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) |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:22:00 -
[331] - Quote
CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.
How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:28:00 -
[332] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.
How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons.
They answered this a thousand times. The price goes up because of the additional targets that are granted. If you wardec a small corp you are only buying a few potential targets, so it is relatively cheap. If you wardec a large alliance, you are buying potentially thousands of targets so it is expensive. Seems pretty straight-forward. |
Cassius Marcellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:52:00 -
[333] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: ... Day 1-4 of the war led to a handful of engagements.
Day 5 saw inferno.
By Day 6, we had 15 allies for a total of 250-300 people. We actually also were the first corp to receive an ally under the new system, toot.
By Day 10 we had almost 900 allies from 25corps (mostly the exact same ones "helping" Jade and every single other corp. One of our allies was a 5man corp in 50wars).
We paid for none, we spoke to none.
...
This was not good. This broke the wardec system completely.
...
It isn't. It's literally about everyone else, since the only people who are able to effectively wardec WITH the dogpiles ARE the very large alliances.
Do you see now, the issue?
I hear what you are saying.
But the timing and technique of the fix were inauspicious -- the fix created fertile soil for rumors, soil that people like Jade are tilling to their own benefit. We gamers lurve conspiracy theories, and the whole theory that "GSF & TEST / PL / -A- / SLR.C / other huge alliances have CCP on speed dial" feeds right into that (don't ask me why -RZR- or FA don't inspire the same feel even though they're a third the size of GSF, and FA works closely with them, I don't know). The fix played into the hands of anyone looking for a reason to feel disenfranchised. And that fustrates me and makes me angry.
TBH, I do have a selfish agenda: I want to lengthen the cycle from nooblet to bittervet, and I want to lure a couple of dozen friends back to EVE. My mains' corps did flicker back to life earlier this year but now everyone's dropped away again and my friends' lists are ghost towns; my best friend just cancelled her account for the first time in her four or five years in EVE. They were pretty much mostly bittervets with past experience in NPC and sov null sec, but who no longer had time for null. None were affected by war decs lately. But all were affected by disillusionment with how they think CCP views players outside the big alliances (I even had one of them chatting my ear off last night about how he thought that CCP had forgotten that most players were outside the big alliances).
Anyhow, that's why I don't like the fix. It was done in a way that makes my favorite game and game company look bad.
|
Otin Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:02:00 -
[334] - Quote
Kind of funny how for years the small HiSec corps have been told by 0.0 and CCP to HTFU and "go get some friends" if you want to fight back against the big-guys.
Now we can (and did) but, only for a short while longer until it is nerfed into oblivion. Nice job screwing over the Small guys ... |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:08:00 -
[335] - Quote
Cassius Marcellus wrote:It was done in a way that makes my favorite game and game company look bad. QFT.... as I said earlier, CCP has a very bad habit of shooting themselves in various body parts. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:11:00 -
[336] - Quote
Otin Bison wrote:Kind of funny how for years the small HiSec corps have been told by 0.0 and CCP to HTFU and "go get some friends" if you want to fight back against the big-guys.
Now we can (and did) but, only for a short while longer until it is nerfed into oblivion. Nice job screwing over the Small guys ...
Except this makes no sense because the changes hurt the goons more than pubbies. Guys please take a second to think logically about what you are about to post before posting. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1341
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:34:00 -
[337] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade keeps telling us about his "mighty coalition of allies who have banded together" but still dodges basic questions about them, such as whether he has even spoken to the people pressing "ally all" in their Neocom. Someone who wants to "shoot goons for free" (his words) is not an ally fighting for his ideals. Why is that even relevant? Because it works against your rhetoric that forming a large coalition of allies is "emergent" and a "good thing in a sandbox" when the reality is your allies were allies with everyone, (including, ironically, working against some of the people who were also working for you) simply because they just want more red haulers and it has nothing to do with making it easier to create a large ally pool to take on all 50 highsec Goons.
Quote:And now they must pay 500m a week to do it.
How is increasing the cost to dec Goonswarm by up to 10x on the pre inferno expense NOT benefiting the large alliances exactly?
How is quoting the cost of wardecing just one, out of the thousands, of alliances in EvE relevant to how the system should work as a whole?
Counterpoint: it now costs a large alliance 10x more to declare war on another large alliance; how is this important?
Quote:So you are complaining about the fact that you got wardecced ... your CEO asked for allies and you got allies? If you wanted to keep the war small why didn't you just well ... NOT ask for allies?
In addition of course the change I have proposed widely (and in the EveNews24 article you link) would solve this problem because as the larger defending ally you couldn't add ANY allies for free and you'd need to pay on the same principle as the 1.1 patch (only with a more sensible free structure.)
Because we knew the system was broken from it's inception on Sisi, so we used the ally system to troll the guys who were deccing us, rather than bothering to go to highsec and fight them. Most people were (still are) abusing the **** out of the dogpiles to render any outgoing wardec meaningless.
Quote:In addition of course the change I have proposed Does nothing right at all since it is a proposal to make wardecs always "equal numbers vs equal numbers" which, as has been explained to you dozens of times over countless blogs and forum posts, is not what wardecs are about.
You can, if you want, equal the numbers (perhaps by getting some people who actually don't like GSF together and doing something about it), but allowing automatic and free dogpiling up-to equal numbers is STILL dogpiling and is still completely stupid.
Once more, I will agree that in the situation of Large alliance vs small entity your proposal isn't bad, but as has ALSO been said to you over and over the game shouldn't be balanced on "Jade's war" but on how war should look across all of New Eden, because your solution, not surprisingly, only benefits you.
You also, at some point, need to accept that running your mouth off about an entity that is 90 times your size is going to result in repercussions, (sandbox 'n' all) and you shouldn't be expecting CCP to patch in changes that help you get out of it for free. - "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
2302
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:46:00 -
[338] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: You also, at some point, need to accept that running your mouth off about an entity that is 90 times your size is going to result in repercussions, (sandbox 'n' all) and you shouldn't be expecting CCP to patch in changes that help you get out of it for free.
Of course the sandbox of repercussions only goes one way. When turnabout is attempted (quite successfully as in this example) suddenly the sandbox has new walls and the nerftbat strikes.
You are being very deceitful to categorize a desire on my part to "get out of this". I made the war mutual, I invited anyone in new eden who wanted to punish goons to come punish them. I'm pretty convinced we were winning and would have ultimately won. Our side of the war wanted consequences and repercussions to set hisec aflame.
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 - 2012.06.15 19:14:00 -
[339] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: You also, at some point, need to accept that running your mouth off about an entity that is 90 times your size is going to result in repercussions, (sandbox 'n' all) and you shouldn't be expecting CCP to patch in changes that help you get out of it for free. Of course the sandbox of repercussions only goes one way. When turnabout is attempted (quite successfully as in this example) suddenly the sandbox has new walls and the nerftbat strikes. You are being very deceitful to categorize a desire on my part to "get out of this". I made the war mutual, I invited anyone in new eden who wanted to punish goons to come punish them. I'm pretty convinced we were winning and would have ultimately won. Our side of the war wanted consequences and repercussions to set hisec aflame.
I think you need some perspective here, bud. 10B isk in ship (referring to the GSF vs Star Fraction "war") damage is less than the cost of a single super. I've seen many nullsec battles where a lot more isk that that is destroyed without batting an eye, so please stop with the self important nonsense about 10B isk breaking GSF and causing them to batphone CCP.
You beat the 50 goons living in high sec. You are free to call that winning (I certainly would and don't blame you for that). Consider this though, what if the Goons had a button that enabled them to wardec all of high sec? If you think for one second that they wouldn't press it you obviously are dumber than your "GOONS DID 9/11" stuff makes you seem. |
None ofthe Above
218
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:52:00 -
[340] - Quote
Tithi wrote:Pink Marshmellow wrote:CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.
How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons. They answered this a thousand times. The price goes up because of the additional targets that are granted. If you wardec a small corp you are only buying a few potential targets, so it is relatively cheap. If you wardec a large alliance, you are buying potentially thousands of targets so it is expensive. Seems pretty straight-forward.
Well okay.
By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?
|
|
None ofthe Above
220
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:57:00 -
[341] - Quote
Agh, this being released on the 19th?
Wow talk about rushed. There was little time for discussion, let alone changes based on feedback, even when the changes were first announcemenced on SiSi forums.
Disappointing.
|
None ofthe Above
220
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:07:00 -
[342] - Quote
Thank you Khanh'rhh, this is one of the better contributions to this thread. Actual perspectives on other cases besides Goons V Jade.
It is a point that you (plural, your corp/alliance) could have declined the offers of Allies if you didn't want this result.
But looking at it I can see where a fee or limitations might be indicated here. I don't think 5 Trilliion ISK is called for, but perhaps something between 0 and the cost of the initial declaration of war.
20 mill per week per ally? (40 mill per two week contract?) Something on that order? Just to cut down on the "whelp, sure" factor. Possible scaling for the number of wars you are allied in?
I think the current planned changes are an overcompensation to put it mildly.
Khanh'rhh wrote:As a member of BUGRY, members 50, we were wardecced by a small corp, members 15, who had a massive grudge against us because we'd pulled down their space trousers and did our namesake. Day 1-4 of the war led to a handful of engagements. Day 5 saw inferno. By Day 6, we had 15 allies for a total of 250-300 people. We actually also were the first corp to receive an ally under the new system, toot. By Day 10 we had almost 900 allies from 25corps (mostly the exact same ones "helping" Jade and every single other corp. One of our allies was a 5man corp in 50wars). We paid for none, we spoke to none. The wartargets didn't bother undocking again, because any concept of who was fighting who was completely lost in the mire. This story repeated itself across every war going, every aggressed party effectively had every "merc" working for them, for free. Nothing constuctive came of this except Jita 4-4 was a sea of Red for anyone who had issued a wardec. Goons lost every ship that passed through Jita, just like they'd lost every ship that passed through Jita pre-inferno. It doesn't take 900 people to nab the silly JF pilot or the autopilot badger. This was not good. This broke the wardec system completely. Now, Jade will tell you this change is all about Goonswarm (and if you think he's climbed down from insane conspiracy theories, he just wrote this: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/06/15/eve-online-inferno-scorches-the-mittani%E2%80%99s-knickers-ccp-turns-down-the-heat/ ) because having you think that suits his agenda, regardless of the fact highsec being "too safe" is on the goons grudge list, and would happily have a permadec to everyone (literally, it's one of their griefing plans). It isn't. It's literally about everyone else, since the only people who are able to effectively wardec WITH the dogpiles ARE the very large alliances. Do you see now, the issue?
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1342
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:08:00 -
[343] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.
How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons.
That was answered by Soundwave, who pointed out that the logic of paying to shoot people means that the more you have the option to shoot, the more you need to pay. - "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
1342
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:17:00 -
[344] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: You also, at some point, need to accept that running your mouth off about an entity that is 90 times your size is going to result in repercussions, (sandbox 'n' all) and you shouldn't be expecting CCP to patch in changes that help you get out of it for free. Of course the sandbox of repercussions only goes one way. When turnabout is attempted (quite successfully as in this example) suddenly the sandbox has new walls and the nerftbat strikes. You're seeing it wrong, totally.
You annoy someone enough to come after you, so they come after you. You then push one button and let game mechanics do the rest for you. For all your repeated rhetoric about "turnabout" and "fighting back" all you really did was make it so that anyone wanting to wardec GSF could do so for free. That's literally all that happened here. As commentary on the mechanic as a whole it is a completely terrible example however you slice it.
If you want to perform a "turnabout" then you can STILL DO IT -- the difference is there's now more effort than simply pressing one buttan. You might, shock horror, have to put some effort into fighting a war against an entity 90 times your size and that's to be expected. The "how" of this has been said many times, you don't need 40 corps of less than 10 people to do it, so your strawman example is pointless.
Quote:I'm pretty convinced we were winning and would have ultimately won "There are no tanks in Baghdad, we destroyed them all landing, Iraq is not under invasion" - "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 - 2012.06.15 20:21:00 -
[345] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Tithi wrote:Pink Marshmellow wrote:CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.
How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons. They answered this a thousand times. The price goes up because of the additional targets that are granted. If you wardec a small corp you are only buying a few potential targets, so it is relatively cheap. If you wardec a large alliance, you are buying potentially thousands of targets so it is expensive. Seems pretty straight-forward. Well okay. By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?
I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally.
1.1's changes solve this problem though. |
None ofthe Above
221
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:46:00 -
[346] - Quote
Tithi wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:
Well okay.
By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?
I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally. 1.1's changes solve this problem though.
Could happen I suppose, would likely be the exception rather than the rule I would expect.
Doesn't refute the absurdity of the premise, however.
|
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:13:00 -
[347] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Tithi wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:
Well okay.
By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?
I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally. 1.1's changes solve this problem though. Could happen I suppose, would likely be the exception rather than the rule I would expect. Doesn't refute the absurdity of the premise, however.
I agree, and so does CCP, so they are changing it... |
None ofthe Above
221
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:32:00 -
[348] - Quote
Tithi wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:Tithi wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:
Well okay.
By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?
I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally. 1.1's changes solve this problem though. Could happen I suppose, would likely be the exception rather than the rule I would expect. Doesn't refute the absurdity of the premise, however. I agree, and so does CCP, so they are changing it...
"Changing it", very true. Good thing you didn't use the word "fixing", because I don't think that many could agree with that. I certainly couldn't.
|
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:01:00 -
[349] - Quote
Solution should not be done like this in devblog. Instead, it should leave a way to escape for agressor, with good cost.
Lets say it to be "surrender payout can not be higher than total cost of declaring war on every allied entity, who currently in mutual war with you" and "can not be lower than 1/2 of said sum". This usually called reparation, if you wish. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
497
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:45:00 -
[350] - Quote
Is Jade still melting down itt? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
nomlet
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:04:00 -
[351] - Quote
It amuses me that the Goons/Test being universally hated is considered an exploit.
As for the allies isk sink.....
"Sorry Britain, In order for Russia to join you in your war, you must flush 10mil down the toilet. If you want to add the USA flush another 20 mil down the toilet...etc..."
It doesn't make any sense. |
Laashanna
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:05:00 -
[352] - Quote
A question shouldn't CCP allow corps out fo their current mutual wars? After they signed up for said wars under the old rules. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
666
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:24:00 -
[353] - Quote
nomlet wrote:It amuses me that the Goons/Test being universally hated is considered an exploit.
As for the allies isk sink.....
"Sorry Britain, In order for Russia to join you in your war, you must flush 10mil down the toilet. If you want to add the USA flush another 20 mil down the toilet...etc..."
It doesn't make any sense. Actually Britain declared war on Germany, so they wouldn't be able to bring in allies at all. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:08:00 -
[354] - Quote
CCP is trying to make being a Merc corp profitable again. These changes are completely backwards from the way it should be done. Basic economics states if you want prices to increase you either need lower the supply or increase the demand. Current war dec mechanics has infinite supply and infinite demand. The price is at zero. With inferno 1.1 the number of allies a corp can have will be limited, thus lowering demand, but the supply will remain infinite. Normally that situation would result in even lower prices. With the price already at zero, Mercs would have to start paying to be allies to get an even lower price. That is something I don't expect to happen outside of a few rare conditions.
To fix this, you need to limit the supply of merc corps available to be an ally. Instead of limiting the number of allies a corp can have, you need to limit the number of wars a Merc Corp can be an ally to and keep the number of allies a corp can bring into a war infinite. If a Merc corp only has 2 free slots with which to be an ally, they will be much more picky which wars they become a part of. Additional wars can be added at the same exponential rate that allies can be added to under inferno 1.1. The trade hub gankers would flock to war decs involving large alliances as that would offer the most targets. The smaller scale wars would be free to pick from the merc corps with slots available that offer services they need. The best Merc corps could have lots of contracts with the cost being passed on to the customers for the extra slots.
Under the Inferno 1.1 system, I fully expect one alliance to spring up with around 1,000 members that will be an ally to the vast majority of wars in Eve. The members of such an alliance will be mostly "Trade hub Gankers". That alliance will just want as many wars as possible to get as many targets as possible. When that happens, we will be in the same position we are in now. People will be scared to war dec anyone as it would mean having to take on the 1,000 member alliance and Mercs still won't be getting paid. I predict at that point, CCP will indeed place a limit on the number of wars an alliance can be an allied.
We will then have a limit on both sides of the ally system. That will further help the large null sec alliances avoid threats in high sec as there will then not be enough large "trade hub ganker " alliances to go around. The game would have come full circle and things will be almost exactly like the pre-Inferno war dec system. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2303
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:38:00 -
[355] - Quote
Molic Blackbird wrote:CCP is trying to make being a Merc corp profitable again. These changes are completely backwards from the way it should be done. Basic economics states if you want prices to increase you either need lower the supply or increase the demand. Current war dec mechanics has infinite supply and infinite demand. The price is at zero. With inferno 1.1 the number of allies a corp can have will be limited, thus lowering demand, but the supply will remain infinite. Normally that situation would result in even lower prices. With the price already at zero, Mercs would have to start paying to be allies to get an even lower price. That is something I don't expect to happen outside of a few rare conditions.
To fix this, you need to limit the supply of merc corps available to be an ally. Instead of limiting the number of allies a corp can have, you need to limit the number of wars a Merc Corp can be an ally to and keep the number of allies a corp can bring into a war infinite. If a Merc corp only has 2 free slots with which to be an ally, they will be much more picky which wars they become a part of. Additional wars can be added at the same exponential rate that allies can be added to under inferno 1.1. The trade hub gankers would flock to war decs involving large alliances as that would offer the most targets. The smaller scale wars would be free to pick from the merc corps with slots available that offer services they need. The best Merc corps could have lots of contracts with the cost being passed on to the customers for the extra slots.
Under the Inferno 1.1 system, I fully expect one alliance to spring up with around 1,000 members that will be an ally to the vast majority of wars in Eve. The members of such an alliance will be mostly "Trade hub Gankers". That alliance will just want as many wars as possible to get as many targets as possible. When that happens, we will be in the same position we are in now. People will be scared to war dec anyone as it would mean having to take on the 1,000 member alliance and Mercs still won't be getting paid. I predict at that point, CCP will indeed place a limit on the number of wars an alliance can be an allied.
We will then have a limit on both sides of the ally system. That will further help the large null sec alliances avoid threats in high sec as there will then not be enough large "trade hub ganker " alliances to go around. The game would have come full circle and things will be almost exactly like the pre-Inferno war dec system.
Pretty good analysis really.
And yes the real problem with CCP's thinking is that they need to intervene to make Merc Corps profitable in the current system without providing any kind of structure, win condition or overall sting to wardecs in general. Eve is pretty much a game of laissez faire capitalism - if mercs can't make a living selling their services right now its because they are not offering the services people will want to buy, and trying to make them more attractive by nerfing free ally decs is just a clumsy attempt at protectionist intervention that still won't work because nobody has a motive to pay merc corps to camp trade hubs (when there are so many corps who will like to do it for free).
I do tend to agree with you also - that when Soundwave sees this fix does nothing for the merc corps and players adapt again by forming 1000 man hisec trade hub ganker alliances to get around the ally nerf - he will be tended to kneejerk again and put more limtis on the system all the way back to pre-inferno wardecs.
All we might be left with longterm is the increased price to dec Goonswarm (500m rather than 50m) and that could well be the only lasting legacy of Inferno's wardec "boost."
End of the day I suspect this is all simply about the re-assertion that hisec is a place where nullsec aristocracy comes to hunt and grief rather than a place where people are given the chance to "fight back."
Eve is a hard game, buts its hardest of all if you aren't in a super alliance living off the milk and honey of endless moon goo and protected from the consequences of your actions in all ways possible.
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! |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:43:00 -
[356] - Quote
In my reading of these threads, I often saw the phrase "edge cases" in reference to large null sec alliances deccing a small high sec corp. It was stated that CCP can not design game mechanics around "edge cases". In my view, wars that require merc corps are edge cases. The vast majority of wars in Eve have no need for merc corps. The number of people affected at any one time by wars needing mercs has got to be a tiny percentage of the Eve playerbase. Yet, CCP is designing a whole system around an "edge case".
Could it be that Merc corps were being overpaid prior to Inferno? When ever a more efficient marketplace is created, prices naturally drop in price. By CCP trying to help Merc corps, they may have forever damaged them. CCP will undoubtedly create 'fix' after 'fix' to save the Merc profession. A profession that might not ever be saved. There are just too many people wanting to blow stuff up in high sec without Concord interference.
Something else I found very puzzling was the insistence that every member of a corp be counted when it came to the war dec fee because you are paying for lots of targets, yet the people making that claim would turn around and say you don't need thousands of people to fight a null sec alliance war dec because only a handful are ever in high sec. Which is it? Are there thousands of targets or a handful of targets?
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:53:00 -
[357] - Quote
A proper "mercenary marketplace" solves all of the issues. Anyone should be able to go to the mercenary window (call it whatever you like) and look up available mercenaries, negotiate on prices and durations, all under a contracted system. Contract is signed, isk changes hands, and war is automatically declared for the duration. Mercs that perform well in each and every one of their war decs will be in high demand and able to charge more for their pwnage services.
That's it. No limits on defenders/aggressors, no fancy "allies" system. Just a contract and a free market with a nice looking UI. The cost of the wardec itself (each merc corp is essentially declaring a new war whenever a contract is accepted) should be the base bidding price for hiring the mercs, that way they can cover the costs (unless they're willing to not only work for free, but take the hit to their own wallet to declare the war in the first place.) I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
SKARIII
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 05:34:00 -
[358] - Quote
There are a couple of fundamental changes required here:
1) Wardec cost should be based on the ratio difference between aggressor and defender's member counts. The bigger the difference the higher the cost on an exponential scale. I suggest 1M for a 1:1 ratio and 100bil for a 1:10 ratio 2) Adding allies will lessen the cost for the agressor as the ratios become smaller 3) wardec cost should be included in the war report 4) a penalty for defending corps/alliance if members leave during wardec+î specially when smaller corps dec bigger corps+î payed to the agressor
The method of forcing the defender to pay for allies is rubbish. If I ask a friendly aliance to come help for free that is my choice. If I want to pay mercs to come help, that is also my choice. If I want the entire eve to come help me free of charge, that is my choice. All I need to keep in mind is that this will lessen the cost of the agressor to the point where it will cost them virtually nothing to keep the wardec going ( provided the numbers match up).
So if you want targets+î you'll have plenty. The mercs can stop bitching and do a better sales job. This is after all a sandbox game, I want choices, not somethig CCP forces upon us |
Angel Lust
Vikinghall
58
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 09:27:00 -
[359] - Quote
Its funny to see how fast CCP came up with this wardec "fix"
Highsec carebears have to wait.... and wait... and wait.... and wait..... |
Trevor Nyx
HeaCo
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 09:32:00 -
[360] - Quote
Simply do not allow to join as an ally for a defender when he is at war with an other fellow ally! It would limit the network of wars that is seen now by the professional war dec corps/alliances like 0rphanage and their ex corps. Being allies here and at war there. It is kind a NBSI environment within the wars their are connected to. Leading to less nonsens ally -> more intentional ally > more skilled allies = mercs. |
|
|
|
|
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 |