Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2567
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:34:00 -
[271] - 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 |
|
DazedOne
The Crabbit S O L A R I S
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:37:00 -
[272] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: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. I hear that repeatedly attacking a developer of the game is now bannable. I would be careful how many times you attack soundwave, who has done nothing but promote great changes and fixes to this game ever since he has joined ccp games.
I won't go that far man. The UI for our inventory is still a steaming pile of useless junk. Granted there is a patch coming soon for that abomination and from what I'm hearing it is still worthless after the new fixes. I will be checking them out shortly on SiSi, but in the meantime I don't believe anything from most of the CCP Employees as most of it is dribble to make us continue to pay for broken mechanics. Hell Soundwave himself said that that abomination would be patched every week on Tuesday until it was fixed and how long did that last????????????? Now we have to wait multiple weeks/months/years to get this horrible UI to work properly.
Now on to the war dec changes; yes the change was needed to the ally system. It was ridiculous if you got war dec'd to have unlimited allies come to the defenders aid for free. This completely broke the purpose of a lot of guys out there working as Mercs in this game. If people can't see that then they truly need to pull their heads out of their asses because they are stuck on stupid.
If you can not defend yourself then do something about it. Hmmmmmmm you could train up some combat skills to defend yourself, you could add a new security division to your corp (pvp) to fight and defend yourselves, you can hire Mercs to fight your battles for you. There are a lot of options you can do but bringing in unlimited allies waqs not only an oversight it outright broke war decs.
One last thing one of the earlier guys mentioned. A treaty system would be awesome and from Soundwaves lil snicker or whatever it was it sounds they may be looking into a system like that and if so that would be an incredible feature to implement. However!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get the inventory UI fixed before going into a ton of new code that will without a doubt have issues if thrown together like the horrible UI we are forced to deal with now. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2505
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:44:00 -
[273] - Quote
DazedOne wrote: One last thing one of the earlier guys mentioned. A treaty system would be awesome and from Soundwaves lil snicker or whatever it was it sounds they may be looking into a system like that and if so that would be an incredible feature to implement. However!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get the inventory UI fixed before going into a ton of new code that will without a doubt have issues if thrown together like the horrible UI we are forced to deal with now.
CCP is indeed looking into a Treaty System, we had a great session dedicated to brainstorming ideas of the types of contracts that can built into it at our recent CSM summit. Seleene wrote a little teaser on his blog, you can get all the juicy details once the minutes are released in a few weeks!
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1338
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:05:00 -
[274] - Quote
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
This is slightly unclear, can you not also put the date and/or the time left bracketed? Something like
Quote:Live/drops at 2012.06.15 20:12 (23hrs)
I'm not sure what it is about it that stops it being crystal clear, but it's confused me once (probably because the "next time the clock says xx:xx" isn't said anywhere) and I get asked it a lot by corpies. - "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 |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:19:00 -
[275] - Quote
Better yet, just give war declarations/endings a countdown timer and be done with it. The timer could even be client-side to reduce server load... send the actual time via server (which is what happens now), client does the math, and there you have it. |
Evil Incarn8
The Fiction Factory Blue Nation
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:29:00 -
[276] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2567
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:47:00 -
[277] - 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 |
|
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Liberty Trident L I B E R T Y
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:21:00 -
[278] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:[quote=Orakkus]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
Setting the 2 week limit on allies if a good idea and fixes the main whine from mercs. But the cost of such allies should be left for them to decide and not for CCP to set a new isk sink. Having CCP setting up costs for allies runs contrary to the initial arguments for the new war dec system and and runs contrary to the sandbox idea as well. |
Challu
Wishful Desires Inc. Armada Assail
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:44:00 -
[279] - Quote
Atum wrote:Still waiting for the proof that Goons went whining to CCP........
Why would Jade et. al. supply something like that? He has no reason to throw cold water on his conspiratorial fires now, does he? It would also be doubly embarrassing, since he starts something that exposes gamebreaking mechanics and then has to turn to the usual source of large-scale mayhem in the game - Goons - to bail him out. It's brilliant, in a twisted kind of way.
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus wrote:Setting the 2 week limit on allies if a good idea and fixes the main whine from mercs. But the cost of such allies should be left for them to decide and not for CCP to set a new isk sink. Having CCP setting up costs for allies runs contrary to the initial arguments for the new war dec system and and runs contrary to the sandbox idea as well.
True. In the presence of a merc marketplace, an ally system doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. If there is safety to be sought in numbers, Corps should just band together to form an alliance. If they want to fly solo, let them pay for the protection they are unable or unwilling to provide themselves.
Even the current ally system is like free lunch (5 allies for 120M - lawl..) compared to what was there before.
|
Traska Gannel
ROC Academy The ROC
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:14:00 -
[280] - Quote
Hi ... just some thoughts ...
1) What is the difference between a mercenary and an ally? There will always be folks interested in joining some wars just to get fights in empire without charging anything or having to make a war dec. They are free mercenaries essentially ... and there is no way to prevent this ... how can you encourage a "mercenary" marketplace when some folks will fight for free?
2) Why is it a broken mechanic to allow a defender to have an unlimited number of allies? Aggressors almost always choose situations in which they have a substantial advantage ... they don't usually war dec otherwise ... they then extort isk or attempt to engage the defender typically again only in situations with beneficial odds. It's the whole pvp game ... attempting maneuver your fleet/gang/ship into a situation against your opponent where you have a decided advantage before you engage. Almost every even fight I have seen has been an accident. By removing the ability to employ/acquire substantial help the situation has been returned to one in which the aggressor always has the advantage. Large groups can go back to griefing and extorting small ones in empire or elsewhere with impunity.
Keep in mind that there is no point to a war dec for combat anywhere except in empire. In null sec or 0.0 folks can engage as they like when they like. So when a large 0.0 alliance becomes the aggressor in a war dec the ONLY purpose is to allow it to engage targets in empire without concord intervention.
As far as I am concerned an aggressor gets what it deserves if a defender acquires enough allies to pose a threat to the aggressor.
What is the problem with this? Apparently there is no mechanism to end a war dec that is declared mutual without surrender terms being accepted (is that correct ... other than disbanding the aggressor alliance/corp and reforming that is ...) .If this is a problem ... perhaps this suggestion could be a solution ... if an aggressor gets in a situation where they feel they have gotten in over their heads then there should be a mechanism for a concord mediated surrender in which a surrender offer must be accepted within a specified period of time (perhaps 2 weeks?). This would allow lots of fighting to occur on a more even basis until the surrender by the aggressor is accepted.
If there is a concern that corporations can get free pvp just by being allies then there should be a 25 million isk fee - or perhaps half of a war dec cost ... to register an ally with concord. If you are hiring mercenaries then this fee would be part of the payment. However, it should not scale up as the number of allies increases ... that is just another broken mechanic trying to heavily favour the aggressor in such conflicts.
In conclusion ... I think there are issues with war decs that need to be addressed ... but I don't think the solution currently being implemented by CCP makes much sense except to swing the balance in war decs back to favouring large aggressive organizations.
|
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
192
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:29:00 -
[281] - Quote
Just to add to the conspiracy pile, do you really believe the former CSM chair would have to post in features and ideas about a change he'd like to make to something? I doubt everyone in CCP that he used to call/skype/tweet changed all their info so he couldn't still get a hold of them.
Now, who cares really if he did or didn't complain, they're going through with the changes regardless of motivation. It's a bit comical that Goons/TEST all mock the "allies" Jade has, while losing to them in overwhelming numbers. The "allies" are all dogpiling pubbies, that just happen to be kicking their ass all over high sec. But they didn't want those ships anyways, and only the dumb members of their alliances are getting caught.
Regardless, the changes being discussed have almost universally been posted as not going to work to bring about a real merc marketplace. It will force small merc corps to join large merc alliances to get any work. Instead of having 40 allies, Jade will have 3, with all of those 40 allies now in 3 large alliances instead. Next CCP will limit the amount of wars each merc can be in, so they'll have to adapt in yet another way ... and then CCP will make another change. It's just a slippery slope of even more regulations and rules governing the wars without an endgame in sight.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:52:00 -
[282] - Quote
Why not just allow allies such that the total number of players in the defender's coalition = number of people in the attacking alliance/corp? |
Svalinn
SOMER Blink Cognitive Development
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:55:00 -
[283] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
It's worrying that CCP chose not to implement the mercenary-based option and consider a different one, while simultaneously creating a system that snuffed it out entirely. I'm not sure what I've missed, but a mercenary option can only be a good thing unless the goal is the suppression of that play style.
" I felt it catered too much to a specific playstyle which very people engage in at the cost of everyone else" It's a bit more concerning that the excuse that such a change would impact on another persons play-style, when if you reduce it to a basic level, is simply one side declaring war upon another. One side fights another. I'm unsure why this is a problem (In EVE of all places), it seems you have a problem with a battle having a loser, focusing on the losing side and their experience. So it really doesn't actually involve mercenary corps at all, it involves every entity that war-decs another, in any situation where there is a winner and a loser.
The differentiation you are (wrongly, imo) making is to penalise those groups that fight in Empire under war-dec rules as being somehow detrimental to everyone else. Significantly, it most affects those groups that start fights against groups in Empire, those predominantly being mercenary and griefer corps, but crucially the system is set up that there is no longer any advantage to hiring help to defend, when the cost of bringing in 5 'free' allies is negligible. The system still favours the defender, offers no incentive to pick your allies carefully, and doesn't scale against the sizes of the allies you bring in, or the scale of the war at large.
Are the proposed changes better? Relatively speaking yes, its a change from "complete disaster", but it is still "pretty terrible". The CSM who were passionate about changing it were those voted in by those who wanted to keep combat on the agenda, to represent the values they hold dearest. By your own admission, large alliances in null sec have little to no regard for this change, yet even their CSM candidates didn't like the idea.
CSM can't influence policy, but you can actually try to respect play-styles and the effort made to create a viable mercenary system long before you brought in your own. The analogy would be, you destroyed the nice creation of the sandbox, and now want us to play without the tools to properly rebuild them. Wonder why people are angry?
- S |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
192
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:55:00 -
[284] - Quote
Michael Harari wrote:Why not just allow allies such that the total number of players in the defender's coalition = number of people in the attacking alliance/corp?
That's been suggested many times, the only reason against it seems to be that Eve isn't fair.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:00:00 -
[285] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Why not just allow allies such that the total number of players in the defender's coalition = number of people in the attacking alliance/corp? That's been suggested many times, the only reason against it seems to be that Eve isn't fair.
Eve isnt fair, but it should be impartial to both sides of an engagement. Not allowing any allies would be unfair, but also stupid.
Or how about reducing the wardec costs on entities with outgoing wardecs? |
Rythm
True Power Team Out of Sight.
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:03:00 -
[286] - Quote
So just to confirm. Old wardec shield == get a lot of alt corps to wardec you and pay the price of multiple wars. New dec shield == get a ton of people into 1 Alliance (e.g. Free Carebearing Confederation of Motsu or Goonswarm Federation).
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:14:00 -
[287] - Quote
So many words.
Quick question:
Since fairness isn't a quantifiable concept as opposed to balance which is largely mathematical, aren't we really debating the balance of wardec costs between a large sov-holding entity and a patchwork, smaller one attempting to engage?
Ive seen it written that it "should be more expensive" to attack a larger corp, a statement which I'm still trying to reconcile. That can't be the only reason. Wouldn't smaller groups already incurr higher numbers of ship losses, etc. as a logistical consequence of invading an entrenched, superior foe? They should pay more for the privelege of being hopelessly outmatched?
I can get behind forever wars with unlimited allies as being out of balance (there's none) but these exponential ally costs do insulate larger entities from attack and will make it more difficult for smaller groups to finance their offensive goals.
How then is this balanced or good for player generated content?
The words, forever, unlimited, and exponential are not very conducive to balance.
Yonis Kador Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2274
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:24:00 -
[288] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Why not just allow allies such that the total number of players in the defender's coalition = number of people in the attacking alliance/corp? That's been suggested many times, the only reason against it seems to be that Eve isn't fair.
Which is ironic seeing as how one of the stated reasons for removal of the defensive ally dogpile was it "wasn't fair"
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! |
Rythm
True Power Team Out of Sight.
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:36:00 -
[289] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Which is ironic seeing as how one of the stated reasons for removal of the defensive ally dogpile was it "wasn't fair" Well it was not fair in a sense that we were having a privateer alliance mk2 moment, but as opposed to privateers wardeccing every alliance in eve, here the nullsec entity had to be dumb enough to wardec someone in highsec themselves. Personally I see no reason for the nerf other than bland favoritism for the nyx pilots who gank JFs right on the bridges =)
|
Damion Rayne
Lorentz Technology Group
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:44:00 -
[290] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. I'm sure you realize that it appears that CCP bends to the will of Goons. I'm pretty sure that CCP is part of the goons at this point.
I'm pretty sure you're just plain stupid. -DR Teamwork.. Maturity.. Tactics.. www.tacticalgamer.com |
|
Damion Rayne
Lorentz Technology Group
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:45:00 -
[291] - Quote
Wow, this whole forum is full of some pretty stupid people.... Teamwork.. Maturity.. Tactics.. www.tacticalgamer.com |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:33:00 -
[292] - Quote
Damion Rayne wrote:Wow, this whole forum is full of some pretty stupid people....
When it gets to the point that you think "everyone else" is dumb and stupid it might just be they are right and you are wrong.
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! |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:50:00 -
[293] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Damion Rayne wrote:Wow, this whole forum is full of some pretty stupid people.... When it gets to the point that you think "everyone else" is dumb and stupid it might just be they are right and you are wrong. I think the fact that a sizeable portion of the American public do not believe in evolution is a rather strong argument against public opinion being particularly reliable.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
John Dowland
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:33:00 -
[294] - Quote
I support the type of thinking that is shown in the change suggestions outlined here http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?6933-Destruction-Testing-the-New-Wardec-System-(Ganks-Included)&p=477568&viewfull=1#post477568
The main point for me is preserving access to allies for defenders declaring the war mutual.
I feel that the inferno changes were designed to create more risk for the aggressor and that mutual wars with allies are key to achieving that. |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:41:00 -
[295] - Quote
nm, f*cked up the postzilla |
Emily H
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:43:00 -
[296] - Quote
Quote:There is now a cap on how much the number of members in the defender corp/alliance can affect the war declaration cost. The cap is 500 million.
In an earlier devblog, it was stated that the wardec cost per corp/alliance is "(log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27, where N is the number of corp [or alliance] members". This simplifies to (ln(N))^2 * 575685*N^0.27.
Solving (ln(N))^2 * 575685*N^0.27 = 500000000 for N (using WolframAlpha, for instance), we get that 7210 is the minimum number of corp/alliance members required to reach the 500M wardec cost ceiling.
I wonder what particular alliance that change happens to benefit... |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:52:00 -
[297] - Quote
Oh, you edited.
Well, that was extremely amusing none the less.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Emily H
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:56:00 -
[298] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Oh, you edited. Well, that was extremely amusing none the less.
The results were the other way around, "unfortunately". |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:57:00 -
[299] - Quote
Emily H wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Oh, you edited. Well, that was extremely amusing none the less. The results were the other way around, "unfortunately". Hehe, yeah, it did make me giggle when I read it though
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Dr Shameless
Soldiers Of New Eve
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:09:00 -
[300] - Quote
I have a better solution. Remove the cost for allies but limit the amount of allowable allies, so that the total number players on defending side does not exceed the total number of players on the attacking side. This way big attackers will not have an easy turkeyshoot but smaller attackers will still have a chance. This is genius tbh.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |