yeah, but ccp could have better way to solve this. Jade Constantine post some good ideas about this. |
Lord Zim
791
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:59:00 -
[488] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker. This resolves the problem you highlight right? Tell us more about how a hisec entity must have 9000 on their side because a 9000 nullsec entity wardecced them and only a 10-20 man gang bothered to run around in the unwashed masses of hisec to watch the other entity dock up and smacktalk in local until their remaining 8990 pals comes responding to the massive CTA. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1318
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:01:00 -
[489] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Fuujin wrote: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. And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker. This resolves the problem you highlight right? Corp A is a 50man corp attacking Corp B, who is a 49 man corp.
Corp B decides they want help, and Corp C, a one-man wardec group, steps in to help.
Day two of the war and corp B is now a 300 man corp, as it was a shell the whole time. They declared war this way, because that's what they need to do to game the numbers under your system.
By the way - corp A drops 25 members from the corp into NPC corps. What then happens to the allied corps in the war?
Gaming the system and expecting it to work based on static numbers is silly, which is why the wardec fees are capped and run on an inverse logarithmic scale.
Your system is wide open to daily abuse by small entities attacking small entities, which is really what the whole point of wardecs is. - "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 |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:11:00 -
[490] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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.
I dont se many - if any at all - in this thread that think unlimited allies isnt gamebreaking. Even Jade. So thats not the issue here. Unlimited allies is dumb and need to go.
However, due to Concord, you dont have the freedom nullsec enjoys when it comes to setting up blues and allies that will help fight your enemies. In highsec, you have to be in on the wardec to participate. Which is why the wardec mechanic benefits from an ally system in the first place. But it cannot get out of hand, because unlimited allies essentially kills the mechanic. Hence why a few of us proposes a "parity" mechanic, after which it will hurt financially to escalate, alternatively open up for allies to the agressor as well.
Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots.
To summarize, 1) a parity mechanic should hurt you as a defender if you try to achieve numerical superiority, 2) it maintains the (good) change that opened up the highsec wardec mechanic to the sorts of higher level organization that permeates nullsec (diplos, allies, blues etc), and 3) since you will be fighting with roughly equal numbers, quality comes in to play, which lends itself to a descision wether you should hire high quality mercs instead of just relying on your carebear friend corp.
Problem solved. |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:12:00 -
[491] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Corp A is a 50man corp attacking Corp B, who is a 49 man corp.
Corp B decides they want help, and Corp C, a one-man wardec group, steps in to help.
Day two of the war and corp B is now a 300 man corp, as it was a shell the whole time. They declared war this way, because that's what they need to do to game the numbers under your system.
By the way - corp A drops 25 members from the corp into NPC corps. What then happens to the allied corps in the war?
Gaming the system and expecting it to work based on static numbers is silly, which is why the wardec fees are capped and run on an inverse logarithmic scale.
Your system is wide open to daily abuse by small entities attacking small entities, which is really what the whole point of wardecs is.
I am glad we are now talking about scenarios. Why not keep the ally calculation simple and do it at the time of acceptance.
Your scenario as written: Corp A thinks they can take on Corp B and war decs them. Corp B allies with Corp C. At this exact point the additional people does not exceed the size of Corp A meaning the war ally is free of concord fees. Corp B increases to 300 people! It seems that Corp A made a mistake. They can ride out the week of the war dec or they can surrender. All good.
Modified to be more interesting. Everything is the same up to Corp B increasing to 300 people. Instead lets make Corp A increase in size. Well then now Corp B can call on more free allies and actually fight, or they can flee. Of course Corp C as an ally must ride out the 2 weeks. Perhaps Corp C can be happy to have more targets since they actually wanted to be in the war.
Some gaming can happen, but this scenario is not that disruptive. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1120
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:13:00 -
[492] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1 it's a bit tiring here, have this
So hats are coming out for us in the 1.1 patch?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2452
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:17:00 -
[493] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1 it's a bit tiring here, have this So hats are coming out for us in the 1.1 patch?
yes, but only for 9000 people alliances @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2463
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:17:00 -
[494] - Quote
Kadl wrote:Edit: It looks like you replied to him. I guess persuasion through friendship is too much to ask.
Unlike many, I don't really see Jade as an "enemy" here. We fly together from time to time in the militia, he's a gentleman in fleets and a pleasure to fly with. I just happen to disagree with him in this case, and frankly am in a better position to know the motivation behind these changes, since I've been around for the discussions.
And no, I haven't missed your point either, Jade, we just happen to disagree on whether this will do anything for mercenaries. I'm of the belief that the kind of pile-on opportunistic "allies" you loaded up on for this "test-the-system" effort don't really even the odds to begin with, because I haven't seen any evidence that this kind of free help actually participates on a scale to make the difference you claim it will.
On the other hand, forcing choice when picking allies very much encourages defenders to pick groups that will actually fight. And not just fight, but fight better than the next guy. And be able to charge for it. Or not. It's a sandbox. But without restrictions on the number of allies one can load up on, through *some means or another* (I'm not sold on the fees model either), the system will be used far more by those seeking the free wardec than by those looking to deliver a real, perfunctory service to the defending party. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1743
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:18:00 -
[495] - Quote
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.
I did give you a reply several pages back but you are ignoring it because I didn't just come out and say you were right about everything. Elise didn't troll, he made you look foolish and tried to give you some pointers on how to look less so. Two Step is well aware of what you are proposing but he's not under any obligation to sing your praises. Hans is arguably the most open minded guy on the CSM and you are dismissing him as well because he doesn't want to agree with you. Dovi trolled you tho.
Your points were made a while back and there are discussions being had on them and the whole subject. Nothing is locked in. Why isn't that enough for you at the moment? All you are doing by repeating yourself like this is alienating people. v0v CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1318
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:23:00 -
[496] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:But really there is nothing there that breaks the system - just people playing games in the sandbox.
Under the 1.1 system you could sign up a shell alliance as a free ally, then have 1-10,000 people join this alliance to "entertain a couple of thousand people" and it's all just "games in the sandbox". The 1.1 system does nothing to protect large alliances at all, because exactly this is allowed and costs the same before and after. All you need do is change the way in which you go about it.
Of course, we both know the reality is that the same people who would join the war in the ally system would NOT be up for this as it is a commitment to actually fight in a war beyond it just being more reds undocking from Jita 4-4 in a day .... which is EXACTLY why this change is going through, to make large initiatives like this actually need to have some meaning beyond a free-for-all turkey shoot.
Frankly the only logical way you can be against it is if you already know no-one would help when it actually came down to an "us vs them" war, isn't it? - "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 |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
369
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:23:00 -
[497] - 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. |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
860
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:25:00 -
[498] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Elise Randolph wrote: snipped general ranting So now you've got all that off your chest would you like to address the specifics of my proposal? Quote: Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.
1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.
2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.
3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).
4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.
I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.
Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.
This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
My main concern has never been with your opinion on a game mechanic, but that you chose to air your grievances by saying CCP is /obviously/ making this change because they love Goons. You don't get an automatic pass for that by pretending it didn't happen.
On to your proposal - why does war have to be even? Fleet fights certainly are never even. Skillpoints between entities aren't even, ISK coffers aren't even, intangible experience isn't even. It seems arbitrary to say "hey nothing in Eve is fair, except war". This isn't a fair honoure dueling mechanic, it's a war mechanic.
This is essentially where we have a difference of opinion on what the problem is. You think the issue is large alliance war-decing smaller ones is damaging. I don't, mostly because it has never happened and frankly it makes no logical sense that it ever would happen.
What I perceive as the bigger problem is when two small-to-medium sized entities go to war with one another - a scenario that I believe the war dec system should be built around, instead of the edge case of a nullsec powerbloc trying to kill an empire corp (which I have learned has happened exactly once in six years). Right now the aggressor gets pretty much zonked by the same types of corps who all tag along for a free wardec. No need to hire a merc when the "free wardecs" make fights between two smaller entities moot. I'd ideally like to see allies be penalized for allying with too many people.
~ |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1121
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:26:00 -
[499] - Quote
Seleene - feel free to answer the same question I gave Two Step.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:32:00 -
[500] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: On to your proposal - why does war have to be even? Fleet fights certainly are never even. Skillpoints between entities aren't even, ISK coffers aren't even, intangible experience isn't even. It seems arbitrary to say "hey nothing in Eve is fair, except war". This isn't a fair honoure dueling mechanic, it's a war mechanic.
All these things are factors that will affect both nullsec conflict and highsec wars, regardless of number of allies. Nobody proposes to do anything about it either. But where nullsec entities are free to ally with whomever they choose, the wardec mechanic in highsec limits the options. This is why this is important. Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted. |
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
109
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:33:00 -
[501] - Quote
There's so much douchebaggery going on in this thread it's painful.
Replace the "allies" system (we already have alliances for that. HINT: a member of your alliance is your ally.) with a legitimate mercenary marketplace, where anyone can go to hire mercenaries (not allies, again, we have alliances already but thanks for the thought) for negotiable prices and durations.
Everything else in this patch looks great. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1319
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:34:00 -
[502] - Quote
You know, the more I think about it, the system needs to just be flipped on it's head.
If "my furst merc corp" had to actually commit to an anti-GSF (or anyone) war then they would need to be convinced to do it, which would likely be in the sum of some ISK changing hands.
No exponential war fees, no CONCORD fees for blah blah blah - let as many allies join a war on either side as want to join it - with the condition that they can't also join another war as an ally.
Because they won't do this for free, and locking mercs/allies into the wars in this way ensures that for the duration of the wardec they very much see it as being "on contract" and working for a specific target list, and not just adding numbers to a list of people who you won't get CONCORDed for shooting, which is what is currently happening and would continue to happen under Jade's system.
Increase demand (in the mercs) by limiting their supply.
Someone can go and put that to someone who cares as a proposal. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2060
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:37:00 -
[503] - Quote
Seleene wrote: I 'frothed' because you were going on with your tinfoil nonsense about CCP and their Goon overlords.
What I actually said was this was a change that purely benefits large alliances and since the illustration of the "dog-pile" mechanic has occured in reaction to wardecs from certain large alliances the nerfing of the allied system to prevent this play option was a bit suspicious/smelly. I believe I clarified when you called me on it before that I think this bad change has probably come from the CSM rather than CCP.
Seleene wrote:I did give you a reply several pages back but you are ignoring it because I didn't just come out and say you were right about everything.
If you think I'm wrong I'd like you say why you think I'm wrong. Why is including the relative sizes of the attacker and defending coalition a bad thing when determining if defensive allies should be charged or not? Its a fairly simple question and I'd be interested to hear your thinking on it.
Seleene wrote:Elise didn't troll
On that we will disagree. But then I've never got on with Elise and I don't think we've ever exchanged a less than hostile word on internet forums for the last lord knows how many years. No change there.
Seleene wrote:Two Step is well aware of what you are proposing but he's not under any obligation to sing your praises. Hans is arguably the most open minded guy on the CSM and you are dismissing him as well because he doesn't want to agree with you.
I'm not asking anyone to sing my praises I would like to know why precisely you guys don't think that its a good game mechanic that a smaller defender can add allies without concord charge to fight a larger attacker. If you want to come out like Soundwave and say that "eve ain't fair" attacker should have advantages - whatever really. But I would like to know you've at least addressed the question and quite honestly I don't feel you currently have.
Seleene wrote:Your points were made a while back and there are discussions being had on them and the whole subject. Nothing is locked in. Why isn't that enough for you at the moment? All you are doing by repeating yourself like this is alienating people. v0v
Well see, this is the first time there has been the slightest mention that nothing is "locked in" really. And to be honest, if you guys are so sensitive that me arguing the case against large alliances being protected by an unwise change to the wardec system is going to make you decide to support a rubbish game mechanic just to spite me well ... pfft ... welcome to politics.
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! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1122
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:45:00 -
[504] - Quote
Just stop it guys. EVE is not meant to be balanced. It is meant to be cold and harsh...
Well unless people start fighting large alliances and causing damage, then that needs to be fixed, then it's back to the cold dark universe...
Well unless people fly one specific super capital in large numbers, then obviously that needs to be fixed, then back to the unfair galaxy that is eve...
Well, unless...
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2060
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:50:00 -
[505] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: On to your proposal - why does war have to be even? Fleet fights certainly are never even. Skillpoints between entities aren't even, ISK coffers aren't even, intangible experience isn't even. It seems arbitrary to say "hey nothing in Eve is fair, except war". This isn't a fair honoure dueling mechanic, it's a war mechanic.
It doesn't have to "even" it has to be competitive because (as I said in my response to soundwave earlier) if there isn't even the possibility of a competitive engagement then one side is not going to play. This has been the bane of the wardec system for the last nine years really. One side has all the intiative advantages they decide when to dec when to move a fleet when to let the war drop etc, - the defenders can fight or they can just ignore it and go somewhere else. In order to get people taking wars seriously and trying you general need the war to be competitive. This is why RedVBlue is successful, this is why FW is successful, there are systems in place to make the war a contest both can win.
Now the problem with this change in the wardec system is that it is handing ALL the advantages to the large alliance attacker. They pay a pittance to make the dec. They can decide how long the dec lasts, when they want to fight and where. And in order to escalate the war beyond a certain fraction the defender will literally bankrupt themselves. It costs 20 trillion isk or something to bring 20 allies into the war - lol tbh. People will look at this kind of war as they have traditionally looked at them and ignore it. Its not worth fighting because there is no pretense of competitive balance. Its clearly all in the attackers favour so why bother fighting on those terms?
Elise Randolph wrote:This is essentially where we have a difference of opinion on what the problem is. You think the issue is large alliance war-decing smaller ones is damaging. I don't, mostly because it has never happened and frankly it makes no logical sense that it ever would happen.
See thats not it either. I don't think this mechanic change is "damaging" particularly. I think its boring. I think it takes something that was potentially wonderful in Inferno (the crazy growing war with a life of its own) and returns it to pre-inferno yawn-a-phon of the standard trade hub ganking dec. When the defender cannot enlarge the war to make it a significant threat to the attacker then there's no real point fighting it in earnest - why not just add a single free ally trade hub ganker and ignore it?
I see this is a missed opportunity, a stifling of emergent gameplay and a game change that stamps on the creativity of little guys trying to fight back against a superpower.
Elise Randolph wrote:What I perceive as the bigger problem is when two small-to-medium sized entities go to war with one another - a scenario that I believe the war dec system should be built around, instead of the edge case of a nullsec powerbloc trying to kill an empire corp (which I have learned has happened exactly once in six years). Right now the aggressor gets pretty much zonked by the same types of corps who all tag along for a free wardec. No need to hire a merc when the "free wardecs" make fights between two smaller entities moot. I'd ideally like to see allies be penalized for allying with too many people.
Which is precisely why I proposed that the concord fee should trigger when the defending coalition becomes larger than the attacker. I think both of our "problems" are solved with the same resolution.
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! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2466
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:51:00 -
[506] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: And to be honest, if you guys are so sensitive that me arguing the case against large alliances being protected by an unwise change to the wardec system is going to make you decide to support a rubbish game mechanic just to spite me well ... pfft ... welcome to politics.
....pffft indeed, Jade. So now we're doing this JUST TO SPITE YOU?? Puhhhh-leeeeeease. That statement is so ego-driven it could be mistaken for something that the M - bah, I don't even need to say it.
And again, you're intentionally presenting subjective opinions as objective statements - implying not only that this is all about "protecting alliances" but also that this change is known to be "unwise", which is exactly what everyone has been trying to suss out and debate the last 22 pages.
I agree with those earlier that brought up the problem of the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread - its very hard to have a grounded discussion when you have clearly already made up your mind about why we support this (which the CSM hasn't ever explicitly said, in fact quite the opposite in several cases) and continue to frame arguments with these presuppositions in mind. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2460
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:52:00 -
[507] - Quote
I have a feeling Jade has some issues with the new ally mechanics... @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
864
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:52:00 -
[508] - Quote
Quote: And to be honest, if you guys are so sensitive that me arguing the case against large alliances being protected by an unwise change to the wardec system is going to make you decide to support a rubbish game mechanic just to spite me well ... pfft ... welcome to politics.
It couldn't be that your idea was ****, it /must/ be that there's a conspiracy to disagree with you out of spite.
You nailed it. Touche. ~ |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1320
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:53:00 -
[509] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:What I actually said was this was a change that purely benefits large alliances and since the illustration of the "dog-pile" mechanic has occured in reaction to wardecs from certain large alliances the nerfing of the allied system to prevent this play option was a bit suspicious/smelly Nope.
What you actually said was
Quote:Goonswarm have whined CCP into nerfing the Inferno Wardec System because they hated the idea of ever losing even a fraction of their numerical advantage and
Quote:I guess we'll call it a form of moral victory that Mittani was forced to beg his mates at CCP to nerf the Inferno Wardec System and
Quote:CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response and
Quote:Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance [.....] Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani [.....] You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies [....] The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really. [......] this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into [.....] These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliance in Eve
The thread is locked, you're told to shutup, then you start referring to a "9000 man entity" -- as though there were more than just one example.
Stop going back on your words. You can't throw a massive tantrum and claim Goon/CCP interaction and then turn around and say you've been nothing but reasonable and talking with respect to the facts on the table. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2060
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 23:59:00 -
[510] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I agree with those earlier that brought up the problem of the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread - its very hard to have a grounded discussion when you have clearly already made up your mind about why we support this (which the CSM hasn't ever explicitly said, in fact quite the opposite in several cases) and continue to frame arguments with these presuppositions in mind.
So lets forget all the nonsense and have the discussion. Its only dragged back to unproductive ground if people want it to be.
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! |
|
Brunaburh
Aurora Security
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:01:00 -
[511] - Quote
This thread truly delivers.
It's interesting that the one CSM member who is against the change is the one who is negatively impacted by it. Guess that means the CSM DOES lobby for their own personal game, not for the good of the game as a whole.
It's also interesting that Jade can't accept any change to the current system that limits allies. Guess you should quit, and give someone (not me) all your stuff, eh?
Seriously.
A year ago we were raging that CCP never iterated on content, and now you people are raging because they are iterating, just not the way you want.
Now you know how the Titan pilots felt, and the Supercarrier pilots, and the null sec logistics folks - the three groups I can think of off the top of my head that have had changes they didn't like go through iteration (oh, and I shouldn't forget Incursion runners).
I for one see beyond the point of view of Honda Accord and Jade Constantine - unlimited allies is stupid. It ruins the concept and delivery of true mercenary corps who can actually deliver more than additional hisec targets for null sec alliances.
Oh, and don't forget to like Punkturis' posts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2060
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:01:00 -
[512] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I have a feeling Jade has some issues with the new ally mechanics...
/me blows a kiss to Punkturis
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
110
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:04:00 -
[513] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I have a feeling Jade has some issues with the new ally mechanics...
I think there are several of us that do. Jade just happens to be very belligerent in his vocalizations. Can we haz legitimate mercenaries, please? I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Brunaburh
Aurora Security
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:05:00 -
[514] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted.
Since when do Hisec entities not have the ability to use chat, Skype, voice communications and negotiating skills? |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:06:00 -
[515] - Quote
Brunaburh wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted. Since when do Hisec entities not have the ability to use chat, Skype, voice communications and negotiating skills?
Since when could any highsec entity just jump into a war and fire on enemies without beeing part of the wardec? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3303
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:12:00 -
[516] - Quote
Brunaburh wrote:It's interesting that the one CSM member who is against the change is the one who is negatively impacted by it. Guess that means the CSM DOES lobby for their own personal game, not for the good of the game as a whole. To be fair, it has been clear for some time Issler is a fairly dishonest csm rep with an extremely bad reputation, but the good csm members shouldn't be tarred by her dishonesty. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2060
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:14:00 -
[517] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: It couldn't be that your idea was ****, it /must/ be that there's a conspiracy to disagree with you out of spite. You nailed it. Touche.
Come on Elise I gave you a proper response on the previous page - don't quote a reply to somebody else just to derail the discussion. Would be good if we got past that.
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! |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1248
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:15:00 -
[518] - Quote
While I agree that Eve is not meant to be "fair", a "fun" game needs to be balanced. Giant alliances beating up on small ones is not fun, so with that limited argument there, Jade is right. That is what Jade has been repeating over and over, and it is a problem.
The problem that CSM and CCP are trying to fix is another one: in comparably sized wars, the defender has an enormous advantage by being able to hire infinite allies for free. That then again turns into one side being hopelessly outnumbered and getting beat up on, and is again unfun.
CSM/CCP have chosen to fix the latter at the expense of the former. Their reasons are their own, but some hard analysis and numbers would perhaps be nice for explaining why. Stuff like:
- In how many wars does the aggressor end up hopelessly outnumbered once the defender hires allies?
- How much of the Eve population suffers from the above?
- In how many wars is the defender hopelessly outnumbered by the offender unless a ton of allies are hired?
- How much of the Eve population suffers from the above?
I assume (or hope) that CSM/CCP have used this kind of objective analysis in order to implement the proposed solution, and are thus picking the lesser of two evils. I invite any CSM or CCP to post the reasoning behind the trade-off being made (reasoning for why the trade-off is acceptable, not why one problem or the other is bad; in other words, why one of them is more important).
Now, Jade, you have proposed an amendment to the proposed change to even things out: charging money only for the defenders that outnumber the aggressors. I personally think it is a bad idea for a few reasons:
The first, and largest, concern is that it opens up a large can of worms with metagaming corps/members joining/quitting, and encourages non-combat defenders to quit their corp. I leave it an exercise of your imagination what kind of numbers-dickery can be played.
Second, numbers do not necessarily determine strength. If someone wardecs you, hiring a single 100-man corp who know what they're doing might do you much more good than hiring 20 50-man corps who just want to camp undocks for shuttles. This mechanic means that, given a limited amount of available ISK for hiring allies for defense, the defender will need to pick between a) arming themselves, b) hiring one or two focused merc corps (that charge fees), or c) hiring a ton of raw numbers who just want a free war. The proposed mechanic establishes an actual tangible bottom line cost that mercs can use to price themselves against. In other words, "why would I hire xXMercXx when I can just hire 1000 noobs and arm myself for the same price" is no longer an option.
Lastly, due to the prevalence of alts, basing anything on member count is dumb. This includes the wardec formula itself, but that's another topic that I won't rage about here.
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! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3306
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:17:00 -
[519] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:The problem that CSM and CCP are trying to fix is another one: in comparably sized wars, the defender has an enormous advantage by being able to hire infinite allies for free. That then again turns into one side being hopelessly outnumbered and getting beat up on, and is again unfun.
No it's not. That's not the problem they're trying to fix at all. If you don't even understand the problem then no wonder you don't understand the solution. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1248
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:20:00 -
[520] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:The problem that CSM and CCP are trying to fix is another one: in comparably sized wars, the defender has an enormous advantage by being able to hire infinite allies for free. That then again turns into one side being hopelessly outnumbered and getting beat up on, and is again unfun.
No it's not. That's not the problem they're trying to fix at all. If you don't even understand the problem then no wonder you don't understand the solution. Oh, my bad, the problem is that Goons wardecced -SF- and are now swarmed by flashy reds. /s
Explain the problem as you understand it, then. I have been known to be wrong. 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! |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3306
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:22:00 -
[521] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote: Oh, my bad, the problem is that Goons wardecced -SF- and are now swarmed by flashy reds. /s
Explain the problem as you understand it, then. I have been known to be wrong.
The problem is that the current system makes merc corps for hire not viable. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1248
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:24:00 -
[522] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote: Oh, my bad, the problem is that Goons wardecced -SF- and are now swarmed by flashy reds. /s
Explain the problem as you understand it, then. I have been known to be wrong.
The problem is that the current system makes merc corps for hire not viable.
Petrus Blackshell wrote: Second, numbers do not necessarily determine strength. If someone wardecs you, hiring a single 100-man corp who know what they're doing might do you much more good than hiring 20 50-man corps who just want to camp undocks for shuttles. This mechanic means that, given a limited amount of available ISK for hiring allies for defense, the defender will need to pick between a) arming themselves, b) hiring one or two focused merc corps (that charge fees), or c) hiring a ton of raw numbers who just want a free war. The proposed mechanic establishes an actual tangible bottom line cost that mercs can use to price themselves against. In other words, "why would I hire xXMercXx when I can just hire 1000 noobs and arm myself for the same price" is no longer an option.
Bolded the important part. I get that the proposed change also makes merc corps more viable, and that Jade's proposed compromise... er... compromises that.
My apologies for not making it clearer in the first part of my post. I will edit it to rectify that. 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! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3306
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:25:00 -
[523] - Quote
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. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
554
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:26:00 -
[524] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote: Oh, my bad, the problem is that Goons wardecced -SF- and are now swarmed by flashy reds. /s
Explain the problem as you understand it, then. I have been known to be wrong.
The problem is that the current system makes merc corps for hire not viable. QFT Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
370
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:32:00 -
[525] - 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. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
314
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:33:00 -
[526] - Quote
Mechael wrote:I am very curious what you think of the new "allies" system, Alek. I realize that it's better than what we had before, but I still don't rightly understand why there isn't just a "mercenary marketplace" window where anyone can browse through mercs and hire them for negotiable prices and durations regardless of whatever is currently happening with current wars (or the lack thereof.)
This current system seems very arbitrary and wonky to me. I'd like to get your take on it. The contract system that would rectify this issue and many others is not ready. CSM when might we see it. Before the damage is game threating. Please.
Can we please spit this thread so we can get back to talking about features and bugs that are currently on Sisi |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2060
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:34:00 -
[527] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Weaselior wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote: Oh, my bad, the problem is that Goons wardecced -SF- and are now swarmed by flashy reds. /s
Explain the problem as you understand it, then. I have been known to be wrong.
The problem is that the current system makes merc corps for hire not viable. QFT And the 1.1 proposed changes will do nothing to fix this, while unnecessarily widening the advantage between big/rich/vet and small/poor/new.
I'd be interested in knowing what your proposed fix to the Inferno wardec system was actually Alekseyev. If you had your way what would be done?
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! |
Finde learth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:34:00 -
[528] - Quote
Why CCP and other CSM can't focus on this solution ?
Jade Constantine wrote: And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker.
It solve this problem
Two step wrote: If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
and don't hurt merc market.
|
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1248
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:36:00 -
[529] - 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. This is merely the point of the ally system in general.
There is nothing heroic about doing virtually no effort (paying nothing, committing nothing) to sign up with a giant unorganized blob to fight the big aggressor alliance. It's just ePeen waving and forming irrelevant blobs in hisec. Sorry, calling it like it is (and it is incidentally why my alliance isn't signing up as an ally of SF in this war). 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! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1123
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:37:00 -
[530] - Quote
XavierVE wrote: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. Because it's good game design. In fact, the way war decs were designed with Inferno was absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the sandbox. Allowing entities to rise up and defend other entities, should they wish to. Only problem was, that goofball Jade found a way to use the sandbox to grief Goons, something that is certainly not allowed, especially with devs who came into the game via Goonswarm to begin with being in charge of game mechanics. Favor the blob, everyone should be in 9000 man alliances! Stupid. I'd say you should just spawn them a few t2 BPO's while you're at it, but honestly, that's less egregious than changing the rules for the sole purpose of benefiting the largest entities in the game.
I like to troll, but the change was for the sole purpose of trying to fix the merc area. My issue is they turned a blind to it adding another layer of protection towards large alliances, in a way hurting the merc alliance. I want to know why they didn't bother to come up with a better solution. Acting like we can't have both is simply inexcusable.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
Ripard Teg
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:39:00 -
[531] - Quote
Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.
Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.
If Star Fraction war-decs Goons, the war-dec cost is based on SF's size (74) + GSF's size (9069) and so costs 500 million. If the Goons war-dec SF, same deal. But if Star Fraction war-decs Rote Kapelle, the war-dec cost is based on the sum of the size of SF (74) and Rote (234).
Yes, this would make every Goon war-dec cost 500 million ISK. I'm confident they can afford it. Jester's Trek: wherein I ramble about EVE Online, gaming, and from time to time... life. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
1248
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:40:00 -
[532] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.
Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.
If Star Fraction war-decs Goons, the war-dec cost is based on SF's size (74) + GSF's size (9069) and so costs 500 million. If the Goons war-dec SF, same deal. But if Star Fraction war-decs Rote Kapelle, the war-dec cost is based on the sum of the size of SF (74) and Rote (234).
Yes, this would make every Goon war-dec cost 500 million ISK. I'm confident they can afford it. It's been proposed to make the wardec cost be based on the absolute of the difference in numbers between the parties involved. I'm pretty sure that proposal was ignored somewhere along the line. 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! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
554
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:40:00 -
[533] - Quote
Mechael wrote:I am very curious what you think of the new "allies" system, Alek. I realize that it's better than what we had before, but I still don't rightly understand why there isn't just a "mercenary marketplace" window where anyone can browse through mercs and hire them for negotiable prices and durations regardless of whatever is currently happening with current wars (or the lack thereof.)
This current system seems very arbitrary and wonky to me. I'd like to get your take on it. The ally system has destroyed the viability of the mercenary profession as EVE has known it since launch. The fact that Inferno's "mercenary marketplace" has cause said destruction is very ironic and not a little bit insulting. Mercs would have been better off if CCP just patched the holes in the war dec system without meddling.
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, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way. Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
Vherik Askold
Republic University Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:41:00 -
[534] - Quote
Simply make it that anyone that holds Sov can't declare war (but can be targets). Would concord really want large spaceholding entities fighting their 0.0 political wars in concord space?
|
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 00:46:00 -
[535] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.
Nope. We want unlimited wars. We want to have everyone red. We want empire to be as dangerous for goons as 0.0. We've been leading empire roams thanks to all of the free wardecs. You had to go and break that for us. This is the only way to win the war against goonswarm: Give us less targets, and make us bored. You are a jerk for making CCP break this, and I will personally never forgive you, no troll.
Jade Constantine wrote: Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it. Thats the difference.
A narrative exists, except you aren't privy to the details of the narrative.
Issler Dainze wrote: We are 150 person alliance being prema-dec-ed by the two largest alliances in Eve. How could we possible fight them in any fair manner? The war dec war-dec fees will never be factor to these big alliances, they print isks with their tech moons for example.
All actions have consequences. Consider your possible options in the future, and you may not have this issue in the future. If you provoke someone, be ready to ~deal with it~
Quote: We have added two new rules to the forums for EVE Online. The new rules are as follows:
-+ Personal attacks and abuse of CCP staff.
There has been a worrying trend of increased personal attacks on developers on our own forums as of late, this will not be tolerated. Our forums are an area for players to exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who abuse staff will receive a permanent forum ban across all of their accounts which will not be subject to review at any time.
-+ Rumor threads and posts
Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. Players who engage in these type of threads can expect to receive a warning and ban.
It's a shame CCP locked it earlier, I wasn't able to respond until I woke up.
When you guys keep Citing 9000 Goons, as if we are running an active campaign against you, you are in error. There have been, at most 20, actively cooperating goons in a fleet traversing the perilous gates of empire trying to engage people that are wardec-ed or allied to a wardec. If you take your 9000 + 75+2+3+5+4+2+6+2+20 number and change to 50 + 75+2+3+5+4+2+6+2+20, it becomes more compelling.
We didn't stop paying bills on the war because you kept adding more people to the wardec. The goal here is to have everyone blinky red to goonswarm and make Empire the exact same as 0.0 as far as compelling targets go. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:03:00 -
[536] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote: We don't care about K/D, we don't care about the ~isk war~, we don't care about losses/metrics in general. We troll people who lose expensive ship, and make sure they learn from their mistakes. Nothing you are going to do will dissuade us from what we want to do. You aren't going to make our life any difficult than we want it to be. We wanted more targets, you gave us less targets. You should chalk this up as a win and walk away.
Alternatively you can support my proposal and we'll both get what we appear to want. A bigger and better forever war.
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! |
Flash Morden
Hedion University Amarr Empire
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:08:00 -
[537] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. On the current SIsi build my frame rate drops from 60FPS to under 10FPS when firing missiles from a Drake.
CCP Goliath wrote:GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter. This creates a washed out look and makes artifacts in the texture stand out more. No improvement, much worse quality-wise. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:09:00 -
[538] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Ripard Teg wrote:Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.
Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.
If Star Fraction war-decs Goons, the war-dec cost is based on SF's size (74) + GSF's size (9069) and so costs 500 million. If the Goons war-dec SF, same deal. But if Star Fraction war-decs Rote Kapelle, the war-dec cost is based on the sum of the size of SF (74) and Rote (234).
Yes, this would make every Goon war-dec cost 500 million ISK. I'm confident they can afford it. It's been proposed to make the wardec cost be based on the absolute of the difference in numbers between the parties involved. I'm pretty sure that proposal was ignored somewhere along the line.
Both these ideas where brought up by players, oh... the day after fan fest. Then they got brought up again the day the first Dev blog came out introducing the scaling price according to defender size and where repetitively brought up every few post (on the original Dev thread) right up until CCP released inferno. CCP knows of these ideas, they just have rejected (well mostly ignored) them from the get go.
Why have they rejected these types of proposals? I honestly can't say. CCP has addressed a few of these ideas occasionally, but mostly with hilariously bad or conflicting reasons. I think a lot of the problem is that since day 1, other than limiting the ability to shed a war dec, there really never was a coherent framework given for the goals of the new war dec system. So now at this point there are so many problems we all can't even agree on what those are. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
426
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:10:00 -
[539] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Alternatively you can support my proposal and we'll both get what we appear to want. A bigger and better forever war.
Or we can all jump on board the RMS Reality and acknowledge that CCP doesn't want a "get in on a forever war for free" thing to exist, no matter how fun a select few of us might find it. They clearly want the ally system to be a real game mechanic extension of the mercenary profession, so talking about any ideas that don't fit within that framework is a waste of time. One thing we know about CCP, after all - once they've decided they want something A Certain Way, you can't exactly change that. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1497
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:35:00 -
[540] - Quote
Ripard Teg wrote:Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.
Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.
I'd prefer to see scaling based on the ratio of the bigger to the smaller entiy. Thus a wardec between two 10-member corps would attract roughly similar wardec fees to a wardec between two 1000-member corps. The number should be modified by activity level, so that a 100-member corp who has 10 members active at any time is only slightly more expensive to wardec than a 10 member corp who is "always" active.
The cost of adding allies to the defending side should be minimal up until the aggregate size of the defender approaches that of the attacker. After that, the fees should scale as if the defender was wardeccing the attacking corp. After all, we want to encourage a merc market: what market will there be for mercs if simply adding them to the defensive side costs too much ISK?
Of course, most of this discussion about wardecs is based on the premise that there is a way to make wardecs a vehicle for encouraging hisec care bears to engage in combat. Someone is forgetting that you can't solve social problems through technical or legislative means. The way to encourage hisec care bears to engage in combat is to encourage hisec care bears to engage in combat. Don't add fancy new mechanisms which will simply be gamed by all and sundry. Get out there, "face to face" with the people you'd like to draw further into the game, take them on low sec roams, help them get some kills.
Some hisec care bears play EVE Online as a simple game, like civilisation or Reach For The Stars. They may not necessarily be interested in flying spaceships around. They love the spreadsheets or the ore collecting or simply flying courier missions and enjoying the scenery. Wardeccing those people just so you can enjoy seeing them never log in again is counter-productive to the community as a whole. Providing them some incentive to engage in combat when wardecced might be productive.
To provide incentives for combat, bring in a goal based wardec system. "The goal of this wardec is to remove the POS from Brapelille IV Moon 5." Once that goal is accomplished (by blowing up the POS, or by the defender taking it down), the war is over.
"The goal of this wardec is to suppress X alliance activity in Y constellation for one week." CONCORD takes a fee from the instigator, and gives the instigator a week to achieve their goal. Thus if X alliance doesn't log in for two days, the instigator gets their ISK back. If X alliance stays active for that entire week in that constellation, the instigator loses their ISK (and X alliance claims that ISK as a reward). Activity might be determined as "units of ore mined" or "NPC bounties collected" for example.
At the simplest level, the goal of the wardec might be "inflict 1B ISK damages". Every ISK value of the target's ships lost counts for the instigator, every ISK value of instigator's ships lost counts against them. Again, the instigator would pay CONCORD a fee. If the wardec conditions are failed (by the end of the week you have not inflicted 1B ISK damages) the target gets the reward.
The important thing here is that the target has an incentive to participate: "Hah hah! Johnny Rotten and his three friends want to stop us mining Veldspar in Wyllequet. If we mine more than 1M units in a week, we win 100M ISK!" (Johnny Rotten's wardec fees in this case were 200M ISK: 100M for the wardec, 100M for the objectives security).
But while purposeless wardecs are on the table, the fees should simply scale by square of the ratio of larger to smaller entity. No caps. If a 9000 member alliance wants to wardec a 30 member alliance, they will be paying 90,000 times more than a 30 member alliance wardeccing that same alliance. If a 3 neckbeard alliance wants to wardec a 30 member alliance, they can pay 100 times as much as if they were 30-strong. Still gameable (just roll more alts to add to your wardeccing corporation as required), but more likely to result in wars that actually involve combat.
|
|
Brunaburh
Aurora Security
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:36:00 -
[541] - Quote
XavierVE wrote: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. Because it's good game design. In fact, the way war decs were designed with Inferno was absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the sandbox. Allowing entities to rise up and defend other entities, should they wish to. Only problem was, that goofball Jade found a way to use the sandbox to grief Goons, something that is certainly not allowed, especially with devs who came into the game via Goonswarm to begin with being in charge of game mechanics. Favor the blob, everyone should be in 9000 man alliances! Stupid. I'd say you should just spawn them a few t2 BPO's while you're at it, but honestly, that's less egregious than changing the rules for the sole purpose of benefiting the largest entities in the game.
You are a horrid troll.
Balance isn't good game design. Balance is boring game design. If you want everything in balance, why bother flying anything but rifter/rupture/hurricane/malestrom - because all the other races are balanced to be exactly the same?
Balance is not equivalence, and claiming balance is what happens in the current wardec system is blind.
The fringe experience of Honda Accord and Goonswarm and Jade Constantine is not the experience of the hundreds of corporations and alliances in EVE - it is a handful of players (because most Goons aren't in Hisec).
If you want to "rise up and defend" other entities, start your own damn war. And take your stupid, misguided belief that CCP caters to Goonswarm and go play WOW. That type of delusional stupidity has no place in this forum or game. If you have reasonable, practical feedback on the changes on Sisi, please post that GÇô-ánot this drug-induced dribble that you think passes for witty repartee. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
945
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:47:00 -
[542] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Well unless people fly one specific super capital in large numbers, then obviously that needs to be fixed, then back to the unfair galaxy that is eve...
I thought you were for the supercapital nerf eh |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
238
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:48:00 -
[543] - Quote
Can we rename this clause "The CCP caves in to Goons Anti-Allies Provision" ? or more simpley " Lube up small corps get ready for the Goon Shaft Clause" ?
Greg Valanti wrote:im mrmessy wrote:How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
192
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:48:00 -
[544] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Powers Sa wrote: We don't care about K/D, we don't care about the ~isk war~, we don't care about losses/metrics in general. We troll people who lose expensive ship, and make sure they learn from their mistakes. Nothing you are going to do will dissuade us from what we want to do. You aren't going to make our life any difficult than we want it to be. We wanted more targets, you gave us less targets. You should chalk this up as a win and walk away. Alternatively you can support my proposal and we'll both get what we appear to want. A bigger and better forever war. Alternatively, I approve CCP Soundwave's overall direction for the game. I want mercenaries like Noir. Mercenary Group to get paid what they are worth. Our whole venture into highsec with these wardecs has to build up a realistic bounty hunter profession, but unlike CCP's crappy ingame bounty system, ours actually works. Your massive boohoo fest was just a result of us testing things.
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.
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.
This all looks good to me. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1497
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 01:49:00 -
[545] - Quote
Manssell wrote:I think a lot of the problem is that since day 1, other than limiting the ability to shed a war dec, there really never was a coherent framework given for the goals of the new war dec system.
+1
What is the purpose of the wardec system, CCP?
We already have PvP in hisec in the form of can flipping, suicide ganking and awoxing. We already have RvB and FW. The people who are interested in fighting have many avenues for exploring their desire to blow things up.
Forcing industrial corps to dock and log out for a week is not "content", and it will never result in hisec care bears taking that first vital step into PvP. They'll go and play Diablo III or Words with Friends instead.
Having objective based wardecs with a reward system in place might motivate care bears to participate rather than disappear.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:03:00 -
[546] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Manssell wrote:I think a lot of the problem is that since day 1, other than limiting the ability to shed a war dec, there really never was a coherent framework given for the goals of the new war dec system. +1 What is the purpose of the wardec system, CCP? We already have PvP in hisec in the form of can flipping, suicide ganking and awoxing. We already have RvB and FW. The people who are interested in fighting have many avenues for exploring their desire to blow things up. Forcing industrial corps to dock and log out for a week is not "content", and it will never result in hisec care bears taking that first vital step into PvP. They'll go and play Diablo III or Words with Friends instead. Having objective based wardecs with a reward system in place might motivate care bears to participate rather than disappear.
The sad thing is that when you end up jumping down on emergent gameplay and imaginative uses of the wardec ally system to allow a massively outnumbered target to turn the tables on a big fat aggressor because "eve isn't supposed to be fair" it does kinda leave you wondering what the point of the wardec system is as the poster above asks.
Is it just a pay-to-grief (with zero consequences on the attacker tool) after all?
Its not working for merc corps ... Alekseyev Karrde the CSM rep who knows more about empire wars and merc fighting than the rest of the CSM put together says this 1.1 change was the only option all the CSM agreed wouldn't help at all!
So whats the wardec change for if its NOT to boost or improve the merc profession?
It sure doesn't help defenders fight back against bigger attackers. It doesn't help help little corps whose wars get jumped on by big fish. It doesn't add any structure or goal to the system.
The ONLY thing it does is add increased advantage and defense to large alliances who wish to engage in wardecs without risking escalation by the defender.
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! |
Brunaburh
Aurora Security
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:04:00 -
[547] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Brunaburh wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted. Since when do Hisec entities not have the ability to use chat, Skype, voice communications and negotiating skills? Since when could any highsec entity just jump into a war and fire on enemies without beeing part of the wardec?
you are correct - it's a 24 hour notice to start a war, right? So it takes 24 hours.
However, the argument you are trying to make is answered by "in nullsec" - because CONCORD. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
113
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:08:00 -
[548] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The ally system has destroyed the viability of the mercenary profession as EVE has known it since launch. The fact that Inferno's "mercenary marketplace" has cause said destruction is very ironic and not a little bit insulting. Mercs would have been better off if CCP just patched the holes in the war dec system without meddling.
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.
Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.
See, now, that's good dialogue. Thank you, Alek. Most informative. Hopefully our hopes can be higher in the future.
Edit: Oh, and yes, I still think the rest of this patch looks great. :) I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:12:00 -
[549] - Quote
I'm so glad that Jade is actually still checking this thread so I can dumpster him.
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. Or you could have friends who are close enough to help split the costs with you. Eve is a social game bro, looks like you just need to work on your play style.
All-in-all it sounds like you want game mechanics to be altered to help cover up the fact that your social skills are not good enough to make friends with anyone of significant military note. Do you also throw food that you get for free onto the street corner and call every homeless person who picks it up your brother-in-arms? |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:15:00 -
[550] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:The ally system has destroyed the viability of the mercenary profession as EVE has known it since launch. The fact that Inferno's "mercenary marketplace" has cause said destruction is very ironic and not a little bit insulting. Mercs would have been better off if CCP just patched the holes in the war dec system without meddling.
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.
Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high. See, now, that's good dialogue. Thank you, Alek. Most informative. Hopefully our hopes can be higher in the future.
Yeah pretty much, example of good CSM communications - though it does show what a worrying fiasco the wardec change really is.
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! |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:19:00 -
[551] - Quote
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.
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! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1125
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:24:00 -
[552] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Well unless people fly one specific super capital in large numbers, then obviously that needs to be fixed, then back to the unfair galaxy that is eve... I thought you were for the supercapital nerf
I was, for the sake of balance.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Elecktra Blue
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:25:00 -
[553] - 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.
You've got 36 groups of people that would of jumped on the war regardless if it was against you, or if we had declared war on the flying unicorn corp/alliance, the fact of the matter is, we did not whine about these mechanics, we embraced it. Its high-time you did the same and get over it, you wanted war and you got it, and we plan on playing by whatever changes are put or left in place. Also, stop claiming victory when you are not even participating in the war. |
Nastrado
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:26:00 -
[554] - 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.
How will you ever find time to post useless 10,000 word essays and run you rp "business". You barley log on as it is.
|
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:27:00 -
[555] - 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.
Quote:All-in-all it sounds like you want game mechanics to be altered to help cover up the fact that your social skills are not good enough to make friends with anyone of significant military note. Do you also throw food that you get for free onto the street corner and call every homeless person who picks it up your brother-in-arms?
You forgot to mention the part where none of those people are your actual friends. They are the homeless people on the street corner who you give free bread too, now your complaining that you have to pay for all the free food you give out. I can't even imagine how quickly they'd peace out if they had to pay for the food.
I'd have no problem ponying up a bill a week to protect test's allies in game if they needed help, it sounds like you just aren't good enough at the social game to build those kinds of allies. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1125
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:28:00 -
[556] - Quote
Elecktra Blue wrote: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. You've got 36 groups of people that would of jumped on the war regardless if it was against you, or if we had declared war on the flying unicorn corp/alliance, the fact of the matter is, we did not whine about these mechanics, we embraced it. Its high-time you did the same and get over it, you wanted war and you got it, and we plan on playing by whatever changes are put or left in place. Also, stop claiming victory when you are not even participating in the war.
Jade coming out on top in any shape or form of goons war decing SF really pisses you off doesn't it?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:29:00 -
[557] - Quote
Nastrado wrote: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. How will you ever find time to post useless 10,000 word essays and run you rp "business". You barley log on as it is.
Excuse silly fellow I'm currently logged in farming LPs so I can donate to the minmatar "lets get a level 5 store" effort. And you'll find my killboard participation is pretty jaunty this time of year - its not fault that goons are afraid of lowsec.
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! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
372
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:29:00 -
[558] - 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. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1125
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:29:00 -
[559] - Quote
Nastrado wrote: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. How will you ever find time to post useless 10,000 word essays and run you rp "business". You barley log on as it is.
Confirming logging in is a requirement to playing EVE. Also mittens would like to have a word with you.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:31:00 -
[560] - Quote
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.
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! |
|
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:35:00 -
[561] - 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.
Oh you mean the guys in test who would show up by the hundreds to get in fleet with me if it needed to be done?
How often do the people in that allied wardec coalition work together as a team I wonder? Oh right, never. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
372
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:35:00 -
[562] - 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. |
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:39:00 -
[563] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Elecktra Blue wrote: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. You've got 36 groups of people that would of jumped on the war regardless if it was against you, or if we had declared war on the flying unicorn corp/alliance, the fact of the matter is, we did not whine about these mechanics, we embraced it. Its high-time you did the same and get over it, you wanted war and you got it, and we plan on playing by whatever changes are put or left in place. Also, stop claiming victory when you are not even participating in the war. Jade coming out on top in any shape or form of goons war decing SF really pisses you off doesn't it?
Somehow I doubt Jade would come out on top in anything. Self-appointed forums hallway monitor |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2062
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:41:00 -
[564] - Quote
michael boltonIII wrote: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. Oh you mean the guys in test who would show up by the hundreds to get in fleet with me if it needed to be done? How often do the people in that allied wardec coalition work together as a team I wonder? Oh right, never.
Well you are a big hat space dictator. Your followers are supposed to follow you like some cult leader.
I on the other hand am a space anarchist and I prefer distributed asymetrical warfare and psychological traps. The heroic cells of freedom-loving anti-goon partizans may well never meet or share a cup of tea or indeed have to gather and listen to some speech by a "great leader" but that doesn't stop them being comrades-at-arms in the great struggle against eve imperialism encroaching on the capsuleer trade hubs.
Your big mistake is to assume everyone fights their wars the way you do. (your second mistake is to overestimate the number of jaegerbombs you can sustain before critical balance failure)
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! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3309
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:43:00 -
[565] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Elecktra Blue wrote: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. You've got 36 groups of people that would of jumped on the war regardless if it was against you, or if we had declared war on the flying unicorn corp/alliance, the fact of the matter is, we did not whine about these mechanics, we embraced it. Its high-time you did the same and get over it, you wanted war and you got it, and we plan on playing by whatever changes are put or left in place. Also, stop claiming victory when you are not even participating in the war. Jade coming out on top in any shape or form of goons war decing SF really pisses you off doesn't it? So do these unicorns in my house. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3309
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:48:00 -
[566] - Quote
They keep pooping rainbows and wizards keep showing up. |
Klann Schreck
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:58:00 -
[567] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1 it's a bit tiring here, have this
You are my favorite CCP. EVER! |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:59:00 -
[568] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Elecktra Blue wrote: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. You've got 36 groups of people that would of jumped on the war regardless if it was against you, or if we had declared war on the flying unicorn corp/alliance, the fact of the matter is, we did not whine about these mechanics, we embraced it. Its high-time you did the same and get over it, you wanted war and you got it, and we plan on playing by whatever changes are put or left in place. Also, stop claiming victory when you are not even participating in the war. Jade coming out on top in any shape or form of goons war decing SF really pisses you off doesn't it? So do these unicorns in my house.
Sorry about that. Ill get those taken back to my place tonight :3: |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1022
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:59:00 -
[569] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:They keep pooping rainbows and wizards keep showing up. The Mittani is is wizard, right? Lightning comes from his fingers or something. That's what the newbees got out of that one CEO update :shobon:
Also, highsec is a lot more like nullsec now. Random WTs camping gates, it's great ! Of course, I won't lose my alt's pod because no bubbles (unless I lag or afk or something silly). And it's easy to dock and move things about with another alt. Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:59:00 -
[570] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:michael boltonIII wrote: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. Oh you mean the guys in test who would show up by the hundreds to get in fleet with me if it needed to be done? How often do the people in that allied wardec coalition work together as a team I wonder? Oh right, never. Well you are a big hat space dictator. Your followers are supposed to follow you like some cult leader. I on the other hand am a space anarchist and I prefer distributed asymetrical warfare and psychological traps. The heroic cells of freedom-loving anti-goon partizans may well never meet or share a cup of tea or indeed have to gather and listen to some speech by a "great leader" but that doesn't stop them being comrades-at-arms in the great struggle against eve imperialism encroaching on the capsuleer trade hubs. Your big mistake is to assume everyone fights their wars the way you do. (your second mistake is to overestimate the number of jaegerbombs you can sustain before critical balance failure)
Oh good, since all of your allies are making such sacrifices for their lofty beliefs then they should have no problem paying what is comparably a small fee in the fight against oppression. I'm sure your so glad that the new mechanics will weed out the pretenders who are merely exploiting your noble cause for their own evil capitalist cost cutting ventures. As for the mean of "psychological trap" I can only assume you are referring to your own indeterminate gender identity, I fail to see what affect this has on the war but you should talk to Xenuria, as I believe he is the leading expert on such tactics and I feel you two would get along like father and son.
Also, they were rum bombs, I hate Jager. I never fall over when drunk, I am merely a balance anarchist who prefers an asymmetrical center of gravity and psychological inebriation in order to combat more ~mainstream! concepts of standing up. |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
670
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:59:00 -
[571] - Quote
@Punkturis.
I have a serious issue with 1.1 War Dec UI.
You need to make all EVE UI awesome like it.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Sa'ra Krat
Isk
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:27:00 -
[572] - Quote
Ignoring the buildup of mostly useless back and forth...
I wanted to pitch in what few cents I have with my experiences. It was mentioned that having unlimited allies was not desirable, and yet now we have a lot of back and forth about Isk formulas and...other bits and bobs. Instead of all of those, why not set it so that a defending group can only have allies until they come close to matching half, or a fourth of the other side? In theory, the active pilots on each side would reflect this ratio to some degree - it can be difficult to get so many people together at once - and instead of bringing a full balance to things (which would go with what CCP Soundwave said in an earlier post), there would still be a difficult fight for the defender that chose to Mutual. After all, mutual-ing against stronger groups is just asking to have your hulls taken, and hiring a couple merc groups to bring in some additional firepower could work to tip the tides of war without it being a pushover (read: blob) fight on either side. (It may also bring some better focus to the point of a "Mercenary Marketplace", but that is not something in my experiences.)
In the end though, this isn't the only thing I'd like to pitch in a few pennies to. Though I wasn't around for pre-Inferno FW, I've noticed a couple key points about the current state from a bit of skinny dipping. Removal of Ewar effects from FW NPCs doesn't matter much in the context of the larger fleet battles, but when you're a soloist or a duo/trio (in friendly territory), those target dampeners can be a life saver; in addition, that is taking into effect the lack of incentive for defending a controlled system, yielding little or no LP for time spent. To contrast my own complaint though, I do understand one possible benefit, being that it's more likely to get an enemy to engage when there's damage being taken sans Ewar fx and that the LP rewards for killing enemies are likely being encouraged.
Though, in effect, one (or a fleet) may as well work to plex down enemy systems while not saving more than a couple key systems of their own. An issue for another precursor patch or expansion, but still a thought to be had.
*Throws half-isks...because it is amusing that GÇÿcentsGÇÖ are still around.* |
Hench Tenet
The Suicide Kings Test Alliance Please Ignore
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:29:00 -
[573] - Quote
Can you find a way of not spamming us with messages about the wardecs? Before, it was spam from empire elite pvp corps wardeccing us cheaply. Now it's "xxxx has joined the war". Coming back from a weeked with 40 mails and 3/4 of them concord is a bit of a pain. |
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:38:00 -
[574] - 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.
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.
Wow, game mechanics changed because the Goons can't handle a fair fight. Since Eve isn't supposed to have fair fights apparently.
My question is, if fights are supposed to be one sided then what compulsion is there for new subscribers to give the game a chance? Play for a bit, get completely dominated, go to another game where they actually stand a chance of having fun.
Great marketing strategy there.
Also, why is it mercs are supposed to have a functional role in Eve but high sec miners are expected to get roflstomped by anyone flying around in cheap, throw away ships. Oh wait... Eve isn't supposed to be fair so miners just have to suck it up and be willing to get owned by anyone in a destroyer or bigger.
I wonder what the plan is going to be when Dust 514 fails to pull enough interest and Eve is the only viable resource but so many players have been driven away that there's no hope of getting a decent subscriber base.
Anyway, to make sure I follow the rules and provide some discussion.
I don't like the proposed changes to the war dec system. Allies should choose their own time frame for being allied, not have it artificially determined for them. When an ally signs up there should be one week, two week, one month, duration of war options and then they can negotiate the cost based on length of contract.
I think larger entities should have to pay more, a lot more, for declaring against someone smaller. Wars are a mechanic but they should be something that offers some interest in the game for both parties. Forcing smaller groups to suck it up and not log on or pay through the nose to get enough support is stupid.
All the current changes due is promote bullying, but since Eve isn't about fair fights I reckon bullying is actually what the Dev's want the players to participate in. Obviously the stronger/bigger group should have all the fun and everyone else is just there to provide targets. Oops, I'm not being very fair to the Devs opinion. My bad.
Lets see what else...
I think allies should be allowed in mutual wars, again with the time limit established at the start of the contract.
As for mercs, seems to me the best way to revive the merc profession is to design a simple way for them to offer their services, have some form of accountability if the mercs fail to live up to the contract, and to allow the players to dictate times, fees, and what not. Building rigid stipulations on hiring mercs just makes it less likely to fool with hiring someone that may or may not be useful and will be gone if things turn bad.
Oops, there I go again trying to make fights a little bit more fair in Eve. Bad player, bad. |
Dovinian
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1075
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:44:00 -
[575] - Quote
CCP Goliath is sleeping right now and is not aware of this post.
Heh.
Also, something about the wardec system, something about this thread. Lets fix the wardec system.
(See it has content now) |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1145
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 04:22:00 -
[576] - Quote
Amdor Renevat wrote: Wow, game mechanics changed because the Goons can't handle a fair fight.
npc corp poster yelling about how other people "can't handle a fair fight"
lmao
(ban npc corps) |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
194
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 04:29:00 -
[577] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:michael boltonIII wrote: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. Oh you mean the guys in test who would show up by the hundreds to get in fleet with me if it needed to be done? How often do the people in that allied wardec coalition work together as a team I wonder? Oh right, never. Well you are a big hat space dictator. Your followers are supposed to follow you like some cult leader. I on the other hand am a space anarchist and I prefer distributed asymetrical warfare and psychological traps. The heroic cells of freedom-loving anti-goon partizans may well never meet or share a cup of tea or indeed have to gather and listen to some speech by a "great leader" but that doesn't stop them being comrades-at-arms in the great struggle against eve imperialism encroaching on the capsuleer trade hubs. Your big mistake is to assume everyone fights their wars the way you do. (your second mistake is to overestimate the number of jaegerbombs you can sustain before critical balance failure) MichaelBoltonIII is Lord of the *******. Montolio rules test. The only psychological trap you have ever sprung was tricking people into thinking you are a space girl and that your space brothel was not all alts that you ran.
Goons do not hate freedoms. Goonswarm aren't the only entities in eve that would like you to lose ships repeatedly.
Amdor Renevat wrote: more :words: than jade constantine |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1501
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 04:57:00 -
[578] - Quote
michael boltonIII wrote:IJade 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. Or you could have friends who are close enough to help split the costs with you. Eve is a social game bro, looks like you just need to work on your play style.
What's wrong with having 100 50-member alliances as friends? Why does everyone have to be in a 5000 member alliance in order to join a fight against a 9000 member alliance?
Do you understand the lack of social cohesion in hisec?
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1146
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 05:12:00 -
[579] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:michael boltonIII wrote:IJade 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. Or you could have friends who are close enough to help split the costs with you. Eve is a social game bro, looks like you just need to work on your play style. What's wrong with having 100 50-member alliances as friends? Why does everyone have to be in a 5000 member alliance in order to join a fight against a 9000 member alliance? Do you understand the lack of social cohesion in hisec? lack of social cohesion in highsec is largely based around any highsec corp that reached above 100 people was endlessly wardec'd due to highsec PVP corps practicing cost-effectiveness hth |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1504
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 05:42:00 -
[580] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:lack of social cohesion in highsec is largely based around any highsec corp that reached above 100 people was endlessly wardec'd due to highsec PVP corps practicing cost-effectiveness hth
Most of the wardecs I've been witness to were 3-member (plus 12 NPC alt) corps picking fights with industrial corps (i.e.: three command ships or T3s versus a hulk here or an orca there).
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Inferno wardec system was meant to GǪ
[citation needed]
Nocolo da'Vicenza wrote:GǪ despite the fact Goonswarm's home region has zero CONCORD protection and they do all their logistics through alt corps anyway as an adaptation after years of managing highsec supply chains under the old, non-scaling wardec system.
Yet there are folks from Goonswarm littering hisec like bees in a garden. It was Goonswarm that picked that fight, so I don't see why you bring "zero CONCORD protection [in nullsec]" into the argument.
You need to stop drinking so deeply from the corporate Kool Aid bucket.
|
|
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 05:46:00 -
[581] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful. No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).
This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1505
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 06:01:00 -
[582] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive.
You've been given a shiny new module which adjusts the tank depending on the incoming damage. The adjustment simply means that the penalty of this one module is higher. You have options such as running a traditional tank, or running with logistics who can transfer cap.
Focus on the positives
|
Gerrick Palivorn
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
279
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 06:03:00 -
[583] - Quote
Reguarding the wardec situation
-Concords 'you have too many allies fee' be a one time charge -Mutual wars can have allies (this is essential to making the people doing the wardeccing feel the same dread as the wardecced) causing a reversal and repercussions. No one should be able to get out of something they started so easily. -At the end of each merc contract it can be negotiated and continued if the war hasn't ended -Once the merc's drop out of a mutual war, they cannot re-enter it
This would let me have my cake and eat it too, and the only ones who get boned are grief-deccers. cough cough |
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 06:09:00 -
[584] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. You've been given a shiny new module which adjusts the tank depending on the incoming damage. The adjustment simply means that the penalty of this one module is higher. You have options such as running a traditional tank, or running with logistics who can transfer cap. Focus on the positives
There are always options, as you say, but no skill should have a negative effect. Because I cannot un-train the skill. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1505
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 06:24:00 -
[585] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:There are always options, as you say, but no skill should have a negative effect. Because I cannot un-train the skill.
Training that skill higher means the module adjusts its resistance balance quicker. Yet you choose to complain about capacitor cost?
You are not forced to use that module. This is the future that the EVE developers are considering: everything has a drawback, and the things that give you even better bonuses give you even worse drawbacks. So you really need to get used to looking at the positives.
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 06:38:00 -
[586] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:There are always options, as you say, but no skill should have a negative effect. Because I cannot un-train the skill. Training that skill higher means the module adjusts its resistance balance quicker. Yet you choose to complain about capacitor cost? You are not forced to use that module. This is the future that the EVE developers are considering: everything has a drawback, and the things that give you even better bonuses give you even worse drawbacks. So you really need to get used to looking at the positives.
I disagree.
|
Sp1p3 O'brien
The Monkeys of space Li3 Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 07:00:00 -
[587] - Quote
I'm sorry, i'm off-topic but, with my poor english skill and my carebear eyes, i have some comments :
1) In the first part of the Topic, there is about Mercenarie's market. Can someone explain me how can it (will) work, with this wardec system ?
2) I'm new here , so i'm my mind, High is for the casu-peacefull player who want to enjoyed a low reward- low risk gameplay, and allow Null sec big alliance ( which choose high reward -not so risky gameplay ) to eternally wardec any high structure ( alliance or corpo ) to "deny" it grown and become a threat or simply for fun. I want to know what is the long term goal planned by ccp with the wardec tool : make a block tool, to change empire to a kind of low sec with everyone in npc corp or in powerblock one ( to avoid wardec ) or simply a new way to make pvp without low/null sec specificity.
3) It's strange but this topic remind me primary school, a lot of fighting , a lot of taunting, nobody listen , everybody shout and cry In one hand jade who want to defend her position which is honorable, in another hand the goon lobby and stuck in the middle the CCP dev who try to do their job. In not here to say something , but we all love EVE and to keep it as great game it's important to stay focus to the topic , i think we are all great people, and CCP are always listening to his userbase. In few word , i think it's not a place for personal or lobbying warfare.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2476
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 07:26:00 -
[588] - Quote
Klann Schreck wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1 it's a bit tiring here, have this You are my favorite CCP. EVER!
:brofist:
Bloodpetal wrote:@Punkturis. I have a serious issue with 1.1 War Dec UI.You need to make all EVE UI awesome like it.
first I was like then I was like
thanks! @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 07:42:00 -
[589] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. You've been given a shiny new module which adjusts the tank depending on the incoming damage. The adjustment simply means that the penalty of this one module is higher. You have options such as running a traditional tank, or running with logistics who can transfer cap. Focus on the positives There are always options, as you say, but no skill should have a negative effect. Because I cannot un-train the skill.
So the skill makes your module cycle faster which in turn makes it shift resistance to block incoming damage more frequently.
It sounds like you are trying to compare the resist % vs. the cap cost to determine effectiveness of the module, but in this case wouldn't you have to compare the incoming damage reduction vs. cap cost to get a true gauge of the effectiveness?
Depending on the amount of incoming damage the higher cap cost could actually end up being more efficient then the slower cap burn with slower resist change. The efficiency of this module will only be seen when engaging foes with multiple damage types while fighting a homogeneous opponent isn't the most effective use. Then again you don't pix this module because you know what you're going against, you pick it because you want the advantage of having on the fly resist changes while using fewer slots to cover the resist holes. The added cap cost is basically the same as running a Neut on someone who's already capped out. You're not getting maximum return on each cycle of your neut but the cap cost is worth the benefit you receive. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1130
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 07:44:00 -
[590] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:Inferno wardec system was meant to counter this by giving highsec communities a respite from being wardec-spammed but the attempt got hijacked by mental invalids who complained that "goonswarm is protected now" despite the fact Goonswarm's home region has zero CONCORD protection and they do all their logistics through alt corps anyway as an adaptation after years of managing highsec supply chains under the old, non-scaling wardec system.
fas-+ci-+nat-+ing
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
|
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 07:48:00 -
[591] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:first I was like then I was like thanks!
Why you no pink no more?
|
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:01:00 -
[592] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Five-0
GÇó Rollback of lowering the reward for vanguard sites by 10%
I hope that's only for Low and Null sec Incursions. CCP should be aware that High Sec Incursions represent a serious flaw in EVE's risk vs reward balance and as such should be at the receiving end of further nerfs not rollbacks on old ones.
|
Klann Schreck
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:05:00 -
[593] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful. No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5). This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive.
Let me tell you about the repair systems skill or energy pulse weapons skill. |
Rikanin
Wargasm Inc
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:14:00 -
[594] - Quote
im mrmessy wrote:How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying
Aww...are the big bad goons getting piled on? QQ some more...goon tears are best tears.
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1131
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:26:00 -
[595] - Quote
Klann Schreck wrote:Let me tell you about the repair systems skill or energy pulse weapons skill. This isnt a negative effect, it lets the RAH adjust to incoming damage quicker. thats a positive.
This thread needs one of those bad.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1326
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:26:00 -
[596] - 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. You know, this is the root of your issue here.
You seem to think all the people who joined your mutual war are "heroic allies" - when in reality they're just random scrubs who want 9000 players to be flashy red to them.
This, right here, is why the system as it stands is completely broken. - "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 |
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:35:00 -
[597] - Quote
Amdor Renevat wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. You've been given a shiny new module which adjusts the tank depending on the incoming damage. The adjustment simply means that the penalty of this one module is higher. You have options such as running a traditional tank, or running with logistics who can transfer cap. Focus on the positives There are always options, as you say, but no skill should have a negative effect. Because I cannot un-train the skill. So the skill makes your module cycle faster which in turn makes it shift resistance to block incoming damage more frequently. It sounds like you are trying to compare the resist % vs. the cap cost to determine effectiveness of the module, but in this case wouldn't you have to compare the incoming damage reduction vs. cap cost to get a true gauge of the effectiveness? Depending on the amount of incoming damage the higher cap cost could actually end up being more efficient then the slower cap burn with slower resist change. The efficiency of this module will only be seen when engaging foes with multiple damage types while fighting a homogeneous opponent isn't the most effective use. Then again you don't pick this module because you know what you're going against, you pick it because you want the advantage of having on the fly resist changes while using fewer slots to cover the resist holes. The added cap cost is basically the same as running a Neut on someone who's already capped out. You're not getting maximum return on each cycle of your neut but the cap cost is worth the benefit you receive.
It is a positive; the 5 second cycle makes the mod much more useful, the cap cost perhaps needs to be adjusted though, whether that is through base stat mod or through another skill I am unsure.
I like the neut analogy, itGÇÖs not the same but perhaps it should be noted that running the existing mod is almost the same as being under small neut pressure and that training the new skill to level 5 will take itGÇÖs cap level close to the level of a medium neut. On a mod that is already really only useful to ships that are having prolonged engagements i.e. massive buffer or active tank this to me restricts the mod to battleship level and up ships (perhaps T3).
|
|
ISD Stensson
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 08:42:00 -
[598] - Quote
Please keep in mind rules about pyramid quoting, personal attacks, trolling, and off-topic. This kind of messages is prohibited on our forums. ISD Stensson Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1326
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 09:07:00 -
[599] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5). This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson
All skills that give a negative duration bonus to an active module have the side effect that they use more cap, this isn't new like you suggest. - "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 |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 09:15:00 -
[600] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5). This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson All skills that give a negative duration bonus to an active module have the side effect that they use more cap, this isn't new like you suggest.
Yep - there a quite a few other skills that reduce duration that are actually better left at the lowest level possible.
Another interesting one is Tactical Shield Manipulation - If you are an armor tanker you get more out of your tank by allowing "bleed" from low shields. |
|
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 09:42:00 -
[601] - Quote
I do not dispute the reduced cycle time and cap usage increase trade off as a skill.
Look at repair systems, total reduction in repair duration of 25% this has an associated cap cost but it is useful.
If a mod requires a 50% reduction in cycle time then this doubles the cap cost. This suggests there is an issue with the original cycle time and cap cost. I support the skill but would like to see the cap cost adjusted to a sort of half-way house where the mod ultimately uses less cap than it does now but with a higher cap cost than the existing amount at level 5 due to the increased power of the mod. This mod at level five is broken for frigates and probably cruisers, you could perhaps use it on something like a cap boosting repping myrm, and anything battleship and above.
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 09:43:00 -
[602] - Quote
Xorv wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Five-0
GÇó Rollback of lowering the reward for vanguard sites by 10% I hope that's only for Low and Null sec Incursions. CCP should be aware that High Sec Incursions represent a serious flaw in EVE's risk vs reward balance and as such should be at the receiving end of further nerfs not rollbacks on old ones.
Eve doesnt have risk vs reward balance. It was killed when high-sec level 4s were introduced and has been periodically shat on from a height ever since. |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 09:44:00 -
[603] - Quote
Alticus C Bear wrote:I do not dispute the reduced cycle time and cap usage increase trade off as a skill.
Look at repair systems, total reduction in repair duration of 25% this has an associated cap cost but it is useful.
If a mod requires a 50% reduction in cycle time then this doubles the cap cost. This suggests there is an issue with the original cycle time and cap cost. I support the skill but would like to see the cap cost adjusted to a sort of half-way house where the mod ultimately uses less cap than it does now but with a higher cap cost than the existing amount at level 5 due to the increased power of the mod. This mod at level five is broken for frigates and probably cruisers, you could perhaps use it on something like a cap boosting repping myrm, and anything battleship and above.
that's a pretty reasonable argument. |
Xander Blackwell
House Aratus Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 09:58:00 -
[604] - Quote
I do not agree with the removal of the wardec mechanics.... thats pretty much what it is. You are making INEFFECTIVE the new stuff due to a bug (the **** of goons). You could have had a set cap on number of allies or anything else. But I feel that removing the mechanic is a bit harsh. Doesnt effect me as I live in null and my alt is NPC for hauling... but I hate to see care bear space made safer.
Please fix this issue without removing the mechanic. |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:23:00 -
[605] - Quote
Yanno, I didn't know nations had to pay the United Nations in order to participate in wars. Clearly I have been mistaken and this is all influenced by real world example. Read the first few pages of this thread and the only thing I got out of it was this:
A handful of people giving feedback about the new changes to the war-dec system.
Goonswarm members making a few underhanded remarks that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, as seen here: "Nice to see that you remain delusional enough to think we'd pay you 5b isk per ally to end a war though."
CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).
I'm not entirely sure how any of this is beneficial, and just from reading I'm starting to agree that these changes seem to be geared toward the larger alliances. Which, makes sense because if you have hundreds/thousands of people all clamoring about the same non-sense, it's only expected that they have the majority vote when it comes to a particular issue at hand. If five people say Denny's, and one person says Waffle House, where the hell are we going to wind up..?
I'm not taking sides. I will say that this -does- seem a bit rushed and that these changes haven't even been out for more than three weeks and we're already changing ****? Took years to figure out how to make Gallente usable but all of a sudden we care enough to make "fixes" three weeks in?
Just saying..
|
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko Tower of Dark Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:23:00 -
[606] - Quote
CCP Punkturis or anyone else from Super Friends, may you pretty please give the info update about Micro Jump Drive?
Thanks, and hope for reply |
|
CCP Paradox
297
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:26:00 -
[607] - Quote
Paul, we have posted in your thread you created! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119503 CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko Tower of Dark Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:32:00 -
[608] - Quote
oh, really. Sincerely thanks! |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:42:00 -
[609] - Quote
Brunaburh wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Brunaburh wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted. Since when do Hisec entities not have the ability to use chat, Skype, voice communications and negotiating skills? Since when could any highsec entity just jump into a war and fire on enemies without beeing part of the wardec? you are correct - it's a 24 hour notice to start a war, right? So it takes 24 hours. However, the argument you are trying to make is answered by "in nullsec" - because CONCORD.
The argument I AM making is that the diplomatic flexibility and tools available to nullsec entities to handle a hostile situation is severly restricted in highsec because of the wardec mechanic. War is unfair. Fine. But the artificial caps on how to handle a war situation in highsec means that the ally system is a really good addition to the game. Sure, unlimited allies are dumb. But just one free ally is equally moronic, given the fragmented nature of highsec organisation. CCP just have to nerf the ally system enough to make Mercs a viable solution, which is achieved when QUALITY instead of numbers becomes important. That threshold is reached with a parity situation. |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:47:00 -
[610] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:Brunaburh wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Brunaburh wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted. Since when do Hisec entities not have the ability to use chat, Skype, voice communications and negotiating skills? Since when could any highsec entity just jump into a war and fire on enemies without beeing part of the wardec? you are correct - it's a 24 hour notice to start a war, right? So it takes 24 hours. However, the argument you are trying to make is answered by "in nullsec" - because CONCORD. The argument I AM making is that the diplomatic flexibility and tools available to nullsec entities to handle a hostile situation is severly restricted in highsec because of the wardec mechanic. War is unfair. Fine. But the artificial caps on how to handle a war situation in highsec means that the ally system is a really good addition to the game. Sure, unlimited allies are dumb. But just one free ally is equally moronic, given the fragmented nature of highsec organisation. CCP just have to nerf the ally system enough to make Mercs a viable solution, which is achieved when QUALITY instead of numbers becomes important. That threshold is reached with a parity situation.
So make allies / mercenaries two separate entities when it comes to wars... Because.. They are..
Set a cap on how many allies you can have, but make mercenaries unlimited; and paid accordingly based on the standards of the war (members of aggressors/defenders and their allies) and based on how many mercenaries are participating.. |
|
Quingar
Yacht Club.
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:49:00 -
[611] - Quote
Hmm CCP I do not understand. Why are you going to change that war decs mechanics. I read somewhere that you are nearly happy with the new war dec mechanics. And now you are going to change them again because some ****** nerd jerk Mittens and his pubies whined that they can not use their 9000 advantage against ally with 100 ppl. And because the CEO of that 100 ally was smart enough and called for help, you are now going to punish defenders right?
I am with Jade's thinking that big allinces should count with the possibility that defenders number could rise.
Whout about hearing voices from players this time crap? What about some win win scenario for all. Right now there is only win for Goons with the upcoming chages for war decs.
Btw I think CCP you said something that you support and will support things like Jita Burn, Hulkageddon. So what about this new war against Goons, which is rising? |
Zag Dakka
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 10:55:00 -
[612] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
Your actions indicate otherwise and as your CEO says it is actions that count not words...
Time for disclosure about how many Devs are in which major Alliances - not names just a headcount because as it stands there is a growing credibility gap.
Zag |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
576
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:01:00 -
[613] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote: CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).
Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
576
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:04:00 -
[614] - Quote
Zag Dakka wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Your actions indicate otherwise and as your CEO says it is actions that count not words... Time for disclosure about how many Devs are in which major Alliances - not names just a headcount because as it stands there is a growing credibility gap. Zag
[email protected]
If you think there's a fairness issue, or some shady behaviour, or just want to request the above, these guys will check it out. I don't want this post replied to and I will delete any following discussion of IA or where developers play EVE. Back on topic. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:07:00 -
[615] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Nomistrav wrote: CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).
Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping
Not really an issue; just you guys never addressed the issues that were still at hand =P
Dev thoughts on making allies/mercenaries two separate entities? |
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
96
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:17:00 -
[616] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Nomistrav wrote: CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).
Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping Not really an issue; just you guys never addressed the issues that were still at hand =P Dev thoughts on making allies/mercenaries two separate entities?
It's hard for the developers to remember that they're supposed to be robots for you. Self-appointed forums hallway monitor |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
576
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:18:00 -
[617] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Nomistrav wrote: CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).
Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping Not really an issue; just you guys never addressed the issues that were still at hand =P Dev thoughts on making allies/mercenaries two separate entities?
The only reason I don't comment on feature suggestions is that I am not on a team so don't get involved in design. Though hilariously over the last 3 days I have been confused for being the head mission designer, a module balancer, and CEO usurper. I'm none of those things CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
576
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:19:00 -
[618] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Zag Dakka wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Your actions indicate otherwise and as your CEO says it is actions that count not words... Time for disclosure about how many Devs are in which major Alliances - not names just a headcount because as it stands there is a growing credibility gap. Zag [email protected]If you think there's a fairness issue, or some shady behaviour, or just want to request the above, these guys will check it out. I don't want this post replied to and I will delete any following discussion of IA or where developers play EVE. Back on topic. Listen Golitah, forget the conspiracy theorists. It is an unfortunate but not unexpected byproduct of the gameworld you have created. In a game where polittics means what it does in EVE, its is unavoidable that such accusations will arise with every descision you make. So just deal with it, HTFU and ignore them. I'd be much more interessted in som serious DEV communication on the real issues. Sure, I understand you want to fix the merc marketplace, and I support that. But the proposed solution seems to treat a bleeding with an amputation.
See my post just above. My primary role in this thread is to point devs to good posts, facilitate an open but constructive discussion and keep my own awareness of the state of Sisi high. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:43:00 -
[619] - Quote
Alia Gon'die wrote:Nomistrav wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Nomistrav wrote: CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).
Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping Not really an issue; just you guys never addressed the issues that were still at hand =P Dev thoughts on making allies/mercenaries two separate entities? It's hard for the developers to remember that they're supposed to be robots for you.
It's hard for players not to immediately jump the guy who mentions it.
I used to be part of a game development team. No matter what you do, the human element is always persistent. People are bias, they show favoritism; it's human nature. However, one thing that can be predicted is that no matter what we at least -noted- the issue. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1326
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 11:48:00 -
[620] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:just from reading I'm starting to agree that these changes seem to be geared toward the larger alliances. Explain how?
A neat conspiracy theory doesn't a fact make.
Large alliances generally do NOT wardec. When they do, they will be less affected by small corps dogpiling the wardec than literally anyone else. It's small corps getting dogpiled that this change aims to stop. That Jade's "shoot goons for free!" manifesto suffers from this change is not a driving factor. The client has a map browser that shows sov - use it to go shoot them for free all day every day, they'll welcome it.
You need to think through the logic of that statement because as it stands, there is only ONE alliance that would benefit in ONE persons opinion and that person is trying to make you basically think what I quoted you saying here.
GSF themselves have said they WANT everyone in highsec to be shootable, so all this hand wangling that they've had CCP change the game to suit the opposite of their stated aims is ridiculous.
Simply, show me a single post, anywhere, at any time, where a single member of a "large alliance" has asked for this change because it benefits them ... or otherwise complained the Inferno system hurts their goals. In fact, simpler, try to find a member of a "large alliance" posting about the Inferno changes without mention about how well it is working FOR them currently.
You can't, all these statements that it's "what they wanted" are coming solely from the words of one person with a very very very long standing grudge with the "large alliance" he is trying to slander by whipping a gamechange mechanic into something it's not.
Please, stop it. It is complete lunacy.
I don't think the 1.1 changes are the *final* solution to wardecs in EvE, and that is what we should be discussing and not fabricating interest groups that don't exist. - "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 |
|
Erik Finnegan
Polytechnique Gallenteenne
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 12:03:00 -
[621] - Quote
I totally think that a wardec should be allowed to backlash in the way Inferno 1.0 allows it : mutual war and allies on the side of each party.
You could thus call the wardec challenge that "team superfriends" will prevail ! |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
50
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 12:04:00 -
[622] - Quote
lol why would goons or any large alliance care the f*ck about wardecs? There almost 24/7 wardec'd anyway, thats what alt-corps are for, hauling our **** to lowsec and nullsec to get it to where it needs to go and bypassing wardecs... The majority of nullsec could give a rats a$$ about the wardec system. |
Saint Akcent
The Investment Bankers Guild
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 12:10:00 -
[623] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:
GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
^^^ All this really dont need if get agressor ability to surrender mutual war at automatically calculated price based lets say.... at difference btw agressor and defender members count. 9000 wardecs 100. 100 makes war mutual. Surrender cost = 50mil + mod(9000-100)*1mil isk = 8950mil to defender wallet :) everyone happy |
Eref Ataru
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 12:46:00 -
[624] - Quote
I believe that Mercs, and Small corp pile-ons can exist side by side. The examples given have been far too specific, i.e. only 1 scenario heavily looked in to, Merc's should be hired, to accomplish a specific task, Destroy this Pos, inflict this much damage to this corp, but Merc's shouldnt be looking at getting into long scale warfare. Thats not the role of a Merc.
It has been mentioned that when the CSM voted on this they voted in favour of changes, but that it wasnt unanimous, I would love to see how each CSM voted, and what the options were, to be sure that my CSM rep is representing the views of its constituency as elected to do.
If CCP arent concerned with creating a "Fair" fight, why do they Rebalance ships/modules etc? Is it because they see that these are overpowered and therefore arent working as intended? But a stupidly unbalanced wardec of 9000 vs 100, with a cost of 50 Million vs 500 Million is working as intended? The answer to the 10:1 isnt Merc's, as much as you want it to be. Its player created content, "you want to fight me?, ok let me just see if I can get a few friends, to even the odds" as what happened in this case.
The fact is the Wardec change, actually prohibits combat and ship losses. If a corp gets wardeced and the odds are so heavily stacked they have no chance of winning, they simply will stay docked.
If CCP put themselves in the situation of Jade, what would they of done as CEO of a corp which is facing insurmountable odds, would you have dared to undock, cower in the face of adversity? Jade decided to do the opposite, actively encourage conflict get as many people as they could to help them, and this is apparently the system not working as intended. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1326
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 12:48:00 -
[625] - Quote
Something interesting happened today, I was surprised by a carebear. These are the words of a small 4man corp who were wardecced by Goonswarm for writing terrible posts about Mittens on a blog. Regarding the 1.1 changes, of course:
Mabrick wrote:Now, before you get yourself all worked up because CCP is favoring Goonswarm again, think it through. They NEED to make these changes. That little mutual war-dec dog-pile loop-hole isn't just usable to exact revenge on Goonswarm (or Test.) It can be used against every mercenary corporation that ever wanted to make a living from being mercenaries. And though you may find it odd for a carebear to say, they deserve the right to earn a living too. Frankly, mercenaries are some of the hardest working people I know. Dog-piling them because you don't like their chosen profession is no better than The Mittani sending out Death Squads because he doesn't like bad press from a high-sec carebear.
So CCP has to draw a line and the system has to be the same for everyone. There cannot be two separate war declaration systems - one for Goon size "aggressors" and one for everyone else.
This guy has managed to look beyond "how does this affect me?" and looked at the game as a larger whole. A lot of people in this thread could learn from this example. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2115
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 13:44:00 -
[626] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: "... So CCP has to draw a line and the system has to be the same for everyone. There cannot be two separate war declaration systems - one for Goon size "aggressors" and one for everyone else." ->This guy has managed to look beyond "how does this affect me?" and looked at the game as a larger whole. A lot of people in this thread could learn from this example.
Problem is he (like you Khanh'rhh) are still not really seeing the point here. This is not (and never has) been about making two seperate war declaration systems. Its about a single declaration and ally system that scales appropriately, allows attackers and defenders a competitive playing field and works for any size of war from the tiniest 20vs20 up to the 9000 vs 100 (+38 ally) dogpile.
The simple solution I have proposed (defender allies are billed for only when the defensive coalition grows larger than the attacker) resolves the issue. Nobody thus far has been able to tell us convincingly why this is a bad idea.
Soundwave's attempt was "eve isn't fair, wardecs are not supposed to be balanced." But that cuts both ways. If Eve isn't fair and wardecs are not supposed to be balanced then WHY can't the defender sometimes turn the table on the attacker and bring a huge boatload of allies into the war and gain the advantage for a change? If there is no automatic right to fairness and balance then why are things being altered to ensure that only the Attacker gets protected in the new system.
The sad reality is that to Soundwaves vision wardecs ARE BALANCED, (they just happen to be balanced to advantage a large alliance attacker only.)
This argument has gone on and on because nobody is really providing meaningful critique of the proposed solution from the other side.
We've had it confirmed that the CSM was universally opposed to this wardec change. Alekseyev Karrde says it does absolutely nothing for the merc profession. The only people here defending are a subset of those people in the camp that are benefited by it (large alliances involved) or Soundwave on the grounds that "eve is neither fair nor balanced."
What I'd like really is for somebody to stand up and say "okay this is my idea, I was the one who pushed for it and this is why."
Because currently we're reading that the CSM disowns it. General player feedback is negative. Nobody (not even you Khan'hrrn) believes it will help the merc profession.
So who the heck is driving this change and will they please stop.
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! |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
230
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 13:47:00 -
[627] - Quote
Will the updated lighting make the Amarr ships look better? like this thread if you answer so I'll know to come back and check On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent, It was a sun-á |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
586
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 13:50:00 -
[628] - Quote
Lyron-Baktos wrote:Will the updated lighting make the Amarr ships look better? like this thread if you answer so I'll know to come back and check
Developers don't "like" posts as a rule. Subscribe to the thread or keep an eye on "Dev Posts" CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1327
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 13:57:00 -
[629] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Its about a single declaration and ally system that scales appropriately, allows attackers and defenders a competitive playing field No, that is what YOU want it to be about. CCP and the CSM have stated they do not want that to be the aim, you have. The changes are to stop the current problems NOT fix the ones you are talking about. This has been explained to you over and over and you willfully ignore these posts.
It's now 25 pages of you using whatever ammunition you can imagine/create to try to push your agenda and has absolutely nothing to do with the wardec system.
Quote:The simple solution I have proposed (defender allies are billed for only when the defensive coalition grows larger than the attacker) resolves the issue It resolves the issue which only exists in your head. Other things that fix the issue: you can stop thinking about it.
Quote:Nobody thus far has been able to tell us convincingly why this is a bad idea Yes, Soundwave did. He explicitly stated that the aim of your system is incongruous with the actual aim of wardecs. Tough break and all.
Quote:If Eve isn't fair and wardecs are not supposed to be balanced then WHY can't the defender sometimes turn the table on the attacker and bring a huge boatload of allies into the war and gain the advantage for a change? Because, lets face it, the attacker and defender here are GSF and you. Your reasoning doesn't extend beyond the "9000 vs 100" example and so is completely irrelevant to wardecs as a whole.
Quote:So who the heck is driving this change and will they please stop CCP, because a LOT of people have said that the dogpile system is completely breaking the merc trade.
You can very well say that 1.1 isn't the perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that 1.0 should stay.
Your solution doesn't work for small groups (the ones actually in the merc trade) but does ~just happen~ to work for you. Yet you still seem to think anyone will see it as anything other than pushing an agenda. - "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 |
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1830
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:10:00 -
[630] - Quote
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. Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2119
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:13:00 -
[631] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: CCP, because a LOT of people have said that the dogpile system is completely breaking the merc trade. You can very well say that 1.1 isn't the perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that 1.0 should stay.
It isn't just me saying it. Its the entirety of the CSM who have told us they rejected this change. The logical thing is to go back to the drawing board and come up with a new idea for resolving the problem they wanted to solve. Foisting the 1.1 change that does nothing to solve the problem and purely provides additional protection to the largest alliances in the game is just foolish.
Listen, nobody was really convinced by Soundwave's answers yesterday. It was something of a poorly thought out blathering point of ideology if anything. Eve is not fair! Sure sure, lets leave that kind of thing to the marketing dudes, the reality is that the game needs balance in order to keep conflict competitive.
If balance was really such a minor concern then develop teams would not be spending their time finding roles for terrible ships and fixing problems with everything from FW to incursions to nullsec sovereignty.
Khanh'rhh wrote:Your solution doesn't work for small groups (the ones actually in the merc trade) but does ~just happen~ to work for you. Yet you still seem to think anyone will see it as anything other than pushing an agenda.
You have thus far been completely unable to persuade that the solution I proposed would not work for small groups. Your attempts to the contrary were extensively denconstructed by other respondants to this thread in fact.
As far as most people now responding to this thread can see the "allies are charged if the defending coalition is bigger than the attacker" is a pretty logical change that will have the impact of restricting dogpiling on a smaller force by a massive defending blob.
That was the problem expressed. This is a solution.
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! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2469
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:17:00 -
[632] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:I am not opposed to this change, therefore the CSM can not be "universally opposed" to it.
Jade Constantine wrote: It isn't just me saying it. Its the entirety of the CSM who have told us they rejected this change.
/emote facepalms with a deep sigh
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2119
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:17:00 -
[633] - Quote
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.
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.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2119
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:21:00 -
[634] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:I am not opposed to this change, therefore the CSM can not be "universally opposed" to it. Jade Constantine wrote: It isn't just me saying it. Its the entirety of the CSM who have told us they rejected this change. /emote facepalms with a deep sigh
Listen Hans ... Get your act together seriously. The CSM on this thread is all over the place. Spend less time trying to forum warrior the indefensible to cover up the gaps in your collective stories and more time getting this sorted out. I'm tired of seeing your facepalms and sighs.
If I'm told by the CSM member with the greatest knowledge of wardecs and merc profession on the CSM that at the summit 2 weeks ago
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: 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 I go on to reference this post. I don't expect to be called a liar by another CSM member trying innept damage control a couple of posts later.
Sort it out.
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! |
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
210
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:22:00 -
[635] - Quote
Unfortunately CCP/ISD removed my earlier dumpstering of Jade, probably because the burns were so sick that they thought he might actually need to be hospitalized. I'll recap my earlier argument in a way less harmful to the fantasy land that Jade has created for himself.
The new system ensures that the people who ally you in a war dec are your actual friends who are joining because they are there to help you. The current dog pile mechanic is just being used as a way for corps whose entire business is wardeccing to not have to pay for their wardecs. The person who is accepting these allies can do so with zero cost or fear of repercussions. What other things can you do in Eve that have absolutely no risk or cost (hell even ship spinning costs time)?
How about some constructive suggestions instead. If people are so opposed tot he current change, what if we bring back the dogpile free war mechanic, but instead flag all allies as a having the same aggression rules with each other as corpmates. Think of all the intrigue and emergent gameplay that it would create. If you truly trust these people then you could amount a group of people that could challenge a large alliance, but if you are just accepting any riff raff, then you'll have to deal with getting awox'd 23/7. It's not biased at all, 0.0 groups already have to filter their allies to minimize awox'ing and even then it is an accepted way of life. This would just be introducing a similar risk system to people looking for allies in highsec. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3319
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:30:00 -
[636] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Listen Hans ... Get your act together seriously. The CSM on this thread is all over the place. Spend less time trying to forum warrior the indefensible to cover up the gaps in your collective stories and more time getting this sorted out. I'm tired of seeing your facepalms and sighs.
Jade, while blaming other people for you saying obviously and provably incorrect things is at least a novel tactic it is one that nobody is going to believe, ever.
Just retreat into your shame hole like you did on your "goonswarm leadership is afraid of me" claim, where you got mocked and called out on it and your silence in response to calls to elaborate was deafening. While it's humiliating to you, you at least avoid adding to the humiliation. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2120
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:31:00 -
[637] - Quote
michael boltonIII wrote:The new system ensures that the people who ally you in a war dec are your actual friends who are joining because they are there to help you. The current dog pile mechanic is just being used as a way for corps whose entire business is wardeccing to not have to pay for their wardecs. The person who is accepting these allies can do so with zero cost or fear of repercussions. What other things can you do in Eve that have absolutely no risk or cost (hell even ship spinning costs time)?
Would it be fair to say that you have been pressuring for this apparently very unpopular change through your CSM rep?
Seriously, I'm getting confused where Test and Goonswarm stands on all this. Either you don't care about the allied wardecs and its all "more targets great!" or you do care and you think that you're in trouble.
So tell me how its unfair (on your guys) that a defender entity thousands of pilots smaller than your organization can add allies to a defensive war without paying multiple times your declaration fee for the pleasure?
michael boltonIII wrote:How about some constructive suggestions instead. If people are so opposed tot he current change, what if we bring back the dogpile free war mechanic, but instead flag all allies as a having the same aggression rules with each other as corpmates. Think of all the intrigue and emergent gameplay that it would create. If you truly trust these people then you could amount a group of people that could challenge a large alliance, but if you are just accepting any riff raff, then you'll have to deal with getting awox'd 23/7. It's not biased at all, 0.0 groups already have to filter their allies to minimize awox'ing and even then it is an accepted way of life. This would just be introducing a similar risk system to people looking for allies in highsec.
So are you basically asking all the various wardec allies that join for free can shoot each other freely in concord space? I think you'd need some work on the overview so they could decide whether they were shooting the target they allied against or each other.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2120
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:34:00 -
[638] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: Jade, while blaming other people for you saying obviously and provably incorrect things is at least a novel tactic it is one that nobody is going to believe, ever.
You obviously missed this :
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: 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. .
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:I am not opposed to this change, therefore the CSM can not be "universally opposed" to it. Jade Constantine wrote: It isn't just me saying it. Its the entirety of the CSM who have told us they rejected this change. /emote facepalms with a deep sigh
Try to keep up.
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! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3319
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:35:00 -
[639] - Quote
jade the people who support you are you, the voices in your head, and issler |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
586
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:36:00 -
[640] - Quote
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. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3319
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:37:00 -
[641] - Quote
oh i guess if goliath deleted the post this responded to i should erase this one! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3319
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:42:00 -
[642] - Quote
Has any nerf to speed-tanking FW complexes been looked at? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2470
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:43:00 -
[643] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Would it be fair to say that you have been pressuring for this apparently very unpopular change through your CSM rep?
Gimme a break Jade, we know better than to talk to MB3. You're giving him far too much credit. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
211
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:47:00 -
[644] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Would it be fair to say that you have been pressuring for this apparently very unpopular change through your CSM rep?
Seriously, I'm getting confused where Test and Goonswarm stands on all this. Either you don't care about the allied wardecs and its all "more targets great!" or you do care and you think that you're in trouble.
So tell me how its unfair (on your guys) that a defender entity thousands of pilots smaller than your organization can add allies to a defensive war without paying multiple times your declaration fee for the pleasure?
I actually don't really talk to our CSM rep at all, he's a Romeo Squad Officer and I'm one of the Zulu Squad Officers (it's a cultural thing you don't really have to understand it).
I'm saying that the current dog pile mechanic doesn't make sense from an all around general design style of Eve. In Eve there is nothing you can do that doesn't cost money or accept a risk. Currently there is zero cost or risk to you accepting an unlimited number of allies, this does not fit with the general design ideas of eve. You conveniently skipped over this question in my first post.
Jade Constantine wrote: So are you basically asking all the various wardec allies that join for free can shoot each other freely in concord space? I think you'd need some work on the overview so they could decide whether they were shooting the target they allied against or each other.
The UI doesn't need any work at all for this. Your allies would be able to aggress you without concord responding just like people in your corp can aggress you without concord responding. In 0.0 I don't know or see that I'm getting awox'd until a ship who is blue on my overview, and up until that point in every way my friend, points me and opens up a can of 1400mm howitzers. The only thing I see is his bracket outline turn red.
If you actually trust your allies then there is no problem, but if you're just accepting anybody without checking them out at all then you are completely open to corps who have loose membership restrictions or even entire confederate corps out just to awox. This also has the added bonus of encouraging corps who want to be the ally of a dec'd group to check them out as well and charge a bounty, to help ensure that they won't be immediately awox'd as well. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2124
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:53:00 -
[645] - Quote
michael boltonIII wrote: I'm saying that the current dog pile mechanic doesn't make sense from an all around general design style of Eve. In Eve there is nothing you can do that doesn't cost money or accept a risk. Currently there is zero cost or risk to you accepting an unlimited number of allies, this does not fit with the general design ideas of eve. You conveniently skipped over this question in my first post.
I think you should read the Inferno war devblog a bit closer. Any allies we bring into a war have their successes and failures recorded on our permanent war statistics. If we hired nothing but a bunch of innept clowns then our space e-pride would be dangerously wounded and people wouldn't take us seriously in future wars.
But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.
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! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3322
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 14:59:00 -
[646] - Quote
Jade, in the spirit of you wanting to be taken seriously, I'm still waiting for you to back up your claim that goonswarm leadership is actually scared of you (but average goons are not). I'll even accept vaugely plausible, not even insist on actually plausible claims if it will help you get through that writer's block on the subject.
You may also wish to describe who on earth would take you seriously in a wardec. |
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
211
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:00:00 -
[647] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:michael boltonIII wrote: I'm saying that the current dog pile mechanic doesn't make sense from an all around general design style of Eve. In Eve there is nothing you can do that doesn't cost money or accept a risk. Currently there is zero cost or risk to you accepting an unlimited number of allies, this does not fit with the general design ideas of eve. You conveniently skipped over this question in my first post. I think you should read the Inferno war devblog a bit closer. Any allies we bring into a war have their successes and failures recorded on our permanent war statistics. If we hired nothing but a bunch of innept clowns then our space e-pride would be dangerously wounded and people wouldn't take us seriously in future wars. But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.
I would caution that ~honour~ is not really a viable enough stat to base a game mechanic around since it not quantifiable in any way.
Also, There is a world of difference between virtually no risk and ZERO risk. If I'm mining in a hulk, aligned to a safe pos, and ready to warp if someone enters local, then I have virutally no risk. If i want to fly around and pvp in a rifter, it costs me virtually no money to lose it. I cannot think of a single activity in game where I can gain something for myself or my alliance with ZERO (as in absolutely none) risk or cost aside from the current dogpile mechanic.
If you can come up with something other than getting a high score on the ship spin counter, then I am all ears. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3322
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:09:00 -
[648] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.
Sure it does. You could hire actually good mercs, who have proven their reputation before and shown they're worth the money. That's the whole point of the ally system, after all. That will, however, require you to put thought in, and make choices. That, you seem extremely adverse to doing. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:16:00 -
[649] - Quote
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. Jade, you made Kelduum mad-post. I ... this is really a first.
You have descended to the very bottom rung of lunacy. - "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 |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3323
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:18:00 -
[650] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Would it be fair to say that you have been pressuring for this apparently very unpopular change through your CSM rep?
Gimme a break Jade, we know better than to talk to MB3. You're giving him far too much credit. Hans, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the speed-tanking issue. It's one of those things that seems obviously broken to me, but maybe as a non-FW guy I don't know why thats not a bad thing. |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:25:00 -
[651] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:You have thus far been completely unable to persuade that the solution I proposed would not work for small groups. Your attempts to the contrary were extensively denconstructed by other respondants to this thread in fact. Your solution is terrible and I am frankly amazed you keep bleating on such a half thought through idea; your proposal basically ensures that every war fought will (for free) always have equal numbers on either side, regardless of SP, skill or the location of those pilots.
You haven't once explained why this is a good thing or should be the design aim of wardecs. Surely if I recruit 80 PVPers into my corp and my opponent can only muster 20 friends, that he shouldn't get a free 60man pass? Why is this, at all, good?
Explain why your proposal works for small groups. Explain how and why it works for anyone other than yourself.
Find me anyone who thinks always having equal sides to a war is a good thing and should be the design aim. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2125
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:25:00 -
[652] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.
Sure it does. You could hire actually good mercs, who have proven their reputation before and shown they're worth the money. That's the whole point of the ally system, after all. That will, however, require you to put thought in, and make choices. That, you seem extremely adverse to doing.
Where exactly is the balance of risk in a system where a 9000 man alliance has to pay 50m a week and a small alliance has to pay billions to attract a "good merc" who is nonetheless completely incapable of ending the war.
Answer ... well, there is none.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:26:00 -
[653] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Weaselior wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.
Sure it does. You could hire actually good mercs, who have proven their reputation before and shown they're worth the money. That's the whole point of the ally system, after all. That will, however, require you to put thought in, and make choices. That, you seem extremely adverse to doing. Where exactly is the balance of risk in a system where you have to 50m a week and I have to pay billions to attract a "good merc". Answer ... well, there is none. We're still talking about you.
Show us a proposal which isn't me, myself and Goonswarm and you might start getting somewhere. - "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 |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:27:00 -
[654] - 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. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2471
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:34:00 -
[655] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Hans, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the speed-tanking issue. It's one of those things that seems obviously broken to me, but maybe as a non-FW guy I don't know why thats not a bad thing.
It is. Speed-tanking blows. Unfortunately its a tricky design problem because anything that substantially cuts back on speed tanking interferes with plexes as a PvP venue. In other words, no one wants to engage an enemy backed up by a swarm of ewar-laden NPCs. In the long run a complete overhaul on the NPC AI is the best solution, in the short term "quick fixes" can often offer as many additional problems as solutions.
Currently the plan is to remove e-war from the plexes, which solves the problem of discouraging PvP but temporarily allows speed tanking to *increase* rather than decrease. Proposed ideas have included forcing the killing of all the NPC's to begin running down the timer, but I'm extremely hesitant to MANDATE PvE in what to me is essentially a PvP-centric feature. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Dominus Alterai
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
75
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:37:00 -
[656] - Quote
Haquer wrote: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.
Change = Solution. Good try though. Illigitimate son of Korako "The Rabbit" Kosakami.
Ship miner/corpse collector extrordinaire. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3324
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:40:00 -
[657] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Where exactly is the balance of risk in a system where a 9000 man alliance has to pay 50m a week and a small alliance has to pay billions to attract a "good merc" who is nonetheless completely incapable of ending the war.
Answer ... well, there is none.
you persist in your childish demands that everything be fair despite it being explained to you that fairness is not a design philosophy
the legitimate goal you seek - to be able to obtain assistance - is still in the design and now requires actual thought instead of "i will mash accept on all ally offers". you want it to be free, and effortless, well that's a bad design philosophy and why nobody takes your whining seriously. it's pure issler-like "balance the game around helping me" and nothing else
i am still, of course, waiting on my answer regarding what on earth goonswarm leadership has to fear from you: your silence is deafening |
Tanaka Sekigahara
United Space Marine Corp
114
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:40:00 -
[658] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem. 1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight. 2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew. 3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave). 4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation. I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that. Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired. This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another. Can you see anything wrong with this solution? 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. 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.
Why would you want to balance a fight.? Fair question, let me answer.
ANYONE with ANY knowledge of war, or warfare ( being different from a " fight", singular) knows that when 2 forces are fairly evenly balanced, they fight. when they are not, they do not fight.It's very simple, really. |
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
892
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:42:00 -
[659] - Quote
Yo Jade 9000 goons is full and all but when's the last time where you saw more than 3 of them in your system?
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:43:00 -
[660] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Weaselior wrote:Hans, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the speed-tanking issue. It's one of those things that seems obviously broken to me, but maybe as a non-FW guy I don't know why thats not a bad thing. It is. Speed-tanking blows. Unfortunately its a tricky design problem because anything that substantially cuts back on speed tanking interferes with plexes as a PvP venue. In other words, no one wants to engage an enemy backed up by a swarm of ewar-laden NPCs. In the long run a complete overhaul on the NPC AI is the best solution, in the short term "quick fixes" can often offer as many additional problems as solutions. Currently the plan is to remove e-war from the plexes, which solves the problem of discouraging PvP but temporarily allows speed tanking to *increase* rather than decrease. Proposed ideas have included forcing the killing of all the NPC's to begin running down the timer, but I'm extremely hesitant to MANDATE PvE in what to me is essentially a PvP-centric feature. One possible idea is to simply have the NPCs disable EWAR on a player when player EWAR from an opposing faction ship is in effect. In this situation, you also block LP from being generated in the PLEX (i.e. the PLEX shuts down negative and positive effects whilst PVP is occuring withiin it).
This would both enable PVP without NPC interference and stop players gaming the system by using alts in other militia.
I'm not a game programmer, but it seems that adding some conditional situations to AI isn't a massive undertaking, it's simply "if player EWAR = true set EWAR=O" (or whatever it is actually written as). - "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 |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3324
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:45:00 -
[661] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:I'm not a game programmer, but it seems that adding some conditional situations to AI isn't a massive undertaking, it's simply "if player EWAR = true set EWAR=O" (or whatever it is actually written as). as a general rule things are a hell of a lot more complex than you would think
for example: this could heavily add to server load by requiring the npc ai's to poll all ships on the grid which they may not be doing already |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:46:00 -
[662] - Quote
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:ANYONE with ANY knowledge of war, or warfare ( being different from a " fight", singular) knows that when 2 forces are fairly evenly balanced, they fight. when they are not, they do not fight.It's very simple, really. Thankyou military historian sir! o7o7o7
Can you tell me then - based on this "fact" - why the Iraq war happened?
Or the Gulf War? Or the Iraqi invasions of Kuwait that lead to it? Or World War I? Or World War II? Or the Cold War? Or ....
Wait.
Mister military history genius, when has a war ever existed simply because both sides were even? Name one? - "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 |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:47:00 -
[663] - Quote
michael boltonIII wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:So are you basically asking all the various wardec allies that join for free can shoot each other freely in concord space? I think you'd need some work on the overview so they could decide whether they were shooting the target they allied against or each other.
The UI doesn't need any work at all for this. Your allies would be able to aggress you without concord responding just like people in your corp can aggress you without concord responding. In 0.0 I don't know or see that I'm getting awox'd until a ship who is blue on my overview, and up until that point in every way my friend, points me and opens up a can of 1400mm howitzers. The only thing I see is his bracket outline turn red. If you actually trust your allies then there is no problem, but if you're just accepting anybody without checking them out at all then you are completely open to corps who have loose membership restrictions or even entire confederate corps out just to awox. This also has the added bonus of encouraging corps who want to be the ally of a dec'd group to check them out as well and charge a bounty, to help ensure that they won't be immediately awox'd as well.
This would be full of win. A very Eve mechanic really. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:49:00 -
[664] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:I'm not a game programmer, but it seems that adding some conditional situations to AI isn't a massive undertaking, it's simply "if player EWAR = true set EWAR=O" (or whatever it is actually written as). as a general rule things are a hell of a lot more complex than you would think for example: this could heavily add to server load by requiring the npc ai's to poll all ships on the grid which they may not be doing already Oh, yes this I completely understand, so in reality I'm questioning whether such a logic can actually be applied to the EvE code.
In my head the application of player EWAR toggles the state of the PLEX (one change) and it stopping toggles it back. The NPCs would simply check whether they were in PLEX state 1 or 0 and their behaviour would be A or B ... but I really don't know if that works on a design level here (the PLEX would be an environmental variable, much like say a WH). - "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 |
Jun Kuo
Twilight Labs Unsung Voices
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:50:00 -
[665] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem. 1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight. 2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew. 3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave). 4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation. I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that. Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired. This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another. Can you see anything wrong with this solution? 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. 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.
Yes, sure.
Keep up with that and EVE will lose more players, the current situation does not allow it.
I don't give a damn if you are a DEV or ****, I can see your simpleton mind is far behind a child's mind. The so-called "PvPers" never want a fair, challenging fight, they always want easy and coward work, you endorse this behavior.
The mittani (I wright his name this way because he is small like that) example is a perfect model to see what stupid opinions like yours make for EVE : big douchebags with no limit, no decency and with not even a shred of honor.
No to mention the whole inferiority complex thing.
Why don't you just post that all the smaller players in EVE should just get ganked by PvPers (AKA noob pirates) and then suicide in their own lack of "skills"?
Stop ruinning CCP's image more than it is already. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:55:00 -
[666] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:ANYONE with ANY knowledge of war, or warfare ( being different from a " fight", singular) knows that when 2 forces are fairly evenly balanced, they fight. when they are not, they do not fight.It's very simple, really. Thankyou military historian sir! o7o7o7 Can you tell me then - based on this "fact" - why the Iraq war happened? Or the Gulf War? Or the Iraqi invasions of Kuwait that lead to it? Or World War I? Or World War II? Or the Cold War? Or .... Wait. Mister military history genius, when has a war ever existed simply because both sides were even? Name one?
No one would purposefully fight a war that they thought was an even match. That would be patently stupid, like purposefully walking into a meat grinder. Even fights end in the destruction of both sides. No one wins. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3324
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:58:00 -
[667] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Weaselior wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:I'm not a game programmer, but it seems that adding some conditional situations to AI isn't a massive undertaking, it's simply "if player EWAR = true set EWAR=O" (or whatever it is actually written as). as a general rule things are a hell of a lot more complex than you would think for example: this could heavily add to server load by requiring the npc ai's to poll all ships on the grid which they may not be doing already Oh, yes this I completely understand, so in reality I'm questioning whether such a logic can actually be applied to the EvE code. In my head the application of player EWAR toggles the state of the PLEX (one change) and it stopping toggles it back. The NPCs would simply check whether they were in PLEX state 1 or 0 and their behaviour would be A or B ... but I really don't know if that works on a design level here (the PLEX would be an environmental variable, much like say a WH). I suspect the code to do that cleanly doesnt exist so that would be a massive change compared to doing things like adding stasis towers (you could even do these near the warpin so they are easily destroyed) or other changes that require little coding time. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1392
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:59:00 -
[668] - Quote
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem. 1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight. 2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew. 3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave). 4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation. I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that. Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired. This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another. Can you see anything wrong with this solution? 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. 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. Why would you want to balance a fight.? Fair question, let me answer. ANYONE with ANY knowledge of war, or warfare ( being different from a " fight", singular) knows that when 2 forces are fairly evenly balanced, they fight. when they are not, they do not fight.It's very simple, really.
If your point is that all wars fought are fought on equal terms, then let's just say that we completely disagree. I'd say the exact opposite, wars are fought when one side feels they have an advantage. Engaging in "fair fights" is about as far from human instinctive behavior as it gets, as soon as we're in a scenario where you have something to lose.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1133
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:00:00 -
[669] - Quote
I just find it silly it cost 500 million ISK to war dec 90 dudes.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Arec Bardwin
Perkone Caldari State
636
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:03:00 -
[670] - Quote
CCP caving to Goon whining is hilarious. Goons need to Harden The **** Up and CCP should stop licking Mitten's balls immediately. |
|
Kyshonuba
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:36:00 -
[671] - 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.
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.
If your point is that all wars fought are fought on equal terms, then let's just say that we completely disagree. I'd say the exact opposite, wars are fought when one side feels they have an advantage. Engaging in "fair fights" is about as far from human instinctive behavior as it gets, as soon as we're in a scenario where you have something to lose.
I can see you getting some negative credit for these sort of anti-fairness statements. Since Eve is a game and CCP is an entainement seller it's all about "content" so its in CCP's very interest to give the content creater (aka attacker) some kind of advantage. Everybody's knows how hard it is to be defender in basketball because the audience and therefore the gamerules favour the attacking party. |
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:37:00 -
[672] - Quote
Man this topic has provided some gripping reading which I've burned through at a fever pitch. Thanks for that.
So unintentional consequences to gameplay revealed themselves on TQ (because a large, dominant power alliance probably doesn't exist on Sisi,) in that the new unlimited allies change to the wardec system is causing the borders around Goon territory to blob red.
Whether changing it back quickly is being done to help mercs being overlooked due to preferentiality being marginalized or because it benefits a current, in-game power alliance isn't even relevant to the issue imo. That the changes unintentionally made it easier for small corps to band together to wipe out a large one must be wonderful but that wasn't their intent. CCP would have little interest in making it more difficult for alliances to maintain power.
It's easy to confuse balance with fairness. But they are oceans apart in meaning. Competitive pvp gameplay isn't meant to be fair.
With that being said, as someone who has no feelings either way, I do wish I were able to see both futures in this scenario. If all of high-sec were to hold hands in a massive, interconnected web of unlimited ally, hand-holding, kum-ba-ya'ing do-gooders and actually managed to wipe the entire Goon alliance off the map - what happens then?
I don't know, but I think it would be some compelling player-generated content.
I'll say one thing about Inferno. You guys sure named it aptly.
Yonis Kador Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:41:00 -
[673] - 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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2127
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:44:00 -
[674] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: If your point is that all wars fought are fought on equal terms, then let's just say that we completely disagree. I'd say the exact opposite, wars are fought when one side feels they have an advantage. Engaging in "fair fights" is about as far from human instinctive behavior as it gets, as soon as we're in a scenario where you have something to lose.
I think the point is in a game (which this is) people will be far more likely to fight when they feel they have a competitive fighting chance. If people do not feel they have a competitive fighting chance then they will simply opt not to fight.
The challenge for you as a game designer is to implement a war system that is not mechanically-unbalanced in favour of the attacker because unless you can achieve that then wars will continue to be see as simple yawny-griefing decs and people will not take them seriously. By allowing the defender to take steps to fight back you will make wars competitive and when they are competitive people will fight them in earnest.
Obviously nothing in Eve is objectively "fair" a huge alliance still has all the advantages over a small alliance. They can offer the directors of the small alliance 10b isk to disband the alliance, they can hire superstar pvp corps to join their alliance, they can camp stations with 100 tornados etc. They still have all the cards. But by allowing the Defender to enlarge the war and even the field a little more you turn them from helpless victims into people who just might have a fighting chance and start shooting back.
I think you are making a profound mistake Soundwave by confusing the ideology and marketing spin of Eve "nothing is fair its a cold hard universe HTFU noobs!" with the need to program game systems which are not stupidly unbalanced in favour of the people with the biggest alliances.
Sure Eve is an unkind unforgivening brutal PVP game.
But it is also a game where a noob in a frigate can point a dreadnaught and make a difference in a fleet battle. Its always been a game of extremes where massive wealth and power exists but where the little guy can use clever tactics and systems to fight back.
Eve is a game where entire constellations of nullsec can be stopped from sanctum-farming because an anarchist in a cloaking bomber has been sighted in local. If you brought your "eve ain't fair the big should triumph" ideology there you should be giving 0.0 alliances their own concord and cloak detectors.
But no, Eve is the Eve of the Butterfly Effect video, the I was there, video, which is not JUST about the strong always dominating the week but is also about the little guy making a difference.
By pushing through this Wardec change you are removing a option for the little guys to make a difference and just bringing significant advantage to the big guys. You are the one meddling with the sandbox and intervening in wars Soundwave. Inferno had found its great player led feature in the collective defense against 0.0 bloc "griefing" - but you are taking that away.
In essence you are nerve-stabling emergent gameplay and removing variety from war-fighting strategy.
I say step back and think about this please. Don't kneejerk nerf a great feature of Inferno. Be the CCP that allowed Burn Jita to happen without interfering. Let this war system run in the wild and see where it takes us when the players are given freedom in the sandbox.
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! |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
186
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:46:00 -
[675] - Quote
Instead of iterations on the wardec system while waiting for the merc marketplace to be put in correctly, why not work on the merc marketplace, then iterate on the wardec system? It seems once an actual merc marketplace is set up, you'll just have to go back and make further changes to the wardec system to try and shoehorn in the mercs.
As far as people dog-piling onto a war, doesn't the aggressor still have the option to not pay, or surrender if the terms are no longer to their liking? I realize it might look bad if XYZ surrender to ABC because they're losing 400 to 1 in ship losses, while outnumbering ABC by 800:1, but as the aggressor that's the chance you take. Iraq didn't do well vs Kuwait once Kuwait brought in allies (to throw out the real world analogies everyone loves).
Either the system needs to be structured, and since it is a CONCORD sponsored system, it fits with the lore to structure the wars, or it needs to be totally unstructured, and outside the purview of CONCORD. It just seems to be on the path that it's going, you're going to just end up with MERC alliance with every merc corp in, because it's the only way they're going to get hired at all. Most high sec wars will stop altogether, because they won't want to face MERC.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3332
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:50:00 -
[676] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:But by allowing the Defender to enlarge the war and even the field a little more you turn them from helpless victims into people who just might have a fighting chance and start shooting back.
I've cut through your word salad, once again, to illuminate the point you keep lying about.
You're free to hire mercs who can give you a fighting chance: in fact, Soundwave is trying to make mercs a viable profession. You're not demanding the tools you need - you will have them. You're demanding they be free and idiot proof. That's what this is all about at its core: you just don't want to pay the piper. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2128
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:59:00 -
[677] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:But by allowing the Defender to enlarge the war and even the field a little more you turn them from helpless victims into people who just might have a fighting chance and start shooting back.
I've cut through your word salad, once again, to illuminate the point you keep lying about. You're free to hire mercs who can give you a fighting chance: in fact, Soundwave is trying to make mercs a viable profession. You're not demanding the tools you need - you will have them. You're demanding they be free and idiot proof. That's what this is all about at its core: you just don't want to pay the piper.
No you are ignoring the fact there is no pretense of gameplay balance where the attacker in a 9000 man alliance must pay 50m per week while the defender in a 100 man alliance would need to pay billions per week to attract a competant merc corp to fight a war that they have absolutely no chance (or indeed mechanism) of bringing to a conclusion. Especially since inferno 1.1 also nerfs the mutual system. The moment you bring in any ally (including your illustrious mercs) then it becomes effectively impossible to "win" the war because the attacker than just :forget: to pay the bill and escape at any time.
I have said this to you multiple times. I can only imagine you are now trolling. Suggesting the appropriate response to a 50m isk dec is to spend billions a week on mercs is simply a scam attempt.
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! |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:00:00 -
[678] - 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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2128
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:01:00 -
[679] - Quote
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.
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! |
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:04:00 -
[680] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: If your point is that all wars fought are fought on equal terms, then let's just say that we completely disagree. I'd say the exact opposite, wars are fought when one side feels they have an advantage. Engaging in "fair fights" is about as far from human instinctive behavior as it gets, as soon as we're in a scenario where you have something to lose.
The question I have is why does the balance of power need to be in favor of the aggressor? You seem to want one side to be stronger but restricting the defender's ability to add allies means the person who's declaring war has a significant advantage.
I'll skip the disagreement in philosophy of running Eve because we both know we don't see eye to eye on what's best for the game. However lets talk about the crux of the matter; providing employment for mercenaries.
The statement was made that having unlimited free allies takes away from Merc employment and I can agree that people with friends won't have to use Mercs. I do disagree with having to pay Concord a fee to bring in an Ally. What is the point of playing an MMO if you are penalized for having friends? That is what this change seems to imply, groups of allied friends can't support each other without having to pay for the privilege of being friends.
The problem therefore is how to keep Mercs employed while at the same time allowing friends to help each other out. There are several options to consider.
1. Differentiate between Mercs and allys. Allow up to 10 allies to join for free and afterwards charge a fee. Still allows the defender to get some help but cuts down on mobs of unknown conscripts.
2. Do not have a set time limit for Ally participation, instead let the players decide how long they want to be part of the fight. It's supposed to be a sandbox so why not let the people agreeing to help out decide if they want to be involved for a week, two weeks, or longer. Options are better then having to conform to another person's standard.
3. Instead of vague goals like fight against someone for X amount of time make Mercs actually have to generate results to get paid. A Merc gets hired to kill 20 of the opposition and they don't get full payment until they've scored 20 kills. Maybe you hire them to kill a POS to get paid. The groups that get results will be known and more likely to be hired. Use a 50% pay up front, 50% upon completion to give Mercs some form of income but to also allow for times when the targets hole up or call in even more reinforcements.
4. Create a hiring board in game. Mercs can post what they are capable of doing, time frames they are available, and areas they are willing to operate in. Also allows job postings to be listed letting Merc groups know what work is out there. No war ded is required to review or hire from this page.
5. Allow anonymous hiring of Mercenaries. The Mercs can be the aggressor in a war creating another level of meta game to exist.
6. Have a list of top rated Merc corps on the hiring board.
The above changes would allow small alliances to still have allies without abusing the privilege. Mercs would have more tools to ply their trade, and could be used to hit specific targets when needed.
I think those changes would make wars more competitive for both parties while still allowing small groups the option of seeking help from friends. Mercs would have a role and be able to participate in their chosen profession.
P.S.- I applaud your concern to make sure different playstyles have the support needed to be a functional role in the game. How about taking a look at mining barges and giving them some additional tank options to make killing them require and equal amount of risk? A T2 mining barge shouldn't be prey to a T1 destroyer. Considering the costs involved a T2 barge should require something like a BS to take it out. A T1 barge should be looking at a BC level ship before worrying. Current game mechanics make it almost impossible to protect a mining vessel, even when a tank is used instead of mining modules. Having modules in game implies you want people to use them but having such a fragile vessel to begin with means the mining modules have to be ignored in order to fit a tank that probably want save you in the end anyway. I realize Eve isn't supposed to be fair, but why not put the requirement on the aggressor to work for a kill instead of making mining have no role in high sec. Sort of like Mercs wanting to play the game they way the enjoy too. |
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:04:00 -
[681] - 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. |
Eref Ataru
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:11:00 -
[682] - Quote
Let me just state, that I dont think the small corps are being represented in this thread, but that the core argument at the centre of the debate is that the question of how many corps we have to use to make up the attackers numbers, should not be punished and in the new system it is.
The new system will directly hinder any new merc corp starting up, I mean if they only have 10 members who in the right mind is going to hire them when they can go to a larger corp, pay the same Concord price for their help as 1 corp = 1 corp regardless of size. That just doesnt make sense?
I'd also like to add that many of the smaller corps in game are no doubt in support of Jades proposes but are perhaps too scared to voice their opinion in this thread for fear of reprocusions to their corp. So dont take the fact that it appears "Only Jade" because it isnt, I am truely disappointed that this kind of discussion wasnt resolved by the CSM as that is the ideal place for it, but to me again it highlights that whilst the CSM contains a heavy powerploc bias, you will never be able to true representation of the eve populace.
|
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:11:00 -
[683] - 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. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3336
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:12:00 -
[684] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: No you are ignoring the fact there is no pretense of gameplay balance where the attacker in a 9000 man alliance must pay 50m per week while the defender in a 100 man alliance would need to pay billions per week to attract a competant merc corp to fight a war that they have absolutely no chance (or indeed mechanism) of bringing to a conclusion. Especially since inferno 1.1 also nerfs the mutual system. The moment you bring in any ally (including your illustrious mercs) then it becomes effectively impossible to "win" the war because the attacker than just :forget: to pay the bill and escape at any time.
I have said this to you multiple times. I can only imagine you are now trolling. Suggesting the appropriate response to a 50m isk dec is to spend billions a week on mercs is simply a scam attempt.
Nonsense. You aren't being given a chance to "bring a war to a conclusion" because that is not an option for any side in highsec wars in EVE. If your wet dream came true and the attacker actually withdrew you can pay the mercs to wardec them. All of your complaints come down to "I don't want to pay money". Sorry, that's EVE. You're being given choices: you can fight on your own, you can recruit into your corp, you can surrender, you can hide, you can hire mercs. You keep acting as if you have no choices, but that's merely a result of your unwillingness to pay the costs of the choices you want. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3336
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:13:00 -
[685] - 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. aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3336
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:13:00 -
[686] - Quote
there have been about 4 weeks in the last five years goons could safely go in highsec |
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
893
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:15:00 -
[687] - Quote
Eref Ataru wrote:
I'd also like to add that many of the smaller corps in game are no doubt in support of Jades proposes but are perhaps too scared to voice their opinion in this thread for fear of reprocusions to their corp.
Now that would be sad wouldn't it.
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
186
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:15:00 -
[688] - Quote
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.
Your entire argument is a strawman. Give it up.
Instead of arguing why the change needs to be made, since a change will be made, what change should be made is what needs to be argued. CCP is going with a fee based model for allies, which everyone seems to agree doesn't solve the issue of promoting merc corps. Without the merc marketplace to showcase the better mercs, we'll end up with one MERC alliance that everyone hires if they're able with the free slot. That's not emergent gameplay.
Until the merc marketplace is in place, Jade's balancing of forces seems to be the best solution to the problem until a re-iteration takes place with the marketplace. The aggressors can still simply not pay if the war isn't going well, or surrender and move on to something else. All other debate when it talks about "actual" forces involved in a war are outside the scope really of CCP to take into account. They've based the system on characters in the alliance, so everything has to go from there. It doesn't matter if only 20 people from one alliance roam high sec, CCP can't base anything off of that, only the potential of all of them participating.
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:16:00 -
[689] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: i am still, of course, waiting on my answer regarding what on earth goonswarm leadership has to fear from you: your silence is deafening
Must've feared something you war decked them first The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
893
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:16:00 -
[690] - Quote
The best change would be if CCP would give us a free mutual wardec with all of highsec all the time.
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:18:00 -
[691] - 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.
Unlikely. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Most pilots who have been in null for more than a few days have high sec hauling alts in npc corps. So, this current system, while ridiculous, does not impact a null sec alliance.
A war between a high sec alliance/corp and a null sec alliance is simply ridiculous really. The high sec corp/alliance cannot "win" because they aren't going to go to null and attack sovereignty. The null sec alliance, likewise, cannot "win" because there really are not victory conditions that can be met unless the high sec group willfully loses. I mean, what are they going to do? Camp them into a station for a day? Shoot towers they magically forgot to take down in the 24 hour heads-up window?
The whole war dec system is ridiculous. There are no victory conditions that can be met in empire. This is why war decs are broken. CCP can monkey with the details of the mechanic all they want, until there is a way for both sides to grind the other into the ground with their thumb, it will continue to be a broken mechanic. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3337
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:20:00 -
[692] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Weaselior wrote: i am still, of course, waiting on my answer regarding what on earth goonswarm leadership has to fear from you: your silence is deafening
Must've feared something you war decked them first well he had this whole theory that although the common goon was chomping at the bit to have more highsec people to shoot, goonswarm leadership was actually terrified of him and needed out of this war asap
as a member of goonswarm leadership, naturally my interest was piqued but jade seems remarkably unwilling to elaborate on this theory |
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
895
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:20:00 -
[693] - Quote
Bagehi wrote: I mean, what are they going to do? Camp them into a station for a day? Shoot towers they magically forgot to take down in the 24 hour heads-up window?
Now we would never do that wouldn't we?
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:21:00 -
[694] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: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. This is waaay offtopic though so that's the last I'll say about it.
Two destroyers then? What a whopping 5m to kill a 265mil Hulk, even if said Hulk is fitted with a tank. I think this is very much on the topic of making playstyles matter in Eve that Soundwave said he was trying to do. Mercs and miners are two different groups that both want to be able to have a reasonable expectation of performing their desired playstyle in the game. I don't understand why Mercs count but miners don't get an opinion.
Eve isn't supposed to be fair so lets make it tough on the ganker to get a kill instead of making the miner have to be the one to pay the price. The ganker can always join a Merc corp, start a war, or go to Low/Null to find someone to kill. Heck they can find 1v1 fights in almost every major trade hub if they only have a few minutes to be online. Lets show some consideration to the high sec miner that's logged on for an hour to visit his friends and enjoy a relaxing time killing astroids. Sure he still has to take some precautions to stay safe, the same as someone running a mission or hauling cargo around, but lets make it so the miner has the advantage and make the ganker have to work for the kill. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1152
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:23:00 -
[695] - Quote
Eref Ataru wrote: The new system will directly hinder any new merc corp starting up, I mean if they only have 10 members who in the right mind is going to hire them when they can go to a larger corp, pay the same Concord price for their help as 1 corp = 1 corp regardless of size. That just doesnt make sense?
New nullsec alliances pop up all the time, and let me tell you, the barriers in the way of breaking into 0.0 is far greater then starting a highsec mercenary corp. The answer to your question is that such a small corp will either have to be able to prove their worth in results, recruit more members, lower their fees, or fail at their mercenary ambitions. They are not entitled to suceed any moreso then any other small startup enterprise in EVE.
CSM 7 elected an experienced merc leader onto the council to represent highsec PVP. |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
1152
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:26:00 -
[696] - Quote
Amdor Renevat wrote:Fuujin wrote: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. This is waaay offtopic though so that's the last I'll say about it. Two destroyers then? What a whopping 5m to kill a 265mil Hulk, even if said Hulk is fitted with a tank. I think this is very much on the topic of making playstyles matter in Eve that Soundwave said he was trying to do. Mercs and miners are two different groups that both want to be able to have a reasonable expectation of performing their desired playstyle in the game. "Mining" is a playstyle, "mining in a max-yield, zero tank, empty midslot failfit hulk" is not. hth |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:28:00 -
[697] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Bagehi wrote: I mean, what are they going to do? Camp them into a station for a day? Shoot towers they magically forgot to take down in the 24 hour heads-up window? Now we would never do that wouldn't we? You guys have Star Fraction, we have the Honda Accord. I doubt either of us could camp them in. They probably have JCs all over the place in empire with the amount of high sec grinding they have to have accomplished after all these years. Sadly, I doubt they had any structures to hit to begin with.
There really isn't much we can do to them, using a war dec, that we couldn't do far better with a handful of suicide ganks unfortunately. The war dec mechanic remains fairly useless as far as its intended purpose. |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:34:00 -
[698] - 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. |
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
214
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:43:00 -
[699] - Quote
michael boltonIII wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: I think you should read the Inferno war devblog a bit closer. Any allies we bring into a war have their successes and failures recorded on our permanent war statistics. If we hired nothing but a bunch of innept clowns then our space e-pride would be dangerously wounded and people wouldn't take us seriously in future wars.
But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.
I would caution that ~honour~ is not really a viable enough stat to base a game mechanic around since it not quantifiable in any way. Also, There is a world of difference between virtually no risk and ZERO risk. If I'm mining in a hulk, aligned to a safe pos, and ready to warp if someone enters local, then I have virutally no risk. If i want to fly around and pvp in a rifter, it costs me virtually no money to lose it. I cannot think of a single activity in game where I can gain something for myself or my alliance with ZERO (as in absolutely none) risk or cost aside from the current dogpile mechanic. If you can come up with something other than getting a high score on the ship spin counter, then I am all ears. Edit: Oops, I missed losing a noobship (but even then you lose an asset you could have sold) or losing an unimplanted alpha pod when you have less than 900k SP (but that is a mech designed to protect the very newest of players)
I'm still waiting on a reply Jade. I can understand that you don't enjoy getting dunked on, but I'm pretty much the Shaquille O'Neil of posting, I can't help but break the backboard.
I originally made my proposal of allowing war allies the same aggression rights with each other as corp mates as a joke, but now that I think about it, it solves the arguments on every side.
You get to build a coalition that is as large as you like, with as many members as you can gather, and you get to do it for free. You take the same risk in giving someone your trust that any 0.0 group does when picking allies, so it's a proven mechanic, and there are consequences for carelessly giving away your trust. Mercs are happy because suddenly reputation is very important, good groups can charge fees again because unkown merc groups could just be awox'ers.
It'll fit in with the revamp of Crime Watch, hell I think big alliances would even concede a big nerf and let alliances have the same aggression mechanics as corps, so that everything is congruent. You should already trust corps you let into your alliance enough not to aggress you, and it cuts out confusing and frustrating events when alliance fleets try and figure out who is in what corp (plus highsec alliance thunderdomes can happen again, hooray).
|
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
895
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:46:00 -
[700] - Quote
michael boltonIII wrote: I originally made my proposal of allowing war allies the same aggression rights with each other as corp mates as a joke, but now that I think about it, it solves the arguments on every side.
You get to build a coalition that is as large as you like, with as many members as you can gather, and you get to do it for free. You take the same risk in giving someone your trust that any 0.0 group does when picking allies, so it's a proven mechanic, and there are consequences for carelessly giving away your trust. Mercs are happy because suddenly reputation is very important, good groups can charge fees again because unkown merc groups could just be awox'ers.
This is fabulous and magical. I am blasting Klendathu Drop at maximum volume in anticipation.
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
595
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:49:00 -
[701] - Quote
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.
I have deleted approx 75% of goon posts in this thread, and will continue to do so when they step out of line. The only reason I didn't delete your post is that I didn't want to throw fuel on your fire. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
895
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:50:00 -
[702] - Quote
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.
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:53:00 -
[703] - 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 ) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2139
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:07:00 -
[704] - Quote
CCP Goliath 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. I have deleted approx 75% of goon posts in this thread, and will continue to do so when they step out of line. The only reason I didn't delete your post is that I didn't want to throw fuel on your fire.
To be fair Goliath has vaporized an awful lot of troll posts that were fired in my direction. I do think he's done a good job of moderating what was a pretty charged subject and hot debate.
So thanks for that mate!
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2139
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:11:00 -
[705] - Quote
Anyway the wardec discussion is over. The forces of repression and tryannical poltroonary have triumphed and independent freedom-fighters will have to find workarounds in the new system. Life goes on.
So to change the subject.
Incarna clothing in the LP store. Bravo.
If this gets followed up by ship skins in the LP store it will be a massive success and turnaround from last-years fiasco with the NeX store.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:14:00 -
[706] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote:With that being said, as someone who has no feelings either way, I do wish I were able to see both futures in this scenario. If all of high-sec were to hold hands in a massive, interconnected web of unlimited ally, hand-holding, kum-ba-ya'ing do-gooders and actually managed to wipe the entire Goon alliance off the map - what happens then? You don't need a wardec to do this. In fact, having a live wardec to do this would be counter-productive to your logistics when doing it.
If you want to band together to take on Goons you can, right now, without highsec PVP mechanics ever coming into play.
Leaving a system in place which was solely being used to shoot unaware stragglers in highsec mission/trade hubs is not conducive to this aim or any kind of emergent gameplay at all.
The rest of your points were against the system and actually make sense, so on balance you've have to agree the change isn't anything to do with large alliances.
If large alliances wanted a change to the wardec mechanics, this wouldn't be it. It would be CTRL+A, wardec. - "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 |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:22:00 -
[707] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: If your point is that all wars fought are fought on equal terms, then let's just say that we completely disagree. I'd say the exact opposite, wars are fought when one side feels they have an advantage. Engaging in "fair fights" is about as far from human instinctive behavior as it gets, as soon as we're in a scenario where you have something to lose. I think the point is in a game (which this is) people will be far more likely to fight when they feel they have a competitive fighting chance. If people do not feel they have a competitive fighting chance then they will simply opt not to fight. See, you simply can't post without it being statements of personal preference presented as group fact. They're not. This is why not a single person is listening to you.
On Sunday I had a WoT game where me and another 2 guys took a 12>5 game to 13>13 and then won. Outside of EvE, that was probably the best gaming experience I'd had in years.
You can fight outnumbered. In fact, in your specific "issue" the numbers game is basically your fleet vs whatever happens to be hanging around in highsec. It should be very easy for you to engineer victories against GSF in this scenario because you're small and well organised fighting basically the tail end of a large pack.
You could then start posting about your victories in this war, despite being outnumbered.
Instead, you're whining and telling everyone it's not fair and the only solution is free allies.
That's not EvE. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2145
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:26:00 -
[708] - Quote
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.
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! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3344
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:29:00 -
[709] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: I have deleted approx 75% of goon posts in this thread, and will continue to do so when they step out of line. The only reason I didn't delete your post is that I didn't want to throw fuel on your fire.
Our posts are lovely why do you do such mean things |
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:31:00 -
[710] - 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. |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1328
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:37:00 -
[711] - 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. GG - "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 |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
231
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:03:00 -
[712] - Quote
any comment from the art team yet on the improved lighting?
also, a dev blog from the art team that talks about current projects and future plans would be nice as well On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent, It was a sun-á |
Vatropirac
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:26:00 -
[713] - Quote
Serge SC wrote:Perhaps this has been mentioned before, but I'd like to reiterate on it.
The V3 Minmatar ships have lost their personality. No longer does the Vagabond have that unique look with the wingy bits at the sides, now it doesn't look different from a Stabber, just a darker Stabber at it. Same applies to the Claymore/Cyclone. The dark pattern doesn't sit well.
The Tempest Fleet issue is no longer easily recognizable. Out squared wingy bits are gone too. Now it is just another Tempest with a different paint job, and what's worse, the model wasn't even fixed. The exhaust still has the 2 plates at the side floating and not attached, and the tower to the right, on top of the right turrets, is also floating. The telephone poles are also nowhere to be found and the cockpit looks like a lighter green blob on top of the rest.
The regular Tempest, I can live with it, not fan, but not hating it. The Vargur looks kinda neat, and out of the Tempest hulls, it's the best. The Fleet Tempest is now unimaginative. The Tribal Tempest however, our unique and best ship, just looks terrible - sorry, but it does.
The lighter tone on the staple Minmatar ship, the Hurricane, looks bad all around as well. The Cyclone pattern is nice, but the Hurricane's looks are not up to par - and the new Tornado, why? It looked well already.
On that note, uniformed, perfectly painted, all-equal ships are not Minmatar-looking. They feel more Gallentean/Amarrian rather than Minmatar. I fly mostly Minmatar ships, and I've always loved the unique look, the missmatched colours, the blocky and improvised feel they have, those random bits attached to the hull, those solar panels that protrude sometimes, or how well and recognisable they are. It just feels like the newer versions have taken that away. And the lighter colours feel out of place on the ships.
Sorry to be this negative, but it just doesn't feel right/ THANK YOU Serge!!!!...Can we get a reply from a Dev team about it??? ...Most of the people are dissapointed with new minmatar V3....Do something about it. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
56
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:35:00 -
[714] - Quote
ya do think the minmatar t1 ships need a more grungy look to there texture... they made it look like there painted instead of rusty |
Vatropirac
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:38:00 -
[715] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:ya do think the minmatar t1 ships need a more grungy look to there texture... they made it look like there painted instead of rusty
What they need is that rusty badass look back...with higher res textures... |
Klann Schreck
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:55:00 -
[716] - Quote
Yonis Kador wrote: If all of high-sec were to hold hands in a massive, interconnected web of unlimited ally, hand-holding, kum-ba-ya'ing do-gooders and actually managed to wipe the entire Goon alliance off the map
They'd have to come out of hisec first. They would have to buy SBUs, they would have to deploy capitals and super caps and suffer through the dominion sov system. And If all of these things came to pass, we would have achieved the dream of being able to shoot EVERY hisec resident that we wanted because they wouldn't be protected by concord. In short- please. please do. You honestly do not know how much we would applaud and celebrate such a thing. The orgy of destruction would probably break the server.
-Don't sign your posts. It has your name next to what you wrote and makes you look dumb. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
611
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:59:00 -
[717] - 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.
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.
Don't be ridiculous!
Then why are you removing the ability to dogpile allies onto an attacker? It's NOT about 'saving' the merc profession, because these 'free allies' are no substitution for a proper merc corporation. Why do you think the Goons are mocking Jade with this several dozen of 'allies'? These opportunists only provide some distraction at best and everyone knows it (with apparently the exception of you, CCP Soundwave).
There's no good reason to exponentially tax their service.
And here's the problem: there simply aren't enough actual mercs in EVE to help you defend against an entity like GoonSwarm and their CFC, let alone taking the fight to them in DeKlein. So that's why the ability to take in as many 'free allies' should stay so the defender can at least annoy to some degree with de-centralized asymmetric warfare in empire. The only option left, yet CCP wants to take that away as well. How is that not CCP catering to the 'big boys'?
And then the removal of allies in mutual wars: You're removing THE BEST consequence mechanic of Inferno. : facepalm
Without allies in a mutual wardec a small corporation will, in reality, NEVER manage to force a larger attacker into surrendering. Yet this SHOULD be the main 'consequence' design philosophy behind the wardec system! How can CCP be so blind?!
What kind of stupid reasoning is behind this ridiculous knee-jerk decision? This has NOTHING to do with locking mercs indefinitely , because that issue is simply and completely solved by making ally contracts renewable every two weeks. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
117
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:03:00 -
[718] - Quote
Amdor Renevat wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: If your point is that all wars fought are fought on equal terms, then let's just say that we completely disagree. I'd say the exact opposite, wars are fought when one side feels they have an advantage. Engaging in "fair fights" is about as far from human instinctive behavior as it gets, as soon as we're in a scenario where you have something to lose.
The question I have is why does the balance of power need to be in favor of the aggressor? You seem to want one side to be stronger but restricting the defender's ability to add allies means the person who's declaring war has a significant advantage. I'll skip the disagreement in philosophy of running Eve because we both know we don't see eye to eye on what's best for the game. However lets talk about the crux of the matter; providing employment for mercenaries. The statement was made that having unlimited free allies takes away from Merc employment and I can agree that people with friends won't have to use Mercs. I do disagree with having to pay Concord a fee to bring in an Ally. What is the point of playing an MMO if you are penalized for having friends? That is what this change seems to imply, groups of allied friends can't support each other without having to pay for the privilege of being friends. The problem therefore is how to keep Mercs employed while at the same time allowing friends to help each other out. There are several options to consider. 1. Differentiate between Mercs and allys. Allow up to 10 allies to join for free and afterwards charge a fee. Still allows the defender to get some help but cuts down on mobs of unknown conscripts. 2. Do not have a set time limit for Ally participation, instead let the players decide how long they want to be part of the fight. It's supposed to be a sandbox so why not let the people agreeing to help out decide if they want to be involved for a week, two weeks, or longer. Options are better then having to conform to another person's standard. 3. Instead of vague goals like fight against someone for X amount of time make Mercs actually have to generate results to get paid. A Merc gets hired to kill 20 of the opposition and they don't get full payment until they've scored 20 kills. Maybe you hire them to kill a POS to get paid. The groups that get results will be known and more likely to be hired. Use a 50% pay up front, 50% upon completion to give Mercs some form of income but to also allow for times when the targets hole up or call in even more reinforcements. 4. Create a hiring board in game. Mercs can post what they are capable of doing, time frames they are available, and areas they are willing to operate in. Also allows job postings to be listed letting Merc groups know what work is out there. No war ded is required to review or hire from this page. 5. Allow anonymous hiring of Mercenaries. The Mercs can be the aggressor in a war creating another level of meta game to exist. 6. Have a list of top rated Merc corps on the hiring board. The above changes would allow small alliances to still have allies without abusing the privilege. Mercs would have more tools to ply their trade, and could be used to hit specific targets when needed. I think those changes would make wars more competitive for both parties while still allowing small groups the option of seeking help from friends. Mercs would have a role and be able to participate in their chosen profession. P.S.- I applaud your concern to make sure different playstyles have the support needed to be a functional role in the game. How about taking a look at mining barges and giving them some additional tank options to make killing them require and equal amount of risk? A T2 mining barge shouldn't be prey to a T1 destroyer. Considering the costs involved a T2 barge should require something like a BS to take it out. A T1 barge should be looking at a BC level ship before worrying. Current game mechanics make it almost impossible to protect a mining vessel, even when a tank is used instead of mining modules. Having modules in game implies you want people to use them but having such a fragile vessel to begin with means the mining modules have to be ignored in order to fit a tank that probably want save you in the end anyway. I realize Eve isn't supposed to be fair, but why not put the requirement on the aggressor to work for a kill instead of making mining have no role in high sec. Sort of like Mercs wanting to play the game they way the enjoy too.
Like this, except that part where we already have allies and don't need another half-assed alliance system. Allies are the other corporations in your alliance.
Merc marketplace should be something entirely different from what we're seeing today.
I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:14:00 -
[719] - Quote
CCP Goliath 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. I have deleted approx 75% of goon posts in this thread, and will continue to do so when they step out of line. The only reason I didn't delete your post is that I didn't want to throw fuel on your fire.
So, goons are getting their posts wiped because we are the civil ones in here, but the enraged people are left intact because you don't want to add fuel to the fire.
Goons, the good posters. ahahhahahahahah
what has eveo become |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
611
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:29:00 -
[720] - Quote
Vatropirac wrote: THANK YOU Serge!!!!...Can we get a reply from a Dev team about it??? ...Most of the people are dissapointed with new minmatar V3....Do something about it.
The art devs almost never read the forums, so they rarely bother with community feedback. Leave it to the 'artists' to do whatever the hell they like, screw everyone else's opinion.
No more 'ears' for the Vagabond is an excellent example. I haven't seen a single positive remark on that, but don't expect it to be reversed anyway. Or how about the Aeon, voted most fugly ship in every poll, yet it's the Maller that gets the makeover it doesn't need (tossing the Sacrilege's unique bits out as well, apparently the art devs are also a tad lazy). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:32:00 -
[721] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: No, that is what YOU want it to be about. CCP and the CSM have stated they do not want that to be the aim, you have. The changes are to stop the current problems NOT fix the ones you are talking about. This has been explained to you over and over and you willfully ignore these posts.
It's now 25 pages of you using whatever ammunition you can imagine/create to try to push your agenda and has absolutely nothing to do with the wardec system.
It resolves the issue which only exists in your head. Other things that fix the issue: you can stop thinking about it.
This is the exact reason I'm not taking your argument seriously. You, and many others who disagree with Jade's views can't seem to propose a valid point without bringing in underhanded remarks or assumptive validation. You're stating that the reason Jade's proposition will not/cannot work is simply because they themselves are having an issue with it. I have yet to see any reasonable suggestion given besides "It's not geared toward larger alliances because you're insane".
Khanh'rhh wrote: You can very well say that 1.1 isn't the perfect solution, but that doesn't mean that 1.0 should stay.
If you honestly truly believe this, suggest a better proposal. Do something productive instead of creating a flame war because I haven't seen anything on the defender's end besides blatant contradiction and what seems to be wanting the changes to go through because it's a change. It seems the defenders of the proposal don't like the way things work currently, and are just looking for a change in and of itself, rather than what that change does.
Kelduum Revaan wrote: 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.
I honestly have lost faith in the CSM based on their performance as a whole, lack of communication with players that aren't specifically associated with them, and accusational posts like these.
michael boltonlll wrote: The new system ensures that the people who ally you in a war dec are your actual friends who are joining because they are there to help you. The current dog pile mechanic is just being used as a way for corps whose entire business is wardeccing to not have to pay for their wardecs. The person who is accepting these allies can do so with zero cost or fear of repercussions. What other things can you do in Eve that have absolutely no risk or cost (hell even ship spinning costs time)?
I have previously suggested making allies and mercenaries two separate entities. Set a cap on allies, but nothing so extreme and stupid as to make it limiting; and make mercenaries unlimited. Pay for your defense, but have your closest suppoters there at all times. I don't know of a real world example where a country had to bribe the UN in order to allow their allies to participate in a war. War is unfair, but it's a double-edged sword. Someone tries to take on Israel they've got a lot more problems than just Israel.
|
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:00:00 -
[722] - Quote
Continuing from where I left off, allow me to explain something..
The dev blog proposes an interval shift in how much is paid each time an ally joins. At that going rate, when you hit '10' allies you're paying 2,560,000,000 isk. Seriously. I can do a lot with a billion isk.
That number gets stupid when you start hitting '15' allies, which is around 81,920,000,000 isk. I could afford an entire fleet and make having allies pointless with that much isk. If I have EIGHTY-ONE BILLION isk to just throw out, I'm not going to be spending it on a corporation that may or may not participate in their, now, two week time-frame.
People have lives. They work. They have kids. They can't dedicate their entire time to this game. If there's an on-going war that persists for longer than two-weeks, I have to re-hire those allies. This is just plain silly.
In brief, for those of you who don't care to read or are having difficulties trying to see the points I'm making:
- The cost of allies goes up as you take on more.
- That cost gets ridiculous once you get past a certain range, going into the billions.
- The aggressor now seems to have an advantage by never having to pay more than half a billion.
- The allies a defender brings in are only present for two-weeks, -IF- real-life allows them to.
- The money the defender would spend on allies is the money they could use to fund their own ships.
This makes an extreme advantage for a larger entity, I'm not entirely sure how this benefits smaller corps -at all- other than making them pay -more- to have a fighting chance. Dog-pile or not, these intervals of money are just insane. How many corps are in your average alliance? A lot more than six.
I'll say it -once again- and this time in big bold letters so that it may actually warrant someone's feedback.
Make allies and mercenaries two separate entities. Set the amount of allies you can have at three, or five. Mercenaries are then paid for using similar guidelines as are in Inferno 1.1 but altered as to not be bank-robbing.
Alternatively, keep the 'pay for allies' method but, again, change it so it's not bank-robbing.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
316
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:06:00 -
[723] - Quote
We love you devs dont go hide |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1333
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:06:00 -
[724] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Do something productive instead of creating a flame war because I haven't seen anything on the defender's end besides blatant contradiction and what seems to be wanting the changes to go through because it's a change It's been said over and over and over again, but I will say it again:
The 1.1 change needs to go through because in it's current state the merc situation is more broken than it has ever been before.
Yes, we need a new solution, or rather a solution at all, but not bandaging an obviously gaping wound is complete insanity. The only reasons given here, or elsewhere, as to why it shouldn't be bandaged in this way has all been "BUT BECAUSE GOONS WANT IT LIEK DIS!!!!" which is patently false.
I would forgive you for missing this the first dozen times its been posted, but the exact logical reason you're claiming is missing has been stated many times. I'm sorry you seem not to agree with it, but there you are.
Yes, lets have a discussion on how to make 1.2 or 1.3 the solution which ends all issue on either side, but here, right now, there is a massive issue which needs solving. My corp of 50, despite me posting threads like this, attracted 25 of the very same entities that were also "allies" to Star Fraction when a tiny corp wardecced us. This is silly. It's completely broken. This is BEFORE I even go ahead and decide to lock the said corp into the war forever, and lock every ally in with them.
This is a patch. What you're looking for is an iteration. Half baked ideas and general whine that wardecs are possible, and if they are OH GOD ALL ALLIES MUST BE FREE UNTIL N=N, is not the issue on the table, here, now.
It's not just Jade in this, it's everyone. - "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 |
Masterkiller Mechanics
MMO-Mechanics.com
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:09:00 -
[725] - Quote
It seems a very easy solution is to provide a fee for the attacker based on size over the target corps size. Your fee increases based on your ratio of members over your opponent. 1000 member corp declares war on a 100 member corp, the cost to declare war and maintain it is increased by X% or whatever formula they wish to use. This promotes war between corps of the same size while deterring much larger corps from declaring war on tiny corps. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1333
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:09:00 -
[726] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Continuing from where I left off, allow me to explain something..
The dev blog proposes an interval shift in how much is paid each time an ally joins. At that going rate, when you hit '10' allies you're paying 2,560,000,000 isk. Seriously. I can do a lot with a billion isk.
That number gets stupid when you start hitting '15' allies, which is around 81,920,000,000 isk. I could afford an entire fleet and make having allies pointless with that much isk. If I have EIGHTY-ONE BILLION isk to just throw out, I'm not going to be spending it on a corporation that may or may not participate in their, now, two week time-frame.
This is the entire point.
Stop "hiring" one man Jita campers and hire 5 proper merc outfits and you won't need to hit 10 allies. Chose your mercs wisely ... does this mean you'll have to pick, chose and compare offers rather than "accept all, pay nothing"? Yes, again, the point.
Seriously, one competent merc contract was always seen as the norm before so please, god, tell me why you need 15 all of a sudden or it's Goons online ohgodCCPwhyareyouhelpinggoons. - "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 |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:10:00 -
[727] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Nomistrav wrote:Do something productive instead of creating a flame war because I haven't seen anything on the defender's end besides blatant contradiction and what seems to be wanting the changes to go through because it's a change It's been said over and over and over again, but I will say it again: The 1.1 change needs to go through because in it's current state the merc situation is more broken than it has ever been before. Yes, we need a new solution, or rather a solution at all, but not bandaging an obviously gaping wound is complete insanity. It's not just Jade in this, it's everyone.
That's not a proposal, suggestion, recommendation, alternative, or option toward the solution. That's a statement of knowledge that has already been relayed. |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:13:00 -
[728] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Nomistrav wrote:Continuing from where I left off, allow me to explain something..
The dev blog proposes an interval shift in how much is paid each time an ally joins. At that going rate, when you hit '10' allies you're paying 2,560,000,000 isk. Seriously. I can do a lot with a billion isk.
That number gets stupid when you start hitting '15' allies, which is around 81,920,000,000 isk. I could afford an entire fleet and make having allies pointless with that much isk. If I have EIGHTY-ONE BILLION isk to just throw out, I'm not going to be spending it on a corporation that may or may not participate in their, now, two week time-frame.
This is the entire point. Stop "hiring" one man Jita campers and hire 5 proper merc outfits and you won't need to hit 10 allies. Chose your mercs wisely ... does this mean you'll have to pick, chose and compare offers rather than "accept all, pay nothing"? Yes, again, the point. Seriously, one competent merc contract was always seen as the norm before so please, god, tell me why you need 15 all of a sudden or it's Goons online ohgodCCPwhyareyouhelpinggoons.
Null-sec faces these issues all the time. It's not just about thousands versus hundreds, it has to do with time-zones as well. As I've previously stated, if a corporation of 1,000 has to pay 500,000,000 isk to start things up; and they're all in one time-zone, and the defender has 500, and is in a completely different time-zone; they would have to hire TEN corporations of FIFTY people in order just to bridge the number gap, let alone time-zone differences. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1333
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:14:00 -
[729] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:That's not a proposal, suggestion, recommendation, alternative, or option toward the solution. That's a statement of knowledge that has already been relayed. Yes, the part where I said "this isn't a solution" pretty much made that very clear. What is your 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 |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1333
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:16:00 -
[730] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Nomistrav wrote:Continuing from where I left off, allow me to explain something..
The dev blog proposes an interval shift in how much is paid each time an ally joins. At that going rate, when you hit '10' allies you're paying 2,560,000,000 isk. Seriously. I can do a lot with a billion isk.
That number gets stupid when you start hitting '15' allies, which is around 81,920,000,000 isk. I could afford an entire fleet and make having allies pointless with that much isk. If I have EIGHTY-ONE BILLION isk to just throw out, I'm not going to be spending it on a corporation that may or may not participate in their, now, two week time-frame.
This is the entire point. Stop "hiring" one man Jita campers and hire 5 proper merc outfits and you won't need to hit 10 allies. Chose your mercs wisely ... does this mean you'll have to pick, chose and compare offers rather than "accept all, pay nothing"? Yes, again, the point. Seriously, one competent merc contract was always seen as the norm before so please, god, tell me why you need 15 all of a sudden or it's Goons online ohgodCCPwhyareyouhelpinggoons. Null-sec faces these issues all the time. It's not just about thousands versus hundreds, it has to do with time-zones as well. As I've previously stated, if a corporation of 1,000 has to pay 500,000,000 isk to start things up; and they're all in one time-zone, and the defender has 500, and is in a completely different time-zone; they would have to hire TEN corporations of FIFTY people in order just to bridge the number gap, let alone time-zone differences. Or one corp of 500 Or two of 250 Or three of 166 Or four of 125
All of which are completely reasonable, both with respect to actual sizes of merc outfits available to you today, and your ability to pay for them under 1.1
Are you reaching a point anytime soon? - "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 |
|
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:17:00 -
[731] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Nomistrav wrote:That's not a proposal, suggestion, recommendation, alternative, or option toward the solution. That's a statement of knowledge that has already been relayed. Yes, the part where I said "this isn't a solution" pretty much made that very clear. What is your point?
It wasn't what I originally asked you to do, which was add something effective rather than extending the flame war and making personal remarks, it's contradiction. This is a feedback thread. Offer up something that will suggest that it is good or bad rather than saying that a person is just plain wrong because it's what -you- believe. That person has absolutely nothing to do with your feedback on what is being proposed. |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:18:00 -
[732] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: Or one corp of 500 Or two of 250 Or three of 166 Or four of 125
All of which are completely reasonable, both with respect to actual sizes of merc outfits available to you today, and your ability to pay for them under 1.1
Are you reaching a point anytime soon?
Believe we're done here based on that last sentence. Thank you for your time. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1333
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:25:00 -
[733] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:This is a feedback thread. Offer up something that will suggest that it is good or bad I checked, and I have made 42 (heh) posts in this thread supporting this change, as seen on Sisi, as a short term measure to stop the massive problem currently being seen and reported by mercenaries in highsec - with conditional statements that it will need iteration.
How is this not feedback?
You're the one here now claiming .... I don't know what. Which is why I am asking you if you have a point to make? - "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 |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1333
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:26:00 -
[734] - Quote
Hint: I know what the point is, but I want to quote you on it. - "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 |
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:07:00 -
[735] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:lol ...
Although i do wish there was a way for nullsec alliances to "nullsec only" wardec each other so we could take advantage of the war tracking system, but it would give no low or highsec rights to either side, just would be an active nullsec war for tracking kills and stuff.
I like this. An excellent idea! |
Kuroi Hoshi
Ajo Heavy Industries
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:53:00 -
[736] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful. No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).
Sorry if this was addressed further in but I'm not rereading 30 pages to check that. It seems a bit of a fringe skill as it doesn't modify the omni tank but having the skill increases defensive cap consumption by 10%+ for dual T2 medium rep + reactive module and almost 20% for single T2 medium rep + reactive module.
It seems a bit harsh to train a tanking skill that could actually reduce your active tanking ability total value due to cap consumption increases. Doubling the chance that you'll hit a cycle when at 0 cap due to neuting and having to start the adjustment over already seems like a big enough tradeoff to me. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
625
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:01:00 -
[737] - 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.
Wow that sounds great! if only there was a way to make sure the punch actually hits something when the weaker defender and his allies hit, instead of the attacker simply dropping the war when it gets too hot in the kitchen.
Making the war mutual, locking the attacker into the war, pummeling him with your allies into a 'Treaty of Versailles'-style surrender or into disbandment.
The ultimate consequence for war-dec agression, combined with the chance of being dogpiled, right?
WRONG!!!
CCP SoniClover's dev blog wrote: Lets Step Outside and Settle This Like Men
Allies can now no longer be part of mutual wars GÇô mutual wars are now strictly mano-a-mano. This means that when a war is set to mutual, all existing ally contracts are set to end (i.e. their two week timer is adjusted to end immediately), with the usual 24 hour grace period. Furthermore, no new ally contracts can be accepted.
You do realize that misplaced need for 'fair fighting' will make mutual wars as utterly useless as pre-Inferno right?
No weaker defender will EVER declare a war mutual if he can't get allies to help out (yes you can get additional wardecs, but winning mutual wars are too long-winded affairs for mercs).
No mega-corp entity will ever declare the wardecs of privateers or mercs mutual, being more happy to be rid of these annoying guerilla-style hub campers.
Wars in between these situation SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN, so there will be no wars to declared mutual EVER
One exception, as it was pre-Inferno: RvB war-dec and their never-ending gimped form of TeamFortress-PvP.
Congratulations CCP, not only did you make CCP Soundwave's statement look totally ridiculous, with the additional removal of the dogpile consequence, you've managed to completely undo every new emergent gameplay and actual consequences from Inferno's war-dec update.
I guess I was wrong in thinking CCP finally understood high-sec war-dec gameplay. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1334
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:45:00 -
[738] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:No weaker defender will EVER declare a war mutual if he can't get allies to help out Well, no. I have done this several times, so I can't really see how you can say this "will never happen" as I can cite precedence.
If you look in the neocom at the active wars you will see there are mutual wars with no allies, also.
Quote:Wars in between these situation SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN, so there will be no wars to declared mutual EVER Oh hey look, there's you saying things aren't happening that all the available evidence says actually is. CAPS LOCK DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
Quote:Making the war mutual, locking the attacker into the war, pummeling him with your allies into a 'Treaty of Versailles'-style surrender or into disbandment. Finally! Inferno understands the consequence for war-dec agression! Except, in practice, all that happened was someone pressed two buttons then went and mad-posted on the forums. Elsewhere, "mercs" simply accepted every available wardec going without a care for who it was for or against and did so for no ISK.
That isn't emergent gameplay, it's an emergent problem. - "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 |
Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance
108
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:12:00 -
[739] - Quote
I hate to say it, but this fix is not good.
Firstly it's revealed just after goons get their tails bitten; and we know they petition anything that is ever so slightly unfair (petitioning Thorn Syndicate's totlly legit (later confirmed by CCP) tactic of baiting logis to aggress and killing them, anyone?) Telling the people paying you to make their game (your customers) to basicaly STFU is neither professional nor a good idea, when what you should have said is 'We discovered a loophole a few weeks ago and are fixing it.' which at least would have been some evidence that you started trying to fix the issue before goons declared war.
Look at it from the rest of the playerbase's perception; when Goons exploit (wrong word really because you say exploits are bad - personally I think they are great and show real intelligence) the system and gank freighters with fleets of basically throwaway ships on throwaway characters that cost them about 1 hour of moon mining that's 'emergent content' but when another alliance figures out a way to lock the entire world in a war with the goons it's fixed coincidentally 2 days later.
It's really not a huge leap to make to connect the two.
Secondly (and the really important bit) its the wrong fix to the issue.
The fix should have been something like 'adding allies cannot be free if war is made mutual, making a war mutual will end ally membership of war and offer a reinvite' (minimum price maybe 1mil per member payable to concord?), combined with a 'allies can commit to a war for x days, and drop out after that unless they agree to continue'.
That would have fixed all the issues; and would not have brought CCP into disrepute. Thorn Alliance:-á The worst alliance you ever heard of.
But you have heard of us. |
Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate THORN Alliance
108
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:16:00 -
[740] - Quote
Thorvik wrote:Rrama Ratamnim wrote:lol ...
Although i do wish there was a way for nullsec alliances to "nullsec only" wardec each other so we could take advantage of the war tracking system, but it would give no low or highsec rights to either side, just would be an active nullsec war for tracking kills and stuff. I like this. An excellent idea!
I'd like the original post, but I cant find it :) Brilliant idea. Free 0.0 only wardecs. We can all shoot each other there anyway, and it allows a coalition to be official (share blues / reds that are actively involved etc. Thorn Alliance:-á The worst alliance you ever heard of.
But you have heard of us. |
|
Halstrom Whitestar
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:24:00 -
[741] - Quote
GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)
So Goon can seek to permanently fund Hulk killing in high sec, and to bully the tiny man with never ending wardecs, but people aren't allowed to band together behind The Star Fracture and hold them to account?????
Goon sponsored CCP nerf??? |
Damay Aprionati
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:28:00 -
[742] - Quote
I hope the Mittani's pocket is warm enough for you CCP. |
michael boltonIII
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
215
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:52:00 -
[743] - Quote
Halstrom Whitestar wrote:GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)
So Goon can seek to permanently fund Hulk killing in high sec, and to bully the tiny man with never ending wardecs, but people aren't allowed to band together behind The Star Fracture and hold them to account?????
Goon sponsored CCP nerf???
NC. Ladies and Gentleman. You realize that this has nothing to do with suicide ganking and the people who are doing the majority of the ganking aren't even in goons. It's almost like goons have unlimited money because of a mutually profitable cartel between several large 0.0 alliances, but NC. wouldn't have anything to do with that would they?
Also, "Goon sponsored CCP nerf?" would mean that Goons just nerfed CCP. English is a hard language. |
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
899
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:56:00 -
[744] - Quote
You are you?
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
243
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 04:07:00 -
[745] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Five-0 GÇó Rollback of lowering the reward for vanguard sites by 10% GÇó Rollback of changes to system influence Devblog here - http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=72880I would also like to add that I will be actively moderating this thread so keep the feedback constructive and keep ranting to a minimum.
I don't forsee any of the above changes affecting he REAL problem of why Vanguard participation. The Override Transfer Array's (OTA's) are the real issue now and end up stacking like pancakes like the NCN do in Assaults. This is true in lo,null, and hi SEC. The Sansha Inluence bar change will go towards helping null&lo especially but not until after something is done with the OTA's. Also the Assaults in Escalation were promised to be sped up but only were in the NCNs (slightly) he OCDs were actually lengthened due to the addition of Augas and more Romi's. The NCS's times were actually lengthened due to the delay of waiting for all the triggers to be destroyed between each spawn causing the close range ships o wait for the long range ships to kill of every spawn ( evbenthough like right now every ship had to be destroyed this also has made the NCS's considerably more safer becausethey are not able to become 'pre-spawned' by griefers )
My last 0.02 ISK before UNSUBBing in protest of the Incursion Esclation NERF's destruction of so many communities and the lack of listening to the feedback by DEVs in the forums by people that actually do Incursions. The 2 rollbacks are a slap in the ace DEVs The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Tolmar
Capital Industries Research And Development Fidelas Constans
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:22:00 -
[746] - Quote
Ok why did you even bother with the wardec system if you were going to cap it... It is ******** to think 500 mil is a deterent for gank corps/alliance... People dont seem to have a problem paying the isk since they are still wardeccing 2k+ member alliances... This is a move in wrong direction... |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:33:00 -
[747] - Quote
Feedback is only as good as the most vocal in the community. Hundreds, if not thousands, don't even browse the forums and don't have any clue as to what is going on in this discussion. Might like the changes, might not. I don't have a CSM representative from my alliance and am still waiting on a response to speak with -someone- about certain issues, so my voice isn't as privy here on the forums, it seems.
I think we should honestly just get a survey going and vote on these things. People throw out quotes like "the majority of people aren't going to like this" or "the majority of people -are- going to like this", but the simple fact of the matter is: The majority of the people are not -YOU-. Let statistics prove what's really going on.
I'm not one to seek validation from strangers to see whether or not I'm right or wrong, though. Despite disagreeing with the views, they don't even affect me what-so-ever. Watching from the side-lines, however, I'm still seeking an answer as to why we're implementing changes so quickly to a such a new feature other than 'x' amount of people (which are not the 250,000+ subscribers as a whole) complained. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1334
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:44:00 -
[748] - Quote
I'm not going to get into a "referendum vs democratically elected representative" debate, but I would suggest that if your concerns are:
a) Goon influence b) Misrepresentation of people who don't come to the forums
Then you'd be naive to think asking people to vote on issues would be conducive to that aim. If you don't think GSF could get a landslide victory on every vote they want pushed then you need to look at the CSM elections. - "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 |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1334
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:48:00 -
[749] - Quote
I'll also point out that majority votes supported segregation, slavery, anti-women voting and just about everything else you can name before it got changed.
Statistics can only show you what the masses think and should never form policy directly. - "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 |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
275
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:08:00 -
[750] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
I call BS. You didn't listen to anyone else about Inferno war changes and now suddenly were changing the rules. The cost shield was absolutely designed to protect EVEUni and by virtue of size Goonswarm. |
|
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
41
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:44:00 -
[751] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:I'm not going to get into a "referendum vs democratically elected representative" debate, but I would suggest that if your concerns are:
a) Goon influence b) Misrepresentation of people who don't come to the forums
Then you'd be naive to think asking people to vote on issues would be conducive to that aim. If you don't think GSF could get a landslide victory on every vote they want pushed then you need to look at the CSM elections.
While I previously stated that I was no longer speaking with you, this sort of over-rides that. I never once said anything about Goonswarm. You assumed that much, and by doing so I've a clear idea that you're basing your ideals solely on that aspect; to the point of not being able to see past the veil of your own closed argument. This has nothing to do with Goonswarm, what-so-ever. |
Caliph Muhammed
Short Bus Friends
275
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:40:00 -
[752] - Quote
Greg Valanti wrote:im mrmessy wrote:How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
|
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
488
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:28:00 -
[753] - Quote
Lallante wrote: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.
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.
Sorry mate but you are missing a trick here - its not about forcing fairness through mechanics, its about not PREVENTING the defender from evening the odds itself. Its absolutely in keeping with the Eve sandbox philosophy that the outcome of a war is down to player actions, metagaming (i.e. finding the right allies, paying them, etc) rather than incredibly restrictive mechanics that FORCE the defender to fight vastly outnumbered or stump up enormous amounts of cash. You arent introducing forced fairness by implementing Jade's proposals, you are giving the players the tools needed to ensure fairness or unfairness as they see fit. Most, maybe even all empire corporations wont have the allies or isk to buy them necessary to match, say, Goonswarm's numbers man for man - there aren't many situations where this will make things "fair" but what it will do is stop actively forcing them to accept the unfair position (i.e. that they cant bring in more allies or have their friends wardec back because the mechanics make it prohibitively expensive to do so). Basically the way you are proposing it means a large alliance can wardec whichever small entities they want and are protected from being wardecced back or from allies joining the fight. The numbers restrictions only hurt the defending side! Quote:
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.
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. Worth re-posting this reply.
You know there's something fundamentally wrong when the only way people can think of to promote the "best" part of the game is to make everything else suck more. |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:10:00 -
[754] - Quote
Ok just one thing
A lot of you seem to think that goonswarms numbers are somehow unfair.
Well they are not, they weren't given those numbers, they accuired those numbers through a lot of work. Its not easy to hold an alliance like that together.
The basic idea that a 50 man corp should be able to fight a 5000 man alliance is just silly.. They will and SHOULD get crushed in any normal fight. They could however manage to get a very high kill/loss ratio with some clever tactics and guerrilla warfare..
Eve isn't fair, Its not supposed to be fair. The goons have massed thousands of players together and now they reap the benefits from that achievement, Deal with it? |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
488
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:58:00 -
[755] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ok just one thing
A lot of you seem to think that goonswarms numbers are somehow unfair.
Well they are not, they weren't given those numbers, they accuired those numbers through a lot of work. Its not easy to hold an alliance like that together.
The basic idea that a 50 man corp should be able to fight a 5000 man alliance is just silly.. They will and SHOULD get crushed in any normal fight. They could however manage to get a very high kill/loss ratio with some clever tactics and guerrilla warfare..
Eve isn't fair, Its not supposed to be fair. The goons have massed thousands of players together and now they reap the benefits from that achievement, Deal with it? Nothing unfair about it. Nothing unfair about bringing in 5000 of your bestest buds either... Wardec'ing Bloggers because they posted things about mittens during the election?
Guess GSF / CFC is taking Eve pretty seriously nowadays...
You know there's something fundamentally wrong when the only way people can think of to promote the "best" part of the game is to make everything else suck more. |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:05:00 -
[756] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ok just one thing
A lot of you seem to think that goonswarms numbers are somehow unfair.
Well they are not, they weren't given those numbers, they accuired those numbers through a lot of work. Its not easy to hold an alliance like that together.
The basic idea that a 50 man corp should be able to fight a 5000 man alliance is just silly.. They will and SHOULD get crushed in any normal fight. They could however manage to get a very high kill/loss ratio with some clever tactics and guerrilla warfare..
Eve isn't fair, Its not supposed to be fair. The goons have massed thousands of players together and now they reap the benefits from that achievement, Deal with it? Nothing unfair about it. Nothing unfair about bringing in 5000 of your bestest buds either... Wardec'ing Bloggers because they posted things about mittens during the election? Guess GSF / CFC is taking Eve pretty seriously nowadays...
Nope, nothing unfair about that either.. Its not nice..
But not unfair. |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
43
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:47:00 -
[757] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ok just one thing
A lot of you seem to think that goonswarms numbers are somehow unfair.
Well they are not, they weren't given those numbers, they accuired those numbers through a lot of work. Its not easy to hold an alliance like that together.
The basic idea that a 50 man corp should be able to fight a 5000 man alliance is just silly.. They will and SHOULD get crushed in any normal fight. They could however manage to get a very high kill/loss ratio with some clever tactics and guerrilla warfare..
Eve isn't fair, Its not supposed to be fair. The goons have massed thousands of players together and now they reap the benefits from that achievement, Deal with it? Nothing unfair about it. Nothing unfair about bringing in 5000 of your bestest buds either... Wardec'ing Bloggers because they posted things about mittens during the election? Guess GSF / CFC is taking Eve pretty seriously nowadays... Nope, nothing unfair about that either.. Its not nice.. But not unfair.
Yes it is, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it. It's not fair that you and all of your closest supporters can dog-pile and cause an unexpected punch to the groin that was completely unsuspecting and caught the aggressor completely unaware because it was completely unintended. That's why they're changing it, it's not fair that they get in for free.
Hence, yanno, the billions of isk they're now going to have to pay -every two weeks- where as the aggressor will never have to pay more than half a billion. Makes -total- sense now and it's completely fair and balanced.
If you haven't figured it out now this entire response is entirely sarcasm. |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:56:00 -
[758] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ok just one thing
A lot of you seem to think that goonswarms numbers are somehow unfair.
Well they are not, they weren't given those numbers, they accuired those numbers through a lot of work. Its not easy to hold an alliance like that together.
The basic idea that a 50 man corp should be able to fight a 5000 man alliance is just silly.. They will and SHOULD get crushed in any normal fight. They could however manage to get a very high kill/loss ratio with some clever tactics and guerrilla warfare..
Eve isn't fair, Its not supposed to be fair. The goons have massed thousands of players together and now they reap the benefits from that achievement, Deal with it? Nothing unfair about it. Nothing unfair about bringing in 5000 of your bestest buds either... Wardec'ing Bloggers because they posted things about mittens during the election? Guess GSF / CFC is taking Eve pretty seriously nowadays... Nope, nothing unfair about that either.. Its not nice.. But not unfair. Yes it is, otherwise they wouldn't be changing it. It's not fair that you and all of your closest supporters can dog-pile and cause an unexpected punch to the groin that was completely unsuspecting and caught the aggressor completely unaware because it was completely unintended. That's why they're changing it, it's not fair that they get in for free. Hence, yanno, the billions of isk they're now going to have to pay -every two weeks- where as the aggressor will never have to pay more than half a billion. Makes -total- sense now and it's completely fair and balanced. If you haven't figured it out now this entire response is entirely sarcasm.
Sorry i wrongly used the term fair there.
Obviously it isn't fair. But the world isn't fair and eve isn't fair.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2274
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:32:00 -
[759] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Ok just one thing
A lot of you seem to think that goonswarms numbers are somehow unfair.
Well they are not, they weren't given those numbers, they accuired those numbers through a lot of work. Its not easy to hold an alliance like that together.
The basic idea that a 50 man corp should be able to fight a 5000 man alliance is just silly.. They will and SHOULD get crushed in any normal fight. They could however manage to get a very high kill/loss ratio with some clever tactics and guerrilla warfare..
Eve isn't fair, Its not supposed to be fair. The goons have massed thousands of players together and now they reap the benefits from that achievement, Deal with it?
Yet one of the stated reasons for nerfing the Inferno allies for free "dogpile" was because it wasn't FAIR (on mercs and large alliances). So by the logic of the developers it should be perfect right?
Either Eve is supposed to be FAIR or it isn't - but Having it FAIR for one side and not the other is just double standards.
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! |
Noriko Mai
460
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:13:00 -
[760] - Quote
Good job with the Capture Status numbers. It's now sorted correctly. |
|
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
241
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:01:00 -
[761] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Yet one of the stated reasons for nerfing the Inferno allies for free "dogpile" was because it wasn't FAIR (on mercs and large alliances). So by the logic of the developers it should be perfect right?
Im pretty sure what isn't "FAIR" on mercs is that when you make the wardec on your ****** whatever space guild mutual, they get stuck in a permanent wardec against US and costs nothing.
It's almost like it's exactly opposite what the intention of the wardec system overhaul is about.
Also, if you'd like I can get you numbers for our highsec pvp group, but I'm pretty sure you aren't fighting against 9000+ GSF members, more like 100 because most of us can't be assed to enter your side of the ghetto, even for a good ol' fashioned pogrom. |
Pirokobo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 03:20:00 -
[762] - Quote
Tanaka Sekigahara wrote: Why would you want to balance a fight.? Fair question, let me answer.
ANYONE with ANY knowledge of war, or warfare ( being different from a " fight", singular) knows that when 2 forces are fairly evenly balanced, they fight. when they are not, they do not fight.It's very simple, really.
It is the rule in war, if our forces are ten to the enemy's one, to surround him; if five to one, to attack him; if twice as numerous, to divide our army into two. -Sun F***ing Tsu, TWO F***ING THOUSAND YEARS AGO
Note the part about "five to one". In fact the whole text of Art of War, and really The Prince as well can be boiled down to "never give a sucker a fair fight." |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
43
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 04:02:00 -
[763] - Quote
Fact of the matter is that if it can be abused it will be abused, and I can see Large Alliances taking the opportunity to engage in legal wars -just to do it-. Let's be real here, Hulkaggeddon happens -because it can-.
For the cost of a single PLEX I can engage war with whoever I want, regardless of the numbers and the only thing I have to worry about is whether or not they're willing to spend the billions of isk to have a fighting chance,
OR
Do what this problem was designed to solve and just leave their ****ing corporation to avoid the war entirely. |
Courthouse
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
241
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:15:00 -
[764] - Quote
unironic Sun Tsu in this thread |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
43
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:33:00 -
[765] - Quote
Pirokobo wrote:
Armies just don't meet, look at each other and say "Yeah, this looks fair" and go at it. They make camp and try to figure out what to do to make the odds favor them a bit more.
That makes sense, but on level terrain where Guerilla warfare is key against outstanding odds. 300 Spartans didn't hold their ground against millions of Persians at the Battle of Thermopylae with Concord/Game Mechanics making sure that they, in fact, paid to have the few thousand Greeks on their side, nor did they have literally astronomical units of open space in -every- three dimensional direction, nor were there security statuses that prevented other nations/armies of Greece from joining the fray unless they aptly paid their damn dues.
This is a joke, to say the least. Aggressors having to pay to start a war was one thing but now "war" in Eve is going to be who can afford to extend the "war" as long as possible until the other side breaks. Can force the opposition into surrender just by sitting in station for long periods of time.
You want a -real- Sun Tzu quote that actually relates to this? Here's one:
"If our soldiers are not overburdened with money, it is not because they have a distaste for riches" |
zxc Uisen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:48:00 -
[766] - Quote
Quick question here, since i haven't seen information on that subject: will the renewal bill for active wardecs account for the amount of people allied, as well as the defendants? I ask, because the attacker gets extra targets, which is the point of the wardec bill in the first place. |
Dorn Val
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:09:00 -
[767] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ...What the CSM has been hiding is that Trebor Daehdoow is actually "Future Mittani" - sent back through a wormhole in order to rewrite history...
I knew it! That's why you never see them together in the same room... Just like there is no I in Team there is no Fair in Eve... |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
606
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:32:00 -
[768] - Quote
I am very impressed that we managed to get from trolling to serious Sun Tzu quotes. Long may it last! Here's one that I apply in wormholes but I hear also works in Nullsec
GÇ£The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.GÇ¥ CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Dorn Val
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:33:00 -
[769] - Quote
I actually see two problems: Jade expecting a war in Eve to be fair, and the Goons using the war deck system like they're a bunch of high sec griefers. The solution is simple Jade: Move to W space. Most null sec players won't follow you there because the security blanket which is local chat doesn't really exist in worm holes (suggest delayed local in null and watch all the null bears cry). Locator agents won't work either, so you can completely disappear from K space popping out only when you need to (or if you want to go hunting Goons). Moving to W space, and getting away from all of the griefing in Empire space, was one of the best decisions I've made in the game... Just like there is no I in Team there is no Fair in Eve... |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
43
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:40:00 -
[770] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:I am very impressed that we managed to get from trolling to serious Sun Tzu quotes. Long may it last! Here's one that I apply in wormholes but I hear also works in Nullsec
GÇ£The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.GÇ¥
I still stand beside the ideal that it shouldn't take a Jita riot in order to get the point across, lol. |
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
859
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:43:00 -
[771] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:I am very impressed that we managed to get from trolling to serious Sun Tzu quotes. Long may it last! Here's one that I apply in wormholes but I hear also works in Nullsec
GÇ£The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.GÇ¥ How can you AFK cloak without local?! |
zxc Uisen
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:48:00 -
[772] - Quote
St Mio wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:I am very impressed that we managed to get from trolling to serious Sun Tzu quotes. Long may it last! Here's one that I apply in wormholes but I hear also works in Nullsec
GÇ£The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.GÇ¥ How can you AFK cloak without local?! log in edit then log out |
Lord Zim
796
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:55:00 -
[773] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Nothing unfair about it. Nothing unfair about bringing in 5000 of your bestest buds either... Wardec'ing Bloggers because they posted things about mittens during the election? Pretty certain no changes would've been made to the system if literally every hisec griefing corp hadn't dogpiled into every hisec war they could dogpile into.
Just sayin'. |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
44
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:57:00 -
[774] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Asuri Kinnes wrote:Nothing unfair about it. Nothing unfair about bringing in 5000 of your bestest buds either... Wardec'ing Bloggers because they posted things about mittens during the election? Pretty certain no changes would've been made to the system if literally every hisec griefing corp hadn't dogpiled into every hisec war they could dogpile into. Just sayin'.
Still don't see the problem with it. War isn't supposed to be fair or balanced, long as it's unfair for them. |
Lord Zim
796
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:07:00 -
[775] - Quote
Nomistrav wrote:Still don't see the problem with it. War isn't supposed to be fair or balanced, long as it's unfair for them. War isn't supposed to be fair or balanced, that's correct. And last I checked, the changes which CCP says are coming aren't there to make wars fair or balanced, they're coming to close a loophole where some corps join what, 50-70 wars without paying a dime? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
607
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:25:00 -
[776] - Quote
St Mio wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:I am very impressed that we managed to get from trolling to serious Sun Tzu quotes. Long may it last! Here's one that I apply in wormholes but I hear also works in Nullsec
GÇ£The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.GÇ¥ How can you AFK cloak without local?!
Float combat probes or just appear on Dscan CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Maraner
The Executioners Capital Punishment.
150
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:31:00 -
[777] - Quote
Agree with Jade, at least try and find a mid point please CCP. This 1.1 change is too much of a nerf. |
Ammzi
Imperial Guardians The Aurora Shadow
1017
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:49:00 -
[778] - Quote
Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.
Too bad that the wardec mechanics doesn't allow aggressors to get allies. So much for the CSM knowing anything about this feature.
******* hell.
Edit: CCP, the defender might have been too powerful, but now everything is in control of the agressor. "Oh my, too many allies. I better opt out now." Bullshit. quote CCP Spitfire
"Hello Im Blue,"
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:06:00 -
[779] - Quote
Ammzi wrote:Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that. Too bad that the wardec mechanics don't allow aggressors to get allies. So much for the CSM knowing anything about this feature. ******* hell. Edit: CCP, the defender might have been too powerful, but now everything is in control of the agressor. "Oh my, too many allies. I better opt out now." Bullshit.
It's all gone pete tong. The 1.0 mechanics gave too much power to the defenders by bringing in too many allies and locking aggressors into wars, the new mechanics will give too little power to the defenders to make a substantial retalliation against bigger alliances. I believe soundwave made the statement that wars "shouldn't be fair", but I hope he realises that if your intentions and designs lean towards an UNFAIR system you inherently mean one side is going to lose out - the question seems to be is that side going to be aggressors or defenders? 1.0 it was aggressors, 1.1 will be defenders (again) |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
316
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 14:50:00 -
[780] - Quote
Nice green icon for ships cargo on the neocom.
Few tweeks and everyone will be happy
Cargo links to windows need to be active all times so we can use double click or right click to open the drop down menu and open all available cargo holds from there.
Where did the ship maintance and corp hanger right click menus go on the orca. They where there last build
Shift right click-open cargo hold(2) does not open a tree free menu unless you have saved a location for that cargo hold already. |
|
Pirokobo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:40:00 -
[781] - Quote
Maraner wrote:at least try and find a mid point please CCP
Okay... how about get rid of high-sec?
Jade can bring as many allies to the table as he wants for free. No more gimmicky war "mechanics", just war. Secretary - Goonswarm Federation Corps Diplomatique |
August Guns
Generic Technologies and Futures Organization
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:03:00 -
[782] - Quote
Here's to hoping that CCP sees this post, but I donGÇÖt have much hope.
In regards to CCPGÇÖs changes to wardec mechanics, the adjusted costs do not scale well, removing any benefit the ally system has. It neuters CCP's stated goal of a merc marketplace. It's just cheaper and easier to use a workaround when attacking corps figure out the loophole.
It stops dog-piles from defenders while letting attackers dog-pile on one defender. Attacker cost does not scale past 500m (not counting other outgoing wardecs ofc), while defender cost scales so badly it's infeasible for small groups.
Example:
10 groups wardec one corp. They will pay, at most, 5 bil total for the wardecs, from the capped cost of 500m per wardec. The defending corp hires 10 alliances to aid it. It costs a total of 9.2b isk for the defenders to join up on just one wardec. To defend against all 10 incoming wardecs requires 92 billion isk. Titans cost that much, and thatGÇÖs just for one wardec cycle.
Whoopsie.
Now, why does this matter? Because most groups in highsec are small, even the bigger griefer/mercs. But if you throw in a big powerhouse, they can't even afford to hire the numbers they'll need. Not when the aggressing corp can maintain the wardec as long as they want for pennies when the defender needs to rehire them.
So it's really just cheaper to forget the ally mechanic entirely and just have mercs wardec the aggressor (e.g.: merc corp pays, at most, 500m per attacking group since they now donGÇÖt worry about that silly scaling nonesense). You know, just like they used to.
With some inginuity, anyone can make it impossible to defend in highsec with the ally mechanics.
Example:
A group can have 10 alt corps that each declare war at the same time on one target. Their ultimate goal is a highsec tower. They have their pvp chars ready to switch to any of the 10 corps. When they see which wardecs are defended against, the pvp chars switch to the ones that don't have allies on it. They can keep their roles off, and instajoin the corp without allies on the wardec, undock, shoot tower.
Now we come to my proposals:
If CCP insists on having some sort of fee, I'd say have cost scale off of the number of people in corp/alliance making the wardec, specifically the number of people at the time the war was declared.
Second, cap the cost for defenders at something more reasonable in case the defender needs to hire more. YouGÇÖre supposed to be encouraging players to use your mechanics, not penalizing them. I donGÇÖt care what the figure is, but it should be comparable to the wardec cost
Third, possibly allow for merging wars together
Forth, allow for diminishing costs when dog-piles or multiple incoming wardecs occurs. Perhaps, for each active wardec the defender has against it, the base cost for hiring allies drops. Perhaps this, too, can scale off of number of people involved. Indeed, I would say this is preferred since it allows multiple smaller groups to defend without being forced to join one group.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
316
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:13:00 -
[783] - Quote
The look at ship you are hitting does not stick while it explods any way we can have that feature. It was mentioned in the dev video but is not on Sisi |
Zedrik Cayne
Standards and Practices
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:32:00 -
[784] - Quote
Dorn Val wrote:I actually see two problems: Jade expecting a war in Eve to be fair, and the Goons using the war deck system like they're a bunch of high sec griefers. The solution is simple Jade: Move to W space. Most null sec players won't follow you there because the security blanket which is local chat doesn't really exist in worm holes (suggest delayed local in null and watch all the null bears cry). Locator agents won't work either, so you can completely disappear from K space popping out only when you need to (or if you want to go hunting Goons). Moving to W space, and getting away from all of the griefing in Empire space, was one of the best decisions I've made in the game...
You cannot hide in a wormhole and pop out when you need/want to. I've stalked many folks who went hiding in wormholes. And the new locator agent 'nerf' makes this so much easier.
Sit on your agent, and keep screaming names of the people who are online and in the wormhole. Over..and over...and over again. Until he finally relents and says 'HEY! One Here!' Go there...scan your way down into his wormhole. And then invite 9000 of your best friends to make life hell.
You do not know the depths of boredom and brute force folks are willing to use should their grudge be deep enough, or the pay high enough. (Or, they are just batty...) You are the internet equivalent of a Mars bar filled with stupid. |
Nomistrav
High Flyers RED.OverLord
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:01:00 -
[785] - Quote
August Guns wrote:Here's to hoping that CCP sees this post, but I donGÇÖt have much hope.
In regards to CCPGÇÖs changes to wardec mechanics, the adjusted costs do not scale well, removing any benefit the ally system has. It neuters CCP's stated goal of a merc marketplace. It's just cheaper and easier to use a workaround when attacking corps figure out the loophole.
It stops dog-piles from defenders while letting attackers dog-pile on one defender. Attacker cost does not scale past 500m (not counting other outgoing wardecs ofc), while defender cost scales so badly it's infeasible for small groups.
Example:
10 groups wardec one corp. They will pay, at most, 5 bil total for the wardecs, from the capped cost of 500m per wardec. The defending corp hires 10 alliances to aid it. It costs a total of 9.2b isk for the defenders to join up on just one wardec. To defend against all 10 incoming wardecs requires 92 billion isk. Titans cost that much, and thatGÇÖs just for one wardec cycle.
Whoopsie.
Now, why does this matter? Because most groups in highsec are small, even the bigger griefer/mercs. But if you throw in a big powerhouse, they can't even afford to hire the numbers they'll need. Not when the aggressing corp can maintain the wardec as long as they want for pennies when the defender needs to rehire them.
So it's really just cheaper to forget the ally mechanic entirely and just have mercs wardec the aggressor (e.g.: merc corp pays, at most, 500m per attacking group since they now donGÇÖt worry about that silly scaling nonesense). You know, just like they used to.
With some inginuity, anyone can make it impossible to defend in highsec with the ally mechanics.
Example:
A group can have 10 alt corps that each declare war at the same time on one target. Their ultimate goal is a highsec tower. They have their pvp chars ready to switch to any of the 10 corps. When they see which wardecs are defended against, the pvp chars switch to the ones that don't have allies on it. They can keep their roles off, and instajoin the corp without allies on the wardec, undock, shoot tower.
Now we come to my proposals:
If CCP insists on having some sort of fee, I'd say have cost scale off of the number of people in corp/alliance making the wardec, specifically the number of people at the time the war was declared.
Second, cap the cost for defenders at something more reasonable in case the defender needs to hire more. YouGÇÖre supposed to be encouraging players to use your mechanics, not penalizing them. I donGÇÖt care what the figure is, but it should be comparable to the wardec cost
Third, possibly allow for merging wars together
Forth, allow for diminishing costs when dog-piles or multiple incoming wardecs occurs. Perhaps, for each active wardec the defender has against it, the base cost for hiring allies drops. Perhaps this, too, can scale off of number of people involved. Indeed, I would say this is preferred since it allows multiple smaller groups to defend without being forced to join one group.
I've come to the determination that, like many other pressing matters, CCP stopped listening when they got the first "I love it" post.
|
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko Tower of Dark Alliance
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 10:02:00 -
[786] - Quote
This was my bug report, but in fact it is feature request, so let's hope it'll be noted...
Thing about the 'cargo' button (left side of HUD),
Assume you have splitted out Secondary window with your cargohold. Requested following behaviour: if user pressing the cargohold button (left side of HUD), said Secondary window should open.
1. Go to space with your ship with some items in cargohold 2. Open inventory, split out the cargohold with shift-click (look at first 2 screenshots) 3. Collapse the new window, or let it stay 4. Now click the button on left side of HUD (see screenshot 3). You'll see the Primary window opens.
While in fact there should be opened Secondary cargo window, be it active. out of focus, collapsed or closed (but still memorized) |
Fizzie Kaufman
Yarrfleet
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 17:40:00 -
[787] - Quote
About the War Dec changes,
I agree they needed to be done, but I agree with something I read somewhere in this thread. If someone greatly out numbers one side, then the smaller side should be able to recruit up to about equal number of people for free, or at least at a much cheaper rate. And then when they reach the size of the aggressor corporation, they can continue to add allies, but in doing so, would allow the aggressor corporation to hire there own allies, to keep the numbers about even.
Another something I think would go well with War Decs, is the idea that the price of a War Dec to scale according to the size difference between the sides, granted with it being cheaper on the aggressors side. So it may cost 500 mil for a small corporation to Dec a huge corporation, but for said huge corporation to Dec the smaller corporation would cost say, somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 the 500 mil it would cost the smaller corporation. And the closer the size of the corporations the cheaper it would be,, down to the minimum cost for similar sized corporations.
On top of that, you could possibly add the number of Allied pilots into the size difference calculation, but IMO, it would be better if they were counted at a slightly reduced rate since they are allies, not actually originally part of the war.
Some of this may have been said before, and im sorry if someone is upset that I dont credit them, but I just cant be asked to go back thru and find them all again.
Just my 2 cents worth of ideas |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
2422
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 07:28:00 -
[788] - Quote
Fizzie Kaufman wrote:About the War Dec changes, I agree they needed to be done, but I agree with something I read somewhere in this thread. If someone greatly out numbers one side, then the smaller side should be able to recruit up to about equal number of people for free, or at least at a much cheaper rate. And then when they reach the size of the aggressor corporation, they can continue to add allies, but in doing so, would allow the aggressor corporation to hire there own allies, to keep the numbers about even. Another something I think would go well with War Decs, is the idea that the price of a War Dec to scale according to the size difference between the sides, granted with it being cheaper on the aggressors side. So it may cost 500 mil for a small corporation to Dec a huge corporation, but for said huge corporation to Dec the smaller corporation would cost say, somewhere between 1/2 and 3/4 the 500 mil it would cost the smaller corporation. And the closer the size of the corporations the cheaper it would be,, down to the minimum cost for similar sized corporations. On top of that, you could possibly add the number of Allied pilots into the size difference calculation, but IMO, it would be better if they were counted at a slightly reduced rate since they are allies, not actually originally part of the war. Some of this may have been said before, and im sorry if someone is upset that I dont credit them, but I just cant be asked to go back thru and find them all again. Just my 2 cents worth of ideas
Please don't try to use the war system to enforce some artifial sense of fair play. It's a war not an e-sporting event. It has nothing to do with fair or equal sides fighting each other in honourable combat. You can use it for that, but it should never be reduced to that. If that is what you want, make 2 corps who fight in an eternal mutual war and follow a set of your own rules to keep things even. You know, something like RvB already does.
Generally speaking if a corp has a superior military wing, it should be able to leverage it to gain an advantage over the target corp. The target already has the option to hire or request help from a few sources very cheaply to even up the odds or even gain the advantage. All this comes at a somewhat balanced cost, although the cost of bringing more allies should also be capped to some reasonable level, and people shouldn't get any special treatment just because of their size.
Relying on size is also bad because the number of combat pilots varies, as does the number of people taking part in the war effort and it would allow war cost manipulation by using a properly sized alt corp to initiate the fight. For example a industry/mission running corp of 50 pilots would propably not appreciate the fact, that a corp of 50 murderous PvP veterans can get a discount when wardeccing them and as a bonus can invite rest of their friends in on the fun after the initial bill has been paid. It's much more preferable to use a simple system with as few loopholes as possible for deciding wardec costs, that doesn't try to funnel the use of wardecs to some specific usage or purpose. It's a sandbox, so the players are the ones who create the reasons and goals, so the system should be as flexible as possible, while being kept balanced by CCP with the overall gameplay in mind.
|
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 08:19:00 -
[789] - Quote
Did anyone have time to learn the new skill "Armor Resistance Phasing" to confirm it works as intended ? Thank you for the report.
One skill rank 5 for one module. It has to be efficient. Same goes with the "Target Breaker Amplification". |
Blue Harrier
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:28:00 -
[790] - Quote
Reported these as 'bugs' on SiSi;
When launching core probes from a Helios there is no 'Launch' sound as the probe is launched into space.
Also the 'warp to position' sound only seems to sound when the probes are set to 4AU or less in area.
There is also still a small burst of static or compressed ambient sound at the end of the 'Jump' or 'Dock' sound when jumping through a gate or docking.
None of the above are game breaking, just annoying.
And got this reply; The problem you have described is an intended game feature or function, and not a bug. .
Also from testing on SiSi; Dragging and dropping a ship from either the 'Ship Hanger' view via the 'Tree' or from the merged 'Ships and Items' view on the 'Station services' panel does not update the 'Active Ship's cargo hold' window. That is very annoying as you have to check which hold on which ship you are actually looking at. You also need to either, close then re-open the window to change views or double click to open a new view.
I also made the mistake of loading the wrong hold and undocked only to find the goods still in station .
Finally, from rolling a new alt; Why is there a small green star against all my corpmates but not against my alt in chat windows? From a new pilots point of view this looks like everyone without a star belongs to your corp and those with a star belong to another corp. I know it's been like it for years but just wondered why
"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982. |
|
Lord Zim
800
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:38:00 -
[791] - Quote
There's sound in eve? |
Blue Harrier
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:48:00 -
[792] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:There's sound in eve? \sarcasm mode on Not really, there is some sort of GÇÿMuzacGÇÖ that plays while the game is active (I turn it off) and the odd GÇÿnoiseGÇÖ that they pass as game sounds when doing things. This GÇÿnoiseGÇÖ often plays for the wrong reason or in the wrong context, a bit like the graphics, so I suppose it all fits in with the general game characteristics. \sarcasm mode off
"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
317
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:58:00 -
[793] - Quote
Blue Harrier wrote:Lord Zim wrote:There's sound in eve? \sarcasm mode on Not really, there is some sort of GÇÿMuzacGÇÖ that plays while the game is active (I turn it off) and the odd GÇÿnoiseGÇÖ that they pass as game sounds when doing things. This GÇÿnoiseGÇÖ often plays for the wrong reason or in the wrong context, a bit like the graphics, so I suppose it all fits in with the general game characteristics. \sarcasm mode off Bug reports at least the headers get looked over by the QA staff and get reviewed after the ISD looks at them. QA then passes them to the proper teams. So while the bug reports might get a as intended response the feed back is taken on board. The sound devs where asking for feed back earlier in the release cycle.
What OS and client language are you using its funny what can some times mess up the timing of events and sounds.
Thanks for bug reporting your issues internaly using the client. The pictures will help with repros .
There will be a development devblog this comming week after the new patch walking every one thru the steps and why some bugs do not get fixed as fast as us players would like. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
2083
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 19:00:00 -
[794] - Quote
Quick question, and I may have missed it asked in the thread.
Are the prices for uniforms in the LP stores final?
Thanks! When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Yuna Yee
The Volition Project
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 22:48:00 -
[795] - Quote
Considering the Minmatar V3:
GOOD - the new Tech2 Ship Models look just awesome!
HMM ... - many Tech1 Ships look awefully pale, too bright and beamless now - especially ships with larger same-color areas - the worst example being the Hurricane. Also a ton of other races ships now look way too bright - what before was made so cool has now turned back even worse ...
- what happened to our faction ships having slightly different models - now they're not special any more at all. Especially why did you remove the square sunpanels of the Tempest Fleet Issue? - That was exactly what made this ship so cool... |
boeboe joe
Sons Of Sins and Shadow
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 00:00:00 -
[796] - Quote
Ok, so I'm loving the new Minmatar V3's, very nice art team! Looking forward to the capitals.
But as for the all wardec system changes, I'll refer to one of my favorite quotes:
"All's fair in love and war." - Can't remember source
Additionally, last time I checked, EVE is a sandbox. If someone knocks down your sandcastle, shouldn't you be able to fight back?
I support the opinion of Jade here,
Jade Constantine wrote:NeoTheo wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ... This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response. Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table. Think it through with this example. 9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance. Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke. Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.
And also, I can't seem to understand why a thread in the "General Discussion" section about a blog was closed for being off topic. Last several posts were still in general discussion over the main topic.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1475348#post1475348
Got 'roids? |
Reiisha
Splint Eye Probabilities Inc. Dawn of Transcendence
131
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 02:29:00 -
[797] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:NeoTheo wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ... This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response. Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table. Think it through with this example. 9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance. Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke. Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.
Just reposting this.
Why does the defender get screwed over like this? |
Lord Zim
829
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 02:33:00 -
[798] - Quote
Reiisha wrote:Just reposting this.
Why does the defender get screwed over like this? Because with the current system, some corps apparently have 50-70 wardecs, all for free, and most wars which are opened to the general public have been dogpiled by 20+ corps, rendering the merc business basically null and void. |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 13:05:00 -
[799] - Quote
If you want to know how the current war system is ******
Look at the war history of Project Nemesis. |
Whisperen
That's Not A Knife Flatline.
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:14:00 -
[800] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Reiisha wrote:Just reposting this.
Why does the defender get screwed over like this? Because with the current system, some corps apparently have 50-70 wardecs, all for free, and most wars which are opened to the general public have been dogpiled by 20+ corps, rendering the merc business basically null and void.
So there is more fighting more ship loss more economic activity and more fun now!
Who gives a flying fukc about the 'merc' business! mercs are hired by word of mouth for completing specific objectives the new 'merc' market is a redundant 'feature' designed to pander to role players.
Minnie t1 looks crap t2 is good. |
|
Lord Zim
847
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:01:00 -
[801] - Quote
Whisperen wrote:So there is more fighting more ship loss more economic activity and more fun now! There probably isn't.
Whisperen wrote:Who gives a flying fukc about the 'merc' business! mercs are hired by word of mouth for completing specific objectives the new 'merc' market is a redundant 'feature' designed to pander to role players. I guess you didn't catch the comments of ccp soundwave where he said specifically they were trying to revive the merc market. |
X1376
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 09:05:00 -
[802] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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 have hard time to understand this logic after 2 days of trying to digest it.
I would challenge this argument by saying, that price of war dec should scale with size of aggressor. Finally bigger aggressor has more guns to get something out of it... |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:01:00 -
[803] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.
1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.
2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.
3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).
4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.
I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.
Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.
This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
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. 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.
Why shall you balance the fight in the interst of fairness? I would say the same thing to you CCP Soundwave! The wardec works and while its NOT the fairest thing, why change it back into the hands of Goons? How is it that making it unfair to wardec a larger entity like goons but it is unfair(its not unfair but FAIR to goons) to change it into the hands of goons. After all "Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE"! Goons have brought bad karma into themselves so why cant the rest of eve get back at them? Why make it in their favour and not the rest of eve? You speak much about small entities wardecking larger entities but you have forgoten that this has been the case for a long time and now you change it in favour of the large entities! why? Cos "higher number should be more expensive". How is this not making it MORE FAIR on goons side? Cos let me tell you, i see the "power of choice fades" very quickly here! Well goons are big so "the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated", so why wont they? Start reinforcing POS and not allowing them to undock. Why should goons or any other large entity get the easy way out?
It is very worring how you can simply past judgment in favour of large entities and call that fair while at the same time claiming that eve should not be balanced and not made fair. You are killing militia tactics on someone. |
Lord Zim
848
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:05:00 -
[804] - Quote
Yes, it's all about making it better for us evil goons. Goony goon goon goon. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:07:00 -
[805] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Yes, it's all about making it better for us evil goons. Goony goon goon goon.
i know i used goons but this goes for any large entity. You seek bad karma and you shall get it! Why shall you get the protection from CCP while claiming, that is fair and claim at the same time that eve should not be made fair! Its hypocritic! |
Lord Zim
848
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:14:00 -
[806] - Quote
I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.
I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :( |
Alice Everlasting
Ore and Trade Inc. Care Factor
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:17:00 -
[807] - Quote
Faiunus KeDar wrote:Quote:Trilambda
GÇó Minmatar V3 GÇó Re-designed Caldari Drake GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship. GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter. I love the V3'd minmatar ships, however the T1 ships I always imagined to be a bit darker, like the Tornado on TQ. With all the new shaders being brighter I also see another problem. The Caldari and Amarr ships I can live with, but Gallente ships does not look as good as they did once the first version of the new shaders came out. Personly I like the darker textures. Why? New Eden is not a stroll in the park, it is a dark universe we live in. I think that the darker textures fits better with that theme.
I just tried out some ships on sisi and I absolutely agree. The Gallente ships look all fluffy and cuddly now, to the point that there are no shadows left on them, they are lit up even on the side facing away from the sun. and that goes for amarr and caldari ships to. It completely removed the sense of actual space that i loved. and i do not understand all the complaints about it being to dark and "i cant see my ship" stuff people have been saying. The shading and lighting was perfect before 1.1 and thats not about new eden being a stroll in the park or a "dark universe", the real universe is dark and it looked more realistic before, simple as that. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:21:00 -
[808] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.
I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :(
i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it. This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts. |
Lord Zim
848
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:31:00 -
[809] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.
I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :( i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it. This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts. I haven't gotten ganked a single time in jita, and I haul multi-billion cargos all the time. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:33:00 -
[810] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.
I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :( i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it. This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts. I haven't gotten ganked a single time in jita, and I haul multi-billion cargos all the time.
doesnt mean it wont happen. |
|
RAP ACTION HERO
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:43:00 -
[811] - Quote
you know the ceaseless goonie goon goon whine is getting tiresome
nobody cares what you hisec scrub battered goon victims have to whine about
it seems aleks karde, a csm member and a merc by trade, and a dude generally well-informed of mechanics and stuff, is fine with the changes and that is why the changes are so. |
Lord Zim
848
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:45:00 -
[812] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:doesnt mean it wont happen. Of course not, that's why it's called high security, and not total security.
Andrea Roche wrote:besides i have stated before in other threads that i do believe that using NPC charaters to pilot a freighter is an exploits same as all the other war mechanics exploits that avoid war. There you go again, with the assumptions. As it so happens, I do actually run my own corp as well, for my hisec shenanigans.
Andrea Roche wrote:You should be in corp period if you want to pilot a freightr in highsec. This in turn forces contracting to a 3rd party or creation of alt corp which fuels espionage and conflict. This is the basic hot pot of eve! Good thing I'm already there, eh? |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:55:00 -
[813] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:doesnt mean it wont happen. Of course not, that's why it's called high security, and not total security. Andrea Roche wrote:besides i have stated before in other threads that i do believe that using NPC charaters to pilot a freighter is an exploits same as all the other war mechanics exploits that avoid war. There you go again, with the assumptions. As it so happens, I do actually run my own corp as well, for my hisec shenanigans. Andrea Roche wrote:You should be in corp period if you want to pilot a freightr in highsec. This in turn forces contracting to a 3rd party or creation of alt corp which fuels espionage and conflict. This is the basic hot pot of eve! Good thing I'm already there, eh?
i am not saying you do or dont but what i am saying is that this needs changing also. Not everything is about you and only you. Same as when i said goons, i also mentioned large entities. Its all general. Instead all you saw is goons and not "large entities" |
Lord Zim
848
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:11:00 -
[814] - Quote
You said "goons", I saw "goons". You started talking about how NPC characters were bad in response to me saying I had a neutral freighter alt, I'm just pointing out that this isn't the problem you seem to attribute it as, since I can easily circumvent wardecs without going to NPC corps.
The only way you're going to fix that particular problem is to require that CCP limits accounts and characters to 1 per person. Good luck with that, should you choose to go down that route. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:44:00 -
[815] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You said "goons", I saw "goons". You started talking about how NPC characters were bad in response to me saying I had a neutral freighter alt, I'm just pointing out that this isn't the problem you seem to attribute it as, since I can easily circumvent wardecs without going to NPC corps.
The only way you're going to fix that particular problem is to require that CCP limits accounts and characters to 1 per person. Good luck with that, should you choose to go down that route.
what? |
Lord Zim
848
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:52:00 -
[816] - Quote
It's in plain english? vOv |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 12:46:00 -
[817] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It's in plain english? vOv
what kind of troll is this? limit the accounts to 1? rofl |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
144
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 14:36:00 -
[818] - Quote
still dont see why the war mechanic doesnt include the corps standings towards NPC Highsec Factions.
The whole premise of war decs costing isk is because you're bribing NPC's to 'look the other way'.
higher standings = higher cost to wardec. |
Lord Zim
849
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 14:53:00 -
[819] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:It's in plain english? vOv what kind of troll is this? limit the accounts to 1? rofl The only way you'll get at the whole "hurr I'll just freighter stuff around in a neutral alt" is if you get CCP to limit the number of accounts to 1 per person, and 1 character per account. It's the only way you can actually stop the war mechanics exploits that avoid war. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:05:00 -
[820] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:It's in plain english? vOv what kind of troll is this? limit the accounts to 1? rofl The only way you'll get at the whole "hurr I'll just freighter stuff around in a neutral alt" is if you get CCP to limit the number of accounts to 1 per person, and 1 character per account. It's the only way you can actually stop the war mechanics exploits that avoid war.
what are you talking about? its simple and it does not limit people to one corp. Everybody still uses alts npc corp or not. They are not JUST used for freightering stuff! Stop talking nonsence I see the "mighty" goons are afraid of not been able to take their techtonium to jita with none npc character! Pathetic. |
|
Robus Muvila
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:23:00 -
[821] - Quote
I love this thread.
Andrea Roche wrote: ... i have stated before in other threads that i do believe that using NPC charaters to pilot a freighter is an exploit...
Lord Zim wrote: ...The only way you're going to fix that particular problem is to require that CCP limits accounts and characters to 1 per person. Good luck with that....
Andrea Roche wrote:Everybody still uses alts npc corp or not. They are not JUST used for freightering stuff! Stop talking nonsence
See?
Beautiful. |
Lord Zim
851
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:59:00 -
[822] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:It's in plain english? vOv what kind of troll is this? limit the accounts to 1? rofl The only way you'll get at the whole "hurr I'll just freighter stuff around in a neutral alt" is if you get CCP to limit the number of accounts to 1 per person, and 1 character per account. It's the only way you can actually stop the war mechanics exploits that avoid war. what are you talking about? its simple and it does not limit people to one corp. Everybody still uses alts npc corp or not. They are not JUST used for freightering stuff! Stop talking nonsence I see the "mighty" goons are afraid of not been able to take their techtonium to jita with none npc character! Pathetic. Yeah, I figured it would still fly right over your head, but I can at least say I tried. vOv |
Star en Gravonere
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:04:00 -
[823] - Quote
Watching all this from afar, I have to agree that the current mechanic is flawed. However, the proposed solution from Soundwave is worse.
It is poetic to have a large 0.0 alliance that has caused much grief toward those players in high sec that those players then band together for retribution. It doesn't matter if the current villain is the goons. In the past it would have been BoB/IT. In the future it will be someone else. However, it in unrealistic to expect all those in high sec to drop their corps or alliances to band together into a single entity, yet the proposed mechanics would for this to do this. Eve allows virtual bullies to pick on the weak, yet until the current war dec changes the mechanics made it unrealistic for players to spontaneously stand up to the bully. Any new system should still encourage this by letting smaller entities easily join forces for a short time for payback.
Further, I think the approach toward the cost is missing the obvious solution. In Eve, when a pilot breaks the law, they are flagged individually and sought out by Concord. What-ever corp they are in is not flagged. The same principle should apply to war decs, with Concord having to flag all the individual pilots as being immune to attacking the enemy. The end result would be a cost based on the size of the attacking corp/alliance and the target. If a 5,000 member alliance wants to fight a 100 man corp in high sec, the charges should reflect a total of 5,100 pilots. That is how many pilots some poor Concord administrator has to enter into the system to not be flagged as a criminal when fighting breaks out. The actual game mechanics would not change, just the basis for determining the cost. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:15:00 -
[824] - Quote
Star en Gravonere wrote:Watching all this from afar, I have to agree that the current mechanic is flawed. However, the proposed solution from Soundwave is worse.
It is poetic to have a large 0.0 alliance that has caused much grief toward those players in high sec that those players then band together for retribution. It doesn't matter if the current villain is the goons. In the past it would have been BoB/IT. In the future it will be someone else. However, it in unrealistic to expect all those in high sec to drop their corps or alliances to band together into a single entity, yet the proposed mechanics would for this to do this. Eve allows virtual bullies to pick on the weak, yet until the current war dec changes the mechanics made it unrealistic for players to spontaneously stand up to the bully. Any new system should still encourage this by letting smaller entities easily join forces for a short time for payback.
Further, I think the approach toward the cost is missing the obvious solution. In Eve, when a pilot breaks the law, they are flagged individually and sought out by Concord. What-ever corp they are in is not flagged. The same principle should apply to war decs, with Concord having to flag all the individual pilots as being immune to attacking the enemy. The end result would be a cost based on the size of the attacking corp/alliance and the target. If a 5,000 member alliance wants to fight a 100 man corp in high sec, the charges should reflect a total of 5,100 pilots. That is how many pilots some poor Concord administrator has to enter into the system to not be flagged as a criminal when fighting breaks out. The actual game mechanics would not change, just the basis for determining the cost.
This does not work cos then it would cost 6 billion to wardec goons sized entity which is too expensive. And thats per week! At that cost you may aswell make it not been able to declare war! I think the present is fare. You screwed up and you got bad karma coming your way. You should not get off that easy. Eve is a cold harsh place! CCP should not give goons free pass or any othr entity. Its ridiculous. |
Rasmido
Liga Freier Terraner Ev0ke
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:16:00 -
[825] - Quote
Missing ship- and droneicons....
3 days ago i only missed the icons from tengu and velator.
Then CCP delayed the Inferno 1.1 release because of this bug...
1 patch later (2 days ago) i am missing all icons from ships and drones.
2 patches later (yesterday) - still the same
It makes testing on the server nearly impossible.
As a sidenote: All others that i know in game are claiming, that there is no problem with these icons... I cleared my cache, I deleted all settings (the %appdata%\Eve\ folder)...
|
Jiji Hamin
Aliastra Gallente Federation
72
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:13:00 -
[826] - Quote
hi i have lots of opinions about goons and wardecs which are not founded in virtually any real experience that I can use as a basis for my proposed solutions and instead will base everything that I say off of conjecture and what I hear other people say. i believe goons are the antichrist and are in collusion with ccp who only do anything to please one group of players, even though that group of players has had bad relations with ccp historically and that goup's leader was just kicked off of the csm by ccp. i will now rant incoherently and be incapable of understanding any of the arguments laid out against me. i will act as though certain ideas are common or central to eve when in fact they are alien, such as arguing that certain things are "unfair" when fairness has always been a joke in eve. this will make it even more impossible to reason with me. it will be ambiguous whether english is my first language and whether I am an RPer. you will become rightly suspicious that I am a bot given the frequency with which I post. I will probably accuse a CCP employee of either being a fascist for erasing unproductive comments or of hating eve and its players because they failed to say exactly what I wanted, when I wanted them to. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
317
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:30:00 -
[827] - Quote
Rasmido wrote:Missing ship- and droneicons....
3 days ago i only missed the icons from tengu and velator.
Then CCP delayed the Inferno 1.1 release because of this bug...
1 patch later (2 days ago) i am missing all icons from ships and drones.
2 patches later (yesterday) - still the same
It makes testing on the server nearly impossible.
As a sidenote: All others that i know in game are claiming, that there is no problem with these icons... I cleared my cache, I deleted all settings (the %appdata%\Eve\ folder)...
I think there was a issue in one of the patch cycles that is not fixed by the launcher. I had a UI bug issue and reinstalled Sisi. The issue cleared up. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
618
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 15:36:00 -
[828] - Quote
Salpun wrote:Rasmido wrote:Missing ship- and droneicons....
3 days ago i only missed the icons from tengu and velator.
Then CCP delayed the Inferno 1.1 release because of this bug...
1 patch later (2 days ago) i am missing all icons from ships and drones.
2 patches later (yesterday) - still the same
It makes testing on the server nearly impossible.
As a sidenote: All others that i know in game are claiming, that there is no problem with these icons... I cleared my cache, I deleted all settings (the %appdata%\Eve\ folder)...
I think there was a issue in one of the patch cycles that is not fixed by the launcher. I had a UI bug issue and reinstalled Sisi. The issue cleared up.
This was fixed on Friday and will be on Sisi some point over the weekend, or early Monday morning. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Rasmido
Liga Freier Terraner Ev0ke
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.23 20:24:00 -
[829] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Salpun wrote:Rasmido wrote:Missing ship- and droneicons....
3 days ago i only missed the icons from tengu and velator.
Then CCP delayed the Inferno 1.1 release because of this bug...
1 patch later (2 days ago) i am missing all icons from ships and drones.
2 patches later (yesterday) - still the same
It makes testing on the server nearly impossible.
As a sidenote: All others that i know in game are claiming, that there is no problem with these icons... I cleared my cache, I deleted all settings (the %appdata%\Eve\ folder)...
I think there was a issue in one of the patch cycles that is not fixed by the launcher. I had a UI bug issue and reinstalled Sisi. The issue cleared up. This was fixed on Friday and will be on Sisi some point over the weekend, or early Monday morning.
Confirming. It is solved now. Thx. |
nat longshot
solo and loveing it
37
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 03:56:00 -
[830] - Quote
Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.
I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :( i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it. This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts. I haven't gotten ganked a single time in jita, and I haul multi-billion cargos all the time. doesnt mean it wont happen. besides i have stated before in other threads that i do believe that using NPC charaters to pilot a freighter is an exploits same as all the other war mechanics exploits that avoid war. You should be in corp period if you want to pilot a freightr in highsec. This in turn forces contracting to a 3rd party or creation of alt corp which fuels espionage and conflict. This is the basic hot pot of eve!
a frighter need to be in corp lol your so dead wrong even in the real world dont work like that. Did you know before the USA got into world war 2 we were sending frighters full of cargo to england and german u-boat's would eather down them or leave them alone.
Have alts is like have a contract outside your corp/allinace that work only for your corp/allinace like the USA did for England before it got into the war. was this a exploit no is it in game no. you just bent out of shape that frighters not red to you get over it.
Alts any alt are like countrys that will work with any willing pay "game time for eve" any thing you seen to look at thats not red is a exploit so when i sell something in jita to one of your targets is that a exploit i in my own why move that cargo and sold it on the open market for your target to buy and use.
Learn from the real world before you call any thing a exploit.
|
|
Geoscape
36
|
Posted - 2012.07.24 11:35:00 -
[831] - Quote
Saw the changes to deadspace remote repair modules.
My RR punishers just got a whole lot better! |
Isaiah Harms
Phase II Rogue Templars
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:00:00 -
[832] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Adding some new items to FW LP stores GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs
Isn't speedtanking FW complexes a huge issue? Shouldn't you be adding webs or something else to fix that inbalance (this is, apparently, completely breaking the caldari/gallente war)? Also what kind of items - brand new items, or ones from other LP stores?
Yeah.. I know those Gallente pilots are crying tears about controlling most of Caldari low.. Gee.. Those missiles must truly be hard for their 18 man FW fleets to handle. Especially against the mindboggling awesome resist bonuses a gallente ship gets to kinetic.
|
Isaiah Harms
Phase II Rogue Templars
7
|
Posted - 2012.07.26 04:27:00 -
[833] - Quote
Maraner wrote:Agree with Jade, at least try and find a mid point please CCP. This 1.1 change is too much of a nerf.
Having received the adoration of Maraner and Co. before (3 consecutive wardecs lasting 8 months) I wish to state something you all need to consider:
You do not win in EVE through mechanics
You win by not giving up, and learning how to make the opponent give up.
A few short weeks after being formed, my old alliance (Dragoons.) came to the attention of an alliance called Boglyft (changed to Capitol.Punishment, now Capital Punishment.)
3 weeks into wardec #1 our entire industrial corp fled the ranks. By week 5 most every other corp had also abandoned the alliance. It looked like Maraner and his men were going to squash yet another alliance. Admit it, being perma-camped by 3 carriers and support fleet makes it hard for new alliances.
I think the rock bottom point was when I logged into ventrilo and only 3 others were online. What do you do when your enemy control the space and you got a handful of guys active? You get mad.
We switched our stance to a guerrilla war. Our enemy would win the fleet fights. But we'd pick off expensive ships flying solo, and slowly the campaign efficiency numbers turned around.
So my whole point: Quit trying to finagle favorable mechanics. Learn to really fight. It's humans behind the computer screen after all.... Learn to combat THEM, not their ships. You'll start to win no matter how big they are.
P.S. You're worried that Goons is too big to fight? My 150 man alliance (12 guys active) demolished a 700 man alliance last October. They were about 12-45 guys active at all times. If numbers intimidate you it says you don't know how to PVP in EVE.
Go back to WOW. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: [one page] |