|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
   |
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.
1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.
2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.
3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).
4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.
I think that solves the problem.
Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.
Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.
This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE. Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created. Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.
Why shall you balance the fight in the interst of fairness? I would say the same thing to you CCP Soundwave!
The wardec works and while its NOT the fairest thing, why change it back into the hands of Goons? How is it that making it unfair to wardec a larger entity like goons but it is unfair(its not unfair but FAIR to goons) to change it into the hands of goons.
After all "Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE"!
Goons have brought bad karma into themselves so why cant the rest of eve get back at them?
Why make it in their favour and not the rest of eve?
You speak much about small entities wardecking larger entities but you have forgoten that this has
been the case for a long time and now you change it in favour of the large entities!
why? Cos "higher number should be more expensive". How is this not making it MORE FAIR on goons side? Cos let me tell you, i see the "power of choice fades" very quickly here!
Well goons are big so "the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated", so why wont they? Start reinforcing POS and not allowing them to undock.
Why should goons or any other large entity get the easy way out?
It is very worring how you can simply past judgment in favour of large entities and call that fair while at the same time claiming that eve should not be balanced and not made fair. You are killing militia tactics on someone. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:07:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Yes, it's all about making it better for us evil goons. Goony goon goon goon.
i know i used goons but this goes for any large entity. You seek bad karma and you shall get it!
Why shall you get the protection from CCP while claiming, that is fair and claim at the same time that eve should not be made fair! Its hypocritic! |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:21:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.
I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :(
i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it.
This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:33:00 -
[4] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.
I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :( i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it. This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts. I haven't gotten ganked a single time in jita, and I haul multi-billion cargos all the time.
doesnt mean it wont happen. |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:55:00 -
[5] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:doesnt mean it wont happen. Of course not, that's why it's called high security, and not total security. Andrea Roche wrote:besides i have stated before in other threads that i do believe that using NPC charaters to pilot a freighter is an exploits same as all the other war mechanics exploits that avoid war. There you go again, with the assumptions. As it so happens, I do actually run my own corp as well, for my hisec shenanigans. Andrea Roche wrote:You should be in corp period if you want to pilot a freightr in highsec. This in turn forces contracting to a 3rd party or creation of alt corp which fuels espionage and conflict. This is the basic hot pot of eve! Good thing I'm already there, eh?
i am not saying you do or dont but what i am saying is that this needs changing also. Not everything is about you and only you. Same as when i said goons, i also mentioned large entities. Its all general. Instead all you saw is goons and not "large entities" |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:44:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:You said "goons", I saw "goons". You started talking about how NPC characters were bad in response to me saying I had a neutral freighter alt, I'm just pointing out that this isn't the problem you seem to attribute it as, since I can easily circumvent wardecs without going to NPC corps.
The only way you're going to fix that particular problem is to require that CCP limits accounts and characters to 1 per person. Good luck with that, should you choose to go down that route.
what?  |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 12:46:00 -
[7] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It's in plain english? vOv
what kind of troll is this? limit the accounts to 1? rofl |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:05:00 -
[8] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Andrea Roche wrote:Lord Zim wrote:It's in plain english? vOv what kind of troll is this? limit the accounts to 1? rofl The only way you'll get at the whole "hurr I'll just freighter stuff around in a neutral alt" is if you get CCP to limit the number of accounts to 1 per person, and 1 character per account. It's the only way you can actually stop the war mechanics exploits that avoid war.
what are you talking about? 
its simple and it does not limit people to one corp. Everybody still uses alts npc corp or not. They are not JUST used for freightering stuff! Stop talking nonsence
I see the "mighty" goons are afraid of not been able to take their techtonium to jita with none npc character! Pathetic.  |
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 23:15:00 -
[9] - Quote
Star en Gravonere wrote:Watching all this from afar, I have to agree that the current mechanic is flawed. However, the proposed solution from Soundwave is worse.
It is poetic to have a large 0.0 alliance that has caused much grief toward those players in high sec that those players then band together for retribution. It doesn't matter if the current villain is the goons. In the past it would have been BoB/IT. In the future it will be someone else. However, it in unrealistic to expect all those in high sec to drop their corps or alliances to band together into a single entity, yet the proposed mechanics would for this to do this. Eve allows virtual bullies to pick on the weak, yet until the current war dec changes the mechanics made it unrealistic for players to spontaneously stand up to the bully. Any new system should still encourage this by letting smaller entities easily join forces for a short time for payback.
Further, I think the approach toward the cost is missing the obvious solution. In Eve, when a pilot breaks the law, they are flagged individually and sought out by Concord. What-ever corp they are in is not flagged. The same principle should apply to war decs, with Concord having to flag all the individual pilots as being immune to attacking the enemy. The end result would be a cost based on the size of the attacking corp/alliance and the target. If a 5,000 member alliance wants to fight a 100 man corp in high sec, the charges should reflect a total of 5,100 pilots. That is how many pilots some poor Concord administrator has to enter into the system to not be flagged as a criminal when fighting breaks out. The actual game mechanics would not change, just the basis for determining the cost.
This does not work cos then it would cost 6 billion to wardec goons sized entity which is too expensive. And thats per week! At that cost you may aswell make it not been able to declare war!
I think the present is fare. You screwed up and you got bad karma coming your way. You should not get off that easy. Eve is a cold harsh place! CCP should not give goons free pass or any othr entity. Its ridiculous. |
|
|
| |
|