|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
2459
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Inferno 1.1 is just around the corner bringing some new features and a bunch of iterations and defect fixes. To tell you what Team Superfriends have been doing with the War Dec System for 1.1, here's CCP SoniClover with a new blog.
Oh, and in case you forget, we want your feedback as always CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |-á@ccp_guard |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
146
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
First! |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2482
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
I wanted to be first @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
2459
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:01:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I wanted to be first
You were the first to get more likes than me on the forums...wasn't that enough :'( CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |-á@ccp_guard |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2482
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:02:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Guard wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I wanted to be first You were the first to get more likes than me on the forums...wasn't that enough :'(
you're just posting this to get pity likes @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1392
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
AMirrorDarkly wrote:Wow, this shifts War decs firmly back to the advantage of the aggressor, I expected some sort of rebalance in light of what's happend with Goons getting a taste of their own medicine but this seems like it's gone the other way again.... Shame
The biggest issue was that being able to invite everyone and the kitchen sink to your war meant that hiring a merc became completely irrelevant. Hopefully limiting the options slightly will provide people with more incentives to hire mercs (but still let you throw a ton of money at allies). |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1392
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:19:00 -
[7] - Quote
Orakkus wrote:I highly disagree with this: Quote:There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies. You are still free to hire as many allies as you want, but there is an increasing cost in doing so. Refer to this:
GÇóAlly #1 GÇô Free! GÇóAlly #2 GÇô 10 million GÇóAlly #3 GÇô 20 million GÇóAlly #4 GÇô 40 million GÇóAlly #5 GÇô 80 million GÇóand so onGǪ I think this point alone discourages smaller alliances and corporations from defending against large, generally better funded, alliances. And to be honest, this sounds too much like the Mittani's influence because of what happened between Goons and Star Fraction. Smaller alliances should have the ability to contract as many allies as they need.. without financial cost.
Limiting the number of allies is feedback we've gotten from the merc industry, I'm not sure Goons care. If they do, they haven't voiced it to us vOv. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1392
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:31:00 -
[8] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:E man Industries wrote:2 weeks is to short. By the time a contract is set up it's almost over.... 4 weeks would be better.
Also why the cost increase for more alliances....why are they penalized for more people coming to help them? Wars were getting very one sided. The aggressor would dec, then a goodly fraction of eve would join as allies, for free, just to get something to shoot at. As a result very few are willing to make a dec, the system is grinding to a halt. Not a good thing, even for someone like me who has no interest in war. I do like selling stuff to those that do. Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved. CCP, I've heard rumors that there will be some system for a war following a single member who drops corp, to be introduced in a future expansion. But no mention of that for 1.1 in the blog. Is that because there is nothing, or was it just not mentioned? Is there going to be something like this? When?
Nope, that change currently isn't on the table. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:25:00 -
[9] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:Looking good, and I like the new Utility menu. No more panicing because regular members can see the 'Make Mutual' option in the rightclick, and less rightclicking...
Countdown to Jade in 3... 2... 1... Sigh tbh. It was pretty clear this change was set in stone the moment it was posted. I obviously think its pretty terrible and it is caving into the needs of the largest alliances in Eve at the cost of the smaller entities while doing absolutely nothing to help out the merc profession in Eve online. It was pointed out on the test server feedback thread that NO CSM MEMBER (who was at the meeting) was in favour of this change so its something CCP have foisted against the advise of the player council and (it must be said) against the huge majority of posters giving feedback so far. This is nothing to celebrate over. Its simply a bad decision made on bad reasoning to the detriment of aspects of the game. Still eventually we got the ship hanger back last year. Maybe this will go the same way in six months. Until then its back to pre-inferno wardec system with large alliances costing 10x as much to dec. Business as usual.
I completely agree with your take on this situation:
1. The largest alliances haven't asked for this change. I'm not sure where you're getting this information but it has yet to reach me. From reading the thread on Sisi they seem to be making it abundantly clear that they don't care about this feature.
2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:28:00 -
[10] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Jypsie wrote:Selissa Shadoe wrote:From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it Quote:It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate. That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair. Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread. This makes more sense CCP. The larger alliances already have an advantage in manpower and resources to bring into a fight. Artificially giving them even more advantages preventing defenders from getting Allies by a game induced tax is unnecessary. Once some sort of parity is approached, you can start applying fees to keep the kitchen sink from being thrown. Mercs will still be appealing, in their own niche. For example: A 10 man high-sec piracy corp decs a 30 man mining corp, demanding ransom or exploding Orcas. At this point the defender is already over the manpower headcount of the aggressor with an apparent 3:1 "advantage." Make them pay an exorbitant fee to bring in an ally. Reality knows that they need some combat pilots. This is where the Mercs come into play. They could be hired for less than the cost of bringing in Allies. Mercs would also be appealing to bring in an advantage once you have an approx. 1:1 headcount with your enemy for less than the cost of Allies. Sadly Soundwave is 100% committed to this large-alliance boosting change and its pretty much set in stone. No feedback on revising the plan has been considered as far as I can tell - and the CSM itself (those who were at the meeting) was ignored completely when they gave the thumbs down to this particular "fix". I strongly suspect we'll all be stuck with it for six months at least.
We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion. |
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:31:00 -
[11] - Quote
Darius III wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:First! This is the level some of the devs are on.....Pro I am very glad to see some new cost structure for allies, as the changes gave getting allies in a war a "clown car" aspect that really killed the whole idea of mercenary marketplace off. I would like to put something conspiracy theory wise about Goons, CCP etc. but the merc/war dec changes are a good plan and endorsed by many of us who actually fight in wars/have an interest in seeing the merc marketplace tree bear some meaningful fruit. As for the skillbook, I dont care one way or another as I think most of the new modules are superficial garbage and shouldn't have been included in this, or any other patch. Glad that CCP is listening to community feedback though +1 for that
:Hfive: |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1398
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:42:00 -
[12] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion. So would you care to comment on the following quote from the one CSM member present at your meeting on wardecs with the most actual experience of mercenary work and wardecs Soundwave? 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.
Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.
I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against. I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
I'm saying you're fabricating things because you're incorrectly making assumptions about meetings you have no information about. Unless you have read rights to the CSM forum you can't accurately gauge our communication with the CSM. Secondly a CSM member just posted on this page saying he supported the changes.
The function of the CSM has never been to dictate changes. If that was the case, we'd be building features to suit individual people, which isn't going to happen. The CSM meetings aren't where features are designed either, so if we talk about things at meetings that doesn't lock us into a certain development path. We had a chat with the CSM, we agreed on that a change was needed but at the end of the day we didn't chose the patch Alekseyev wanted because I felt it catered too much to a specific playstyle which very people engage in at the cost of everyone else.
Your assumption that we "don't listen" is entirely incorrect, and either grounded in the fact that you have no idea what goes on between us and the CSM at closed door or because you selectively choose to believe that "listen" means "do what they tell us", which it certainly doesn't. This topic has been discussed at length with the CSM on their forum, regardless of of what your theory about the subject is.
Anyway, I understand you disagree with the feature and that's fine, but after reviewing the feedback this is the direction that I at the end of the day chose. |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1398
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:50:00 -
[13] - Quote
Manssell wrote:You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.
It's funny you should mention this................. |
|
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1432
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:30:00 -
[14] - Quote
Off topic posts removed.
Please remember that this is a feedback thread about the Inferno 1.1 Changes To the War Dec System devblog, thank you. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
347
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:eet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort: Quote: 1 ally = 0 Million 2 allies = 10 Million 3 allies = 30 Million 4 allies = 70 Million 5 allies = 150 Million 6 allies = 310 Million 7 allies = 630 Million 8 allies = 1 Billion 9 allies = 2 Billion 10 allies = 5 Billion 11 allies = 10 Billion 12 allies = 20 Billion 13 allies = 40 Billion 14 allies = 81 Billion 15 allies = 163 Billion 16 allies = 327 Billion 17 allies = 655 Billion 18 allies = 1 Trillion 19 allies = 2 Trillion 20 allies = 5 Trillion 21 allies = 10 Trillion 22 allies = 20 Trillion 23 allies = 41 Trillion 24 allies = 83 Trillion 25 allies = 167 Trillion 26 allies = 335 Trillion 27 allies = 671 Trillion 28 allies = 1 Quadrillion 29 allies = 2 Quadrillion 30 allies = 5 Quadrillion 31 allies = 10 Quadrillion 32 allies = 21 Quadrillion 33 allies = 42 Quadrillion 34 allies = 85 Quadrillion 35 allies = 171 Quadrillion 36 allies = 343 Quadrillion 37 allies = 687 Quadrillion 38 allies = 1 Quintillion 39 allies = 2 Quintillion 40 allies = 5 Quintillion 41 allies = 10 Quintillion 42 allies = 21 Quintillion 43 allies = 43 Quintillion 44 allies = 87 Quintillion 45 allies = 175 Quintillion 46 allies = 351 Quintillion 47 allies = 703 Quintillion 48 allies = 1 Sextillion 49 allies = 2 Sextillion 50 allies = 5 Sextillion
PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!
Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2543
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:45:00 -
[16] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:Man that utility menu is a sexy little thing...
agree @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
1507
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
Offtopic posts removed. Please stay on the subject.
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2567
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:34:00 -
[18] - Quote
Evil Incarn8 wrote:Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?
Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).
hummm how was it indicated in the old one?
we just display the time a war ends because it's within 24 hours.. so if it says 16:00 it means next time it's 16:00 Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2567
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:47:00 -
[19] - Quote
Evil Incarn8 wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Evil Incarn8 wrote:Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?
Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).
hummm how was it indicated in the old one? we just display the time a war ends because it's within 24 hours.. so if it says 16:00 it means next time it's 16:00 There was a column entitled "can fight" where each war recieved a yes/no responce. Well wanting a date as well as a time ties into the can fight yes/no part, If i log in and its say 15:00 and the war states its ending at 14:30, can i assume that is in 23.5 hrs and not 0.5 hrs ago? The previous war screen kept wars on there after they had ended, so i suppose i am used to that, does the new system remove wars from the corp screen as soon as hostilities cease? if so i suppose a date is not required.
ended wars are not in the wars list, just in the war history on your corporation/alliance info Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
611
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 13:52:00 -
[20] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well given the pretty significant opposition to this particular change expressed in this and *many* other threads on the forums at the moment would it be possible for team BFF to go and have a conference with The Senior Producer CCP Unifex (Jon Lander) - and discuss the issue? Perhaps it needs a fresh set of eyes and maybe look at shuffling the teams around a bit?
How exactly would it hurt to leave 1.0 in place for the summer to see how it works in the wild? Maybe spend a couple of months coming up with a properly-worked solution to the problems that have been seen.
The rushed 1.1 changes really do feel incomplete and badly thought out.
Example.
1. Sure the lock-in rules for allies need changing, but reverting it to a fixed 2 week contract with no possibility of auto-renew is just clumsy and a bit lazy programming (epecially considering the 24/48 hour cooldown it will force into the middle of hot wars)
2. Exponentional costs for allies regardless of the size of the attacker ... this has been comprehensively criticized and debunked as a gameplay concept now. Its just silly. If the Attacker's wardec costs are being decided by counting pilots in the defending organization then the defenders wardec costs (if any) should also be decided by counting pilots in the attacking organization. Making one linear and capped, while the other is exponential and uncapped - is just poor design.
3. Mutual wars excluding allies. Since mutuals are the ONLY way that an attacker can be forced to commit seriously to a war and since for a small defender (especially an industrial only defender) to seriously threaten a large attacker THEY NEED ALLIES - the impact of removing allies from a mutual war is simply to remove commitment and consequence to attackers in wars. This surely wasn't the point of Inferno? Its essentially a full reversion to pay-to-grief only wardecs with a free pass to the attacker.
4 Inbalance in wardec costs between large and small organizations. Soundwave justified this on the grounds you pay more for more targets - but the reality is that most very large organizations DO NOT actually present more targets because they are not present in HISEC to be targets. If you pay 500m to wardec a 9000 man alliance you'll be lucky to see 1% of that number yet you are still billed for deccing the full 9000 (even capped). Reality is that a 200 man empire corporation is going to present as many targets as a 9000 man 0.0 organization (probably more) so its pretty ridiculolus that smaller one with more numerous targets costs 100m to dec while the larger one that is mostly in 0.0 costs 500m isk. This kind of situation is why people are believing the wardec system is horribly unbalanced in favour of 0.0.
Seriously.
Please use the opportunity of the minor delay in 1.1 to have a serious discussion between Team BFF and their managers at CCP and see if this whole thing needs to be sent back to the discussion stage for reengineering.
It would be a great shame for the centrepiece of the Inferno summer expansion to be turned into a fiasco where only huge attacker on small defender "grief" wardecs have a purpose and the notion of "emergent gameplay" flows only one way.
Perhaps taking a few weeks break and then looking at shifting the teams around is the way to go. Wardecs and all things mercenary, war-fighting and hisec conflict deserve a fresh set of eyes and shouldn't be passed over with such an evidently rushed set of changes.
While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
611
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:26:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams. Certainly team BFF managed quite a lot of good things in other areas of the game ... my apologies for mispeaking the team name responsible for Wardecs - I'll read your article and see if I can find the right team name for the guys doing wardec revision to edit my post!
Just read my post that you replied to initially about the war decs. It's in there https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=120106
Please note that in my links above, all words linked in "would accomplish a lot" were achieved by teams formed in the reorganisation, not BFF. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
612
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams. Certainly team BFF managed quite a lot of good things in other areas of the game ... my apologies for mispeaking the team name responsible for Wardecs - I'll read your article and see if I can find the right team name for the guys doing wardec revision to edit my post! Just read my post that you replied to initially about the war decs. It's in there https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=120106Please note that in my links above, all words linked in "would accomplish a lot" were achieved by teams formed in the reorganisation, not BFF. Done, thanks, and I updated my large post above with the correct team name. The friends/superfriends/best friend forever theme kinda got confused in my mind around Soundwave's larger than life personality. Anyway, do you have any thoughts on what I was suggesting? Basically delaying implementation of the 1.1 wardec changes and going back to have a wider discussion with other developers and the senior producer perhaps? I think you can see from the feedback on this thread and many other threads that quite a few Eve players are unconvinced by the changes planned for 1.1 and feel they don't meet the needs of the Inferno war system. I think its fair to say feedback is generally negative to this change.
I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2621
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:10:00 -
[23] - Quote
as a former member of Team Best Friends Forever and a current member of Team Super Friends I just want to point out that I'll always your friend! Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
612
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:16:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying.
That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback.
CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
612
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:27:00 -
[25] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying. That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback. Well you could simply temp forum block "me" and any poster in this friend from "goonswarm/test/obvious nullsec" and look at whats left. But seriously, I understand you are frustrated that we (myself and practically everyone else) kept on debating, arguing, restating our points etc etc - but really, doesn't that just show we're passionate abouty your game end of the day? Its not a bad thing really. Imagine how disappointed you'd be if you posted a devblog and everyone just :shrugged: and said "meh".
I do enjoy the commitment that players show to EVE, it's the lifeblood of the game. I don't enjoy people tearing strips off each other (or us) and taking an "I'm right, you are wrong (usually accompanied by an insult)" approach to debate, which is what invariably occurs on these forums. Seems that it's about converting people to one's viewpoint, or about silencing or rubbishing them altogether, rather than stating one's case, maybe answering one rebuttal and leaving it be. The latter is far more informative and useful to read than the former. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2624
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:* popcorn *
can you get some for me too? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 23:56:00 -
[27] - Quote
where is that popcorn I asked for???? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:07:00 -
[28] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? On sale in the mercenary marketplace
I thought I'd get as many free as you had? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:26:00 -
[29] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? in the mail, jiffy pop, enjoy
thanks space friend! Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:54:00 -
[30] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? On sale in the mercenary marketplace I thought I'd get as many free as you had? well 50 takes quite a lot of work you know - its not easy driving the largest alliance in the game to a foot-stamping apoplexy of impotent rage - and you need to be able to offer interesting ganks to attract the "popcorn" And interesting ganks have been provided, ty Jade and your forever war. I have had the time of my life blowing up goons, something that was very difficult for me before without literally emptying my corporate coffers. You are quite welcome! Its been a fun experiment. Sadly the "forever" part of the description going to fall off with the 1.1 patch and we'll have about 2 weeks left to punish the goons before war is over and the bad guys can go back to their missioning in peace. That said, I must confess I'm curious to see what the dialogue box is going to look like when my 51st ally offers to join the war post 1.1 patch (looks sideways at Punkturis) by current calculations it *should* ask for an addition 10 Sextillion ISK as a concord bribe ... thats quite a number and I'm wondering if the user inferface is going to handle it so I can screenshot for historical record!
Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount) Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 09:45:00 -
[31] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote: Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)
Does that mean its going to trim the number of allies down to the cap when 1.1 comes out? Or will it just refuse to let me add new allies up until the renewal 2 weeks? (+ if it does auto trim how is it going to decide which allies to lose?)
you get to keep your gazillion allies (for 2 weeks) but the next one is going to cost you whatever the cap is
unless your war is mutual, then all your allies will be removed Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2629
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:08:00 -
[32] - Quote
Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2637
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:32:00 -
[33] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay Not even Eve online balancing discussions are worth skipping a nights sleep and a nice breakfast for.
phew! welcome back Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2640
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:59:00 -
[34] - Quote
Marak Noir wrote:It's sad to see the Dev posts reduced to facetious comments. As a player, I always expect a forum thread with Dev posts to contain something interesting or useful.
I'm not a game designer so I have no real say in the mechanics but yesterday I was replying to Jade about his UI concerns (ally cost and what would happen to them when he has so many allies in his war) - so I'm being helpful too even though I don't have anything to say about what concerns you Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2644
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 20:19:00 -
[35] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:We're also on post #447 and still talking
really? I hadn't noticed..... Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
616
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:30:00 -
[36] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...
Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.
On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because.
It got deleted because you quoted a post that got deleted. Also I'm not sure that "tinfoil asshattery" is an entirely constructive statement
We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
617
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 19:18:00 -
[37] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...
Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.
On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because. It got deleted because you quoted a post that got deleted. Also I'm not sure that "tinfoil asshattery" is an entirely constructive statement We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game. Ah! Well here's an odd ball idea. When you delete a post, instead of deleting everyone else who quotes it, just delete the quotes and perhaps add a little notation to it so other posters and readers know something was removed and why. And "tinfoil asshattery" was indeed part of a very constructive statement. It doesn't seem like it was because you only quoted those 2 words with no context at all. As for the war dec system, if it's so important to CCP that this inferno is reduced just to a slow burn, then set a hard limit for the number of allies based on pilots rather than number of corps and/or alliances. And make it scalable based on the dec'ing alliance as well. As it stands now, the 1.1 system only comes in to benefit the large and the rich. For quite some time there's been calls for high sec and smaller low sec groups to rise and unite and start making something in this game. But it gets pretty freaking hard to do so when that requires hefty isk payments to CCP in the form of sinks. And the main flaw imho about all this system is that it fails to ackownledge and cope with the very fundamental different organizational doctrines of null and high sec. Barring RvB and E-Uni you have no big fat ass alliances in high or low sec. And the current system only benefits the big entities which are the excepcion in high sec while being predominant in null. No one expects a war to be fair, but the mechanics and inner workings of it should be ballanced, leaving the fairness or unfairness to the players' own actions. We don't have that yet and we'll part farther away with the I1.1 Again, war dec costs are already indexed to the targeted corp or alliance. At the very least, the ally costs and/or limits should in turn be indexed in some fashion to the size of the dec'ing alliance rather this this current model of one system fits no-one.
Doing that would take a lot of our moderators' time, whereas deleting everyones post who quoted the offending post is simply the touch of a button. I have absolutely no qualms about doing this as it's obvious when someone makes a post that's over the line and therefore logical to not reply to that post. My point about your statement was a joke, lighten up.
On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
ISD Stensson
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 20:42:00 -
[38] - Quote
I have cleaned this thread a little by deleting few troll posts. ISD Stensson Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
618
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 10:45:00 -
[39] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: [...] On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
Here's a scenario then. Someone wardecs me. Anyone from a 10k member alliance to my next neighbour's one man corp. I create an alliance (leave my current one first if I'm on one already) and make it a mutual war. This alliance would be Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* or some other ever so cleverly created name. Invite other corps to join my new Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* alliance, thus creating a dogpile again, evading this new ally tax while having potentially unlimited convenience pvp for lolz friends joining. Now I have a dogpile, unlimited friends for free on a mutual (perhaps perpetual) war and all I had to to was to jump over this hurdle called inferno 1.1 Now what? Buy all tinfoil hats from the market and sit on them waiting for Inferno 1.2 patchnotes so I make a killing?
Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me! CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
638
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:05:00 -
[40] - Quote
Lady Boon wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!
I'm sorry CCP Golliath, I hope I haven't misunderstood, but I think you maybe wrong. If a small corp has to go through the pain and meta gaming of dealing with all the problems of running an alliance, just because some griefer corp wants to blow stuff up with no repercussions, then that doesn't make a good game. Small corps would rather not play, than deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. How does that effect you immersive, action packed gameplay? Granted, the "dogpiling", does need to be addressed, but as many people have said, this is not the way.
I feel like the small corp that doesn't want to get involved with allies, etc, and is going about its own business quite the thing, is extremely unlikely to get wardecced by a large entity. Wouldn't you agree? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
|
|
|