| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
1046
   |
Posted - 2012.05.25 10:48:00 -
[211] - Quote
Current issues with the ally system:
1) The defender needs the ability to terminate ally contracts - with the usual 24h cooldown. This way, allies which are not performing can be removed from the war. Or allies can be removed for some other sandbox reason defined by the defender.
2) The defender needs an easy way to see whether a particular ally is pulling their weight. Or maybe I haven't found a way to pull up the war report for how an ally is doing on the current war in terms of kills/losses.
3) Ally contracts need to have expiration dates as short as 3-days and as long as 14-days (or until the war is retracted). With the option for auto-renewal at the end of the period for a *possibly different* renewal fee. I might want to hire an ally for 500M for the first 3-days and then only 200M for every 3-day period after that point.
4) There should probably be a small ISK fee, paid by the defender, for every ally accepted into the war. My feeling on this is that a fee of 10-25M per ally accepted would be enough not to crimp the sandbox nature, but enough that you maybe would not want to accept every last 1-man ally corp that applies.
5) Do not put limits on how many allies you can bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts). Do not put in scaling costs on the ISK fee paid per ally that you bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts).
6) Corps should be free to join as many wardecs as they want. If limits are being considered, they should be tabled for 2-3 months to see how things play out after the initial frenzy. |
Mercurio Ogeraurhirhe
Milking Interstellar Incorporated.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 11:26:00 -
[212] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Current issues with the ally system:
5) Do not put limits on how many allies you can bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts). Do not put in scaling costs on the ISK fee paid per ally that you bring in (not without the ability for the defender to terminate existing contracts).
I still think that the limit should be 1 (or two or three, doesnt really matter while there is a limit small enough), but then the capacity to terminate contracts is clearly neccessary to avoid geting stuck with an ally that doesn-¦t perform as expected
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 16:16:00 -
[213] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:Pretty sure CCP have a hidden agenda on this change.
The idea of having allies, on the face of it, sounds cool but this implementation is too crazy not to have been thought through.
The only reason I can think of that CCP allowed allies to join the defender for free and without limit is because they want to phase out hi-sec PvP but are too chicken **** to stand up and say it.
Hmmmm interesting ... finally a reason for people to go to losec and nullsec .... PvP ... what a novel idea. |
Wacktopia
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
250
|
Posted - 2012.05.27 23:05:00 -
[214] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Wacktopia wrote:Pretty sure CCP have a hidden agenda on this change.
The idea of having allies, on the face of it, sounds cool but this implementation is too crazy not to have been thought through.
The only reason I can think of that CCP allowed allies to join the defender for free and without limit is because they want to phase out hi-sec PvP but are too chicken **** to stand up and say it. Hmmmm interesting ... finally a reason for people to go to losec and nullsec .... PvP ... what a novel idea.
So you agree with my suggestion that CCP did this to effectively render wars in hi sec pointless?
How about this scenario; A big, null sec alliance "A" is fighting a null sec war with another "B". A wants to cut off B's hi-sec operations by war dec'ing them and paying a big fee to do so. B starts hiring allies (possibly for free) and suddenly B alliance has a massive upper hand by doing nothing. To make it worse, A cannot counter-hire allies for love nor money.
^ This is totally screwed!
CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
51
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 17:47:00 -
[215] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:aggressor is always to the left and it says so when you mouse over the corp/alliance logo
defender is therefore always to the right and also has a mouse hint
in the war report, aggressor is red and defender blue. Any chance you can comment on the strong likelihood that no fee will undermine your entire merc market? Will you guys at least watch to see if what I'm saying (and other people like me who actually do decs full time) will happen? We will absolutely be monitoring this closely post-Inferno. We have implemented several metrics that make it easier for us to track what is going on in the war system and we will use the data gathered (plus of course feedback from you guys) to make adjustments to the system in the future, if needed.
So, what's the plan now that everyone is doing exactly what I said and running around taking wars for 0 ISK? Especially all of these lovely wars with tens of allies? Thoughts on how you're going to make it so that:
A) It's worth dec'ing people again.
and
B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Cascade Imminent
1034
|
Posted - 2012.05.28 18:03:00 -
[216] - Quote
Aemonchichi wrote:ccp soniclover:
And most importantly it emphasizes one of the key truths in EVE GÇô that having friends is really important.
u serious kid ? u play the same game as we ? where CCP emphazizes on steal from and kill ur friends? make pretend u are a corpmate to get rights ? steal all their stuff and u are a cool bro ?
you daresay that bullshit about key truths ?
u shame yourself with **** like that, and ccp would have to go a long way to make this a key truth, and that is road they haven`t even begun to walk
EVE is the only game where friendship has any real meaning, because of the potential of betrayal. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
1061
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 13:07:00 -
[217] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:
B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free?
Welcome to the free market of EVE. There are no guaranteed income sources and not all actors are rational. Now you understand how industrialists feel about the MIMAF crowd (Minerals I Mine Are Free).
If your competitors are willing to give away their services for less (or for free), then you need to figure out how to stand out from your competition so that people are willing to pay you instead. Maybe you have to make your profits on war loot instead of the initial contract fee.
It would help if we could setup free-form bounty contracts which are paid out over time as objectives are met.
An open-ended contract system where you pay for performance (which is now possible since in-game kill mails have the concept of ISK destroyed). It wouldn't need to be tied into the wardec system either.
- "hit" or "bounty" contracts can be public or made private to a specific alliance, corp, person who will do the wet work.
- Time limits of 1-14 days for expiration, 1-30 days for completion time limit.
- Target area can be all of EVE, or just a selection of systems, constellations or regions.
- Target can be anyone (a good way for the creator of the contract to be swindled), or limited to a specific set of corps/alliances.
The more selective that you are about contract limitations, the harder it would be for someone to defraud you without getting the results that you want.
The creator of the contract would escrow a maximum total ISK payout for the contract (could be 10M, could be 100B ISK). They then specify how much they will pay for kills of a particular type (pod, frigate, dessie, cruiser, BC, BS, cap, s-cap, titan, POS tower, sov-structure, industrial, cap industrial). Each ship class can be specified as a percentage of kill mail value (1-1000%), with a maximum payout per kill mail. There would be (13) classifications of ships. That could balloon a bit if you separate out T2 and T3 hulls. However, since payout is specified as *both* a percentage of the KM value, with an upper limit on what you're willing to pay for a single KM, you might not need to separate out the T2/T3 hulls.
Payout is made to the organization who accepted the contract, to anyone in that organization who was on-grid when the kill happened. Split just like rat bounties, and taxed by the player's corp just like rat bounties. If a particular kill is covered by multiple contracts, they should all pay out.
When the contract expires due to time limit, the remaining escrow goes back to the creator of the contract (and counts as failed). If the escrow gets used up before the expiration date, the contract is considered "completed".
So you could setup a private contract to a merc corp where they only get paid if they take out a POS tower belonging to a specific corporation in a specific system. Or maybe you pay a merc corp to wage indiscriminate war in a particular constellation. Or you want to pay for TCUs destroyed in a particular region. Or you use it as a pay-for-performance contract to get mercenaries to wage war against a target corporation.
Bounty Office
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1362340#post1362340
|
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.29 20:03:00 -
[218] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:
B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free?
Welcome to the free market of EVE. There are no guaranteed income sources and not all actors are rational. Now you understand how industrialists feel about the MIMAF crowd (Minerals I Mine Are Free).
I'm not a merc, I'm one of the random dec corps that's doing this because I can. My point was that CCP claimed this was to support a merc business, and then set it up in such a way that it promoted the exact opposite and seems confused as to why this happened. I am merely pointing out what has happened, why it is happening, and (in other posts) what needs to be done to the system if they actually want to promote the "merc lifestyle."
Regarding the rest of your post, I tend to prefer something less rigorous than strict contracts. You take out a lot of the risk of paying someone to do your dirty work if they can't scam you. Part of that entire business is the fact that the people doing it "legitimately" have to build the reputation of doing so, and the only way to do that is if other people can screw you over. You make things scam proof, and EVE is no longer EVE.
As a side note, you're from EVE UNI, so your opinion on HS warfare is very likely laughable, at best. |
Wacktopia
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
251
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 02:18:00 -
[219] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Adriel Malakai wrote:
B) It's worth being a merc and having people actually pay you to defend them, rather than everyone running around doing it for free?
Welcome to the free market of EVE. There are no guaranteed income sources and not all actors are rational. Now you understand how industrialists feel about the MIMAF crowd (Minerals I Mine Are Free).
You're so far off the mark here. Anyone who's been a merc will tell you that it's not the quickest way to get rich by a mile. If it was about the ISK then players would just do incursions instead or whatever.
The reason why the current iteration of the ally system makes no sense is because it is geared up completely to dissuade players from running a war dec for any reason. See my post on this or the previous page with the example of two alliances - it shows you just how broken the system is.
There are some really simple fixes, for example the defence ally fee could be subject to the cost of the war plus whatever the ally chooses to charge if anything - meaning wars would be more cost-stable.
The truth is that CCP rail-roaded in a war change they hoped would help protect whining bears and they ended up creating a loophole even worse than the "dec shield".
What's really galling thing is how this pill was sugared as we were all told about how great the new system would be for mercs. Ironically this could not have been further from the truth.
CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
52
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 22:59:00 -
[220] - Quote
Still no response? Awesome. |
|
|
Wacktopia
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
252
|
Posted - 2012.06.01 21:43:00 -
[221] - Quote
Adriel Malakai wrote:Still no response? Awesome.
There is this...
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1400252#post1400252
CCP: Fix Inferno war decs.-áAllies should not be free and unlimited. -á-á |
Lyric Lahnder
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
63
|
Posted - 2012.06.08 03:25:00 -
[222] - Quote
It might help if allies cost increased incrementally.
Ally one: free
Ally two: costs whatever
Ally three: (costs whatever) x 2
Ally four:(costs whatever) x 4
Ally five:(costs whatever) x 8
and so on.
This would stop or slow free ally floods.
Noir. and Noir Academy are recruiting apply at www.noirmercs.comI Noir Academy: 60 days old must be able to fly at least one tech II frigate. I Noir. Recruits: 4:1 k/d ratio and can fly tech II cruisers. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 12:25:00 -
[223] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Lallante wrote:Dear CCP Superfriends.
With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:
A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.
The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.
This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?
Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.
It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.
Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrence of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars. We've been talking to some of the merc corps/alliances and having no meaningful choice in terms of picking a defender basically nullifies their business. What we wanted to do was put in an incentive to look harder at exactly who you ally with, meaning that successful merc corps would be able to market themselves better. I agree that in an isolated sense, the 4500 vs 9x 500 people is a bit silly, but at the end of the day, making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. We can evaluate that later, but I'd really like to see how people who do this for a living fare with the changes. Regarding the recurrence, we're definitely looking at that.
Source
Just saying. I (and a lot of other people who actually use dec mechanics) called this. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |