Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:53:00 -
[301] - Quote
It's like you said, you're paying for the right to shoot 9000+ people in that case. It SHOULD be expensive.
500M is also peanuts for access to the potential loot pinatas our ******** members provide. Or put another way, if you can't afford 500M for the dec, you probably couldn't afford your potential losses; hell, a neutral fleetbooster T3 runs that much.
The numbers argument is incredibly disingenuous. Prove to me that more than even 1% of those numbers are actual combatants and you'll have made your argument. Otherwise you're just looking to salve your wounded ego through numbers compensation as opposed to quality, will-fight-and-fight-hard merc forces.
Why do you want to destroy merc corps so badly, Jade? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
546
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:53:00 -
[302] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Haquer wrote: It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate).
Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity. With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec. Fair enough?
What would then stop an alliance from padding their ranks with hi-sec home dwelling alts? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2038
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:58:00 -
[303] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Haquer wrote: It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate).
Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity. With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec. Fair enough? What would then stop an alliance from padding their ranks with hi-sec home dwelling alts?
Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.
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! |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
311
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 14:59:00 -
[304] - Quote
When did drones start gettting fitted when you auto fit. Was that the last patch? |
Daddy Thundercock
Corsair Tactical Inc.
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:00:00 -
[305] - Quote
just my two cents on the wardec system:
it does appear, upon looking at it, that is does greatly benefit the larger entities. Now I'm not here to pick on goons or anyone else for that matter. However it does seem more logical and rational to me that the a larger entity wardeccing a smaller one would pay 500m isk rather than 50 m. I mean....a small corp/alliance paying 500m isk to wardec a huge one? as if being at war with an entity that could outnumber you 100:1 isn't bad enough, you have to spend a plex on wardeccing them too. Now, i realize that 500 m isk is toilet paper to some people, but for my corp, for example, it's a fortune.
Just saying, if a large entity wants to wardec a small one, they should have to pay the 500m isk, not 50m isk, simply for wardeccing an entity that they outnumber by as much as 100:1 (think of it as a griefing tax...or something.). With the current system as it stands, it opens the door to allow large corps/ alliances to wardec small ones indefinitely and small entities would simply be unable to fight back (without draining their bank accounts on buying PLEX, but then again maybe that's what ccp wants....)
Just sayin, yeah, maybe the system was broke with allies, that I can't say for sure as I haven't dealt with the wardec system first hand. I mean, yes, being able to hire an infinite number of free allies is stupid, but it's even stupider to allow large entities to effectively grief smaller ones with no real consequences.
As for not seeing nullsec players in empire.......uhmmm....have you heard of burn jita? On top of which, I know i've seen a few null players here and there....not saying they live in empire, but they do come up here. as I will once i get to null, which will happen after my corp recruits about 200 more players....
Anyway, not picking on anyone or anything in particular, actually have alot of repect for goonswarm being the only alliance in the game with enough stones to pull off something like burn jita......no tinfoil hat here. Just some feedback from a smaller entity with very little isk to spare.
|
Cheekything
Dark-Rising
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:01:00 -
[306] - Quote
I think the war changes are completely wrong and do not serve EVE well.
I actually think that money should be removed out of the equation with the cost of creating a war.
I also think that there should be a 3rd/4th currency (sorry but it's come to this) that is used solely for creating wars, that way it can still cost isk but you can limit the amount a alliance/corp can have and can use, I'm not going to explain how it should work quite frankly the devs should be thinking about this sort of thing.
I am still a big supporter of small corps declaring war on big alliances because they have always worked at keeping most big alliances in null sec which means the smaller players are free to roam low and high sec to explore eve before they get mixed up in the drama that is null sec.
However you should be looking to achieve the following for wars:
The cost for multiple people in the same war should be cheap/free so long as their total number of people does not exceed half of the target corp/alliance.
Small waring big should be cheap.
Big waring small should be expensive.
Also the length should be determined by how many people are involved in the war including allies.
I.e. 5000 v 100 it should be a 24 hour war, 100 v 5000 it should be 24 hours again. If it's even with some margin of error say 50% then it should be the full length.
This way if people who are wardeccing the same person can ally up and make it last longer and single man corp who are waring just to raise the price of people declaring war will be kick out within 24 hours.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
361
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:05:00 -
[307] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?
/clap
Anyway, I'm back to address a different topic this time, namely the FW. I've gotten into it on an alt a little bit and I have to say that the proposed changes are pretty unsatisfactory. I don't think allowing everyone to so easily solo plexes (namely, having them be something that can be captured by day old frigate afterburner alts) is healthy for the system - this merely encourages farming LP with cheap alts rather than fighting it out for a system, which doesn't feel very "faction warfare-y" to me.
I would suggest at least an interim solution of perhaps a few webbing towers in each complex for every race to dissuade this sort of behavior, or at least force people intent on soloing plexes to commit larger, more capable ships. That would buy time to implement a more thorough and engaging solution - people in this thread have many ideas.
Regardless of what solution you pick in the end, the overall feeling is that it should be one that encourages players to shoot it out in complexes if necessary, as opposed to running their frigate alts away to another system. |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:06:00 -
[308] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.
Two different scenarios.
One is the large alliance as an aggressor. You are not an existential (or even tangible) threat to their home, so a fraction of a fraction will likely form up. Possibly with occasional spikes for a specific op (people love killing POS).
The other is the large alliance as the "Defender". Again, you aren't a threat to their holdings in any means. You will never threaten their livelihood. You're realistically paying to pick off lone members and dumb haulers, with little/no risk of repercussion. Paying for this privilege makes sense; its basically consequence-free (non)suicide ganking.
I mean, if you really want to descend into endless semantics and deconstruction, we should get a discount on wardeccing you based on how many of your people actually undock.
Hell, our honda war would be free then |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2040
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:17:00 -
[309] - Quote
Incidently I've just been on the test server and wardecced my own alliance with an alt corp and then added some allies.
The proposed system on the test server for Inferno 1.1 is currently.
First Ally is Free. Second Ally is 10m isk Third Ally is 20m Isk Fourth Ally is 40m Isk
So yes its exponential.
To illustrate the likely costs ...
9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.
100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.
This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.
So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.
Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.
Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!
And to quote a player from Failheap who responds quite pertinently I think.
Quote:I'm so dissapointed on the outcome of this...
large player bloc says -> we will make high-sec a living hell, therefore we will wardc or gank everyone there small player bloc says -> i'll use the tools at my disposal to fight back
CCP sees a problem there and "fixes" it..
i mean, these were wardec people were paying, let them cut their throats if they so want to
So many options to make wardecs meaningful and CCP chose the less interesting options....
I think thats pretty much the point right there.
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! |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:17:00 -
[310] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam. I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself. A good suggestion to address what I translate your main issue to be could be as follows: 1) Create a "stripped down mode" that can be switched to in any inventory window in the same way chat windows can be switched to "condensed mode", which unexpands the tree panel. 2) Allow any number of instances of the new inventory screen. Allow the instances to be 'saved' which stores their location, size, and "stripped down or full toggle" value against a custom chosen name. Make these saves bindable to hotkeys (so "Ctrl C" could pop open a small inventory window focused on your current ship cargohold in the bottom right corner of the screen in stripped down mode). That would give you back all the old functionality but be much, much more powerful and use the new system. Constructive feedback - this is how it is done. Sorry but you are a little bit wrong. Any kind of Hotkey/ shortcut is IN ABSOLUTE NO WAY acceptable. The function, to doubleclick and/or rightclick at the icons, to pop up the independent windows MUST be restored. Why does someone want a hotkey when it once was fine to just doublecklick. I hate the idea to have hundreds of shortcuts to load my hundreds of windows again. Why not just a doublecklick at a icon? Why should I play a text controlled game with this crap shortcuts, when I have a mouse and double- rightclicks? Really.. Who loves all this shortcuts? I use 3 different shortcuts currently. All for drone control. I do not want further shortcuts to control a game which was playable with a mouse till 22.05.2012!
What feature rich function Do you mean? The Tree view - No one likes? The estimated price that is always wrong and not useable but laggy? The circles which you can see till the server loads the WHOLE inventory? ... I can not find ANY improvement, compared to the old UI, which would do this unified crap useful.
And why is the demand to absolute rebuild the old UI with the new code not a constructive feedback? The few lovers of this unified UI just say: "Give 'constructive feedback' as long as it don't include ANY functionality from the old UI." ? I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:20:00 -
[311] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: 9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.
100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.
This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.
So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.
Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.
Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!
It's almost like it's designed to make you think about who you ally with, to gauge the actual force you're fighting (i.e. not just looking at how many members are in the alliance and throwing a tantrum from there) and to hire accordingly. Funny that! |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:23:00 -
[312] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.
Fuujin wrote:Two different scenarios. One is the large alliance as an aggressor. You are not an existential (or even tangible) threat to their home, so a fraction of a fraction will likely form up. Possibly with occasional spikes for a specific op (people love killing POS). The other is the large alliance as the "Defender". Again, you aren't a threat to their holdings in any means. You will never threaten their livelihood. You're realistically paying to pick off lone members and dumb haulers, with little/no risk of repercussion. Paying for this privilege makes sense; its basically consequence-free (non)suicide ganking. I mean, if you really want to descend into endless semantics and deconstruction, we should get a discount on wardeccing you based on how many of your people actually undock. Hell, our honda war would be free then
Well, then would an after-the-fact wardec fee/tax be more appropriate? That is, to declare war, some amount of ISK is deposited (like a retainer), then at set times (daily downtime? weekly?) the system examines actual highsec combats for combatants, and calculates the appropriate fee/tax at that time, then deducts it from the retainer.
I've no dog in this hunt, just musing about possible outside-the-box solutions.
MDD |
Ponder Yonder
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
31
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:23:00 -
[313] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Lallante wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT). In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t! NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again! Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam. I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself. A good suggestion to address what I translate your main issue to be could be as follows: 1) Create a "stripped down mode" that can be switched to in any inventory window in the same way chat windows can be switched to "condensed mode", which unexpands the tree panel. 2) Allow any number of instances of the new inventory screen. Allow the instances to be 'saved' which stores their location, size, and "stripped down or full toggle" value against a custom chosen name. Make these saves bindable to hotkeys (so "Ctrl C" could pop open a small inventory window focused on your current ship cargohold in the bottom right corner of the screen in stripped down mode). That would give you back all the old functionality but be much, much more powerful and use the new system. Constructive feedback - this is how it is done. Sorry but you are a little bit wrong. Any kind of Hotkey/ shortcut is IN ABSOLUTE NO WAY acceptable. The function, to doubleclick and/or rightclick at the icons, to pop up the independent windows MUST be restored. Why does someone want a hotkey when it once was fine to just doublecklick. I hate the idea to have hundreds of shortcuts to load my hundreds of windows again. Why not just a doublecklick at a icon? Why should I play a text controlled game with this crap shortcuts, when I have a mouse and double- rightclicks? Really.. Who loves all this shortcuts? I use 3 different shortcuts currently. All for drone control. I do not want further shortcuts to control a game which was playable with a mouse till 22.05.2012! And why is the demand to absolute rebuild the old UI with the new code not a constructive feedback? The few lovers of this unified UI just say: "Give 'constructive feedback' as long as it don't include ANY functionality from the old UI." ?
Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
|
Tlat Ij
Hedion University Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:26:00 -
[314] - Quote
Hooray! You guys finally fixed the logos on the Carthum ships! Although, the red parts look a bit too dark tbh, looks like a color you would expect on rusty old minmatar ships. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2042
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:28:00 -
[315] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: 9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.
100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.
This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.
So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.
Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.
Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!
It's almost like it's designed to make you think about who you ally with, to gauge the actual force you're fighting (i.e. not just looking at how many members are in the alliance and throwing a tantrum from there) and to hire accordingly. Funny that!
Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.
Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.
This is not a complex argument surely ?
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! |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:30:00 -
[316] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
424
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:34:00 -
[317] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.
Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.
This is not a complex argument surely ?
Not even remotely. I guess if anything about this was "complex" it'd be your bleating about needing your ally list to be a "fair" number when in practice it was...well, I'll quote your sig: "sign up and shoot Goons for free!".
But back to non-complex things: surely you can recognize that the ally system was at least in part to invigorate the idea of being a professional mercenary corporation, and that "come shoot Goons for free!" accomplishes the exact opposite of that.
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:35:00 -
[318] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue
Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:38:00 -
[319] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.
Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.
This is not a complex argument surely ?
Actually, it is.
Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you. All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.
You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases. Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do. Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free. Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not. A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.
Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:41:00 -
[320] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription! Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please.
Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now? I repost ths demand so often because I feel ignored from CCP. I write something and CCP doesnt reply to that or say YES or NO. Than I must ask a few times more. I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:42:00 -
[321] - Quote
Fuujin wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.
Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.
This is not a complex argument surely ?
Actually, it is. Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you. All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity. You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases. Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do. Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free. Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not. A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups. Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient.
I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2043
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:42:00 -
[322] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.
Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.
This is not a complex argument surely ? Not even remotely. I guess if anything about this was "complex" it'd be your bleating about needing your ally list to be a "fair" number when in practice it was...well, I'll quote your sig: "sign up and shoot Goons for free!". But back to non-complex things: surely you can recognize that the ally system was at least in part to invigorate the idea of being a professional mercenary corporation, and that "come shoot Goons for free!" accomplishes the exact opposite of that.
If you would care to look at my proposal for resolving this problem you will see that it does both - it will invigorate the ideal of the merc corp while still allowing a small power decced by a massive power to invite for a free dogpile and fight back.
Quote: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.
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! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:44:00 -
[323] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription! Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please. Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now?
Seriously who exactly do you think you are? President of the World Aspergers League? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:44:00 -
[324] - Quote
Callidus Dux wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Ponder Yonder wrote: Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription! Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please. Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now?
I have actually replied to this topic extensively in another thread. I have requested that the team investigate the option to have clicking and shift-clicking exchangeable via the shortcut menu (for inventory only) so that advanced players have the choice of functionality. The team was interested and are examining the feasibility of such a feature. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
669
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:45:00 -
[325] - Quote
Here's a different take on the ideas presented for Warfare:
The issue of an XYZ sized alliance able to cheaply war dec a smaller alliance is totally irrelevant. You could do this before and you can still do it now.
The perceived unfairness is the ability for a smaller alliance to war dec a bigger alliance for "more".
I think the solution is simple, for Inferno.
Make the cost be the difference in members. Both ways.
For a smaller alliance to war dec a bigger one, you pay per member the difference. For a bigger alliance to war dec a smaller one, you pay the difference, per member.
Now, two BIG alliances, pay smaller payments. Two Small alliances of the same size, pay smaller payments.
Why do this? Well. One of the reasons to pay PER member is to stop one or two small corps from harassing a huge corp without any retaliation. And the concern of a huge alliance war deccing a smaller alliance. When the odds are the same, the war fees go down, and then we can truly have inferno.
Mega alliances that want mega alliance warfare will pay cheaply, and INFERNO happens because you better be ready to defend your mega huge size. Meanwhile small alliances that want small wars can have them and they should GROW bigger to defend themselves/make it more expensive to war dec.
So, what will happen is huge alliances will have an incentive to war dec other huge alliances, and smaller alliances will have an incentive to grow. The bigger alliances still get an advantage in terms of ISK and numbers. But, it motivates people to grow or shrink based on their environment.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:46:00 -
[326] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance?
Said my two cents on the FW changes - should I go bring other interested parties to the thread to post on the subject as well? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
547
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:47:00 -
[327] - Quote
corestwo wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance? Said my two cents on the FW changes - should I go bring other interested parties to the thread to post on the subject as well?
As long as it's constructive and on-topic, we're glad to hear from as many people who would like to post. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2046
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:47:00 -
[328] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Fuujin wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.
Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.
This is not a complex argument surely ?
Actually, it is. Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you. All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity. You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases. Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do. Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free. Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not. A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups. Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient. I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance?
Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."
This Warfare change on the other hand is a pretty horrible thing. Its massively unbalanced in favour of the largest and richest alliances in Eve and gives them an even bigger advantage than the 50m -> 500m wardec fee did with Inferno 1.0.
What I'd like is for developers and goonswarm posters to actually look at the proposed solution I've put on the table and critique it. Let me know why you think it doesn't work if its no good - otherwise please consider adopting it.
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! |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:49:00 -
[329] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."
Discouraging warfare by allowing plexes to be soloed in frigates isn't actually well done. The thread has multiple topics, please stop trying to monopolize it for your own grievances. |
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
443
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 15:50:00 -
[330] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: I have actually replied to this topic extensively in another thread. I have requested that the team investigate the option to have clicking and shift-clicking exchangeable via the shortcut menu (for inventory only) so that advanced players have the choice of functionality. The team was interested and are examining the feasibility of such a feature.
OK.. than I must have missed that. We have NOW more threads about the issues / feedback of this UI, than windows in this UI itself. Is there a statement from this team? Is it possible to avoid this shift+x to have a seperate window as default per double or rightclick? I can't play EVE at present. Because of THIS: http://i50.tinypic.com/2ez1wz4.jpg |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |