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) |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:29:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Fuujin wrote:Lallante wrote: As I mentioned before, the underlying principle should be to not discourage reasonably even numbers on both sides. The current proposals basically make getting even numbers against a large single attacker (like goonswarm) impossibly expensive and that has to be wrong.
I disagree. GSF numbers are silly huge. But that's a result of a multi-region nulsec empire. You won't see those kinds of numbers in a hisec dwelling alliance--the closest AFAIK is Eve-U. Ha. So trying to design for those edge cases is just dumb. Better to balance the system for smaller groups. Because, as has been stated, nulsec groups as a rule don't come into hisec en masse. Too many restrictions, too many station games, not enough interest, etc. So the numbers there would not be a concern--any competant merc group you could recruit using normal rules would still likely be a good match numerically for your OpFor. Adding to this discussion is that while it might be very difficult to get the same number of people on paper, it's not necessarily the same effort getting the same number of people in practice. How many people will an empire focused merc corp have in an organized fashion in empire compared to GF for example? The total number of people in an alliance for that purpose isn't necessarily relevant.
While that is obviously true your mechanics penalise the defender for GF not being organised or committing to their empire wars. If they cant commit a sizeable force to fight a war they declared, they have three options: 1) accept that there is a possibility that they will be fighting outnumbered IF the defender is highly organised and can afford allies; 2) create a separate entity (alliance or corp) dedicated to the war with the people who will be involved in it; or 3) not declare war.
I don't really understand why you are penalising the defenders because the attacker only brings a fraction of its possible power into play. Every one of the 9000 players is -capable- of being involved in the war. Why should the defender suffer because only a fraction bother to do so in practice? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
383
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:33:00 -
[362] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: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. 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.
so pretty much before inferno i get war decced i stay inside of station and now since i cant get enough peeps to help me out i have to sit in station?
good job...
whats to stop mercs from joining up like the old MA and have 4000 peeps then you are only hiering one ally?
can me being a mego merc allinace be allies for eveyone who is war decced in high sec? PLEX FOR PIZZA!
tech III industrial ships! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
33
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:33:00 -
[363] - Quote
Fuujin wrote:Lallante wrote: There isn't really any real risk for a 5000 man alliance wardeccing a 50 man corp. Even if they punch 10x harder than expected this is still a drop in the ocean to the 5000 man alliance. Meanwhile the 50 man corp can neither bring in significant numbers of allies (unless it just invites in one super-massive ally), nor can it get its friends to wardec the 5000 man alliance withou incurring what will be a prohibitively high cost for most small entities.
I think you missed something: you can still bring in as many allies as you want, you just pay an additional concord fee (on top of the hiring fees/if any). 10/20/40 is 70M for 3 allies; if you can't get several hundred mercs out of 3 allies to assist you (easily outnumbering the forces a large alliance will realistically bring to bear on a 50 man) you're just not trying. Numbers parity is a fool's errand. Quality > quantity. Or you can just balloon your corp by spamming the recruitment channel and get the same effect. Edit: To the above poster, feel free to create whatever group you want. It's up to the target to accept allies. But if you want to shoot nulsec dwellers, well, where we live is quite clearly marked on the map.
I agree quality > quantity (although its impossible for a mechanic to judge this) - Out of interest, why do you support a mechanic that escalates the cost of bringing in allies with the quantity of ally entities then? Is it just to troll jade (a noble endeavour). |
MailDeadDrop
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:38:00 -
[364] - Quote
Lallante wrote:I don't really understand why you are penalising the defenders because the attacker only brings a fraction of its possible power into play. Every one of the 9000 players is -capable- of being involved in the war. Why should the defender suffer because only a fraction bother to do so in practice? Oooo, now there's an interesting mechanic: Let's make the 2nd and following weeks' wardec fees proportionate to the proportion of pilots in the attacking corp/alliance who DO NOT participate in the war's combat during the preceding weeks of the wardec. That way attackers are financially incentivized to bring their pilots.
MDD |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
128
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:42:00 -
[365] - Quote
Lallante wrote:
I agree quality > quantity (although its impossible for a mechanic to judge this) - Out of interest, why do you support a mechanic that escalates the cost of bringing in allies with the quantity of ally entities then? Is it just to troll jade (a noble endeavour).
Quantity has a quality all of its own. Especially for small scale wars--100 v 200 or 200 v 100, if you bring in a large merc corp of 200 guys you'll likely swamp the aggressor even if they aren't good. There needs to be a limiter on allies, if not a hard number than an effective ISK wall works just as well.
Ideally, the wardec system will be relatively simple and not bogged down with escalation rules, number count rules, weekly comparisons, derivatives of the membercounts, etc. You want Risk, not the board game of Game of Thrones. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:44:00 -
[366] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
I'm not sure that is the issue to be honest. I accept you are trying to bring the merc trade back to eve but I don't think your proposal will work the way you think it will. Adding a concord penalty fee to allies simply means that a certain number of allies will get in as a way of discounting their ordinary concord declaration fee. But nobody is going to be paying mercenaries for random unspecificied trade hub ganking. Your ambition to give mercenary's meaning again will not be met until you are in the position to give specific war aims and goals that people can set their mercs. For example.
If the Goonswarm vs SF war had a default win condition of "do 100b isk damage" and came with a way of winning the war then sure - I'd be hiring decent mercs to do it. But there is no win condition, no structure, no real purpose apart from "go have fun blowing each other up" - and why am I paying other players to have fun? This is eve not themepark friendly cuddly creatures online :)
CCP Soundwave wrote:Why would I want to balance a fight?
Thats a big question and it deserves a proper answer. You want to balance a fight because then people will take it seriously and try. The biggest problem with eve's combat system is that sure you can create unbalanced fights, but then you can also run away and avoid them. Try roaming lowsec in a giant T3 ahac gang with 10 guardians and triage carriers on station and see who engages you. Sure eve is not fair but all you are going to get from that play is a blue-balls. Go roaming in something that looks more engageable and you'll get fights.
Now there is something key here. Sure in the purity of Eve's jungle wardecs are not fair (and lets ignore for a moment the way you rebalanced Inferno to give huge alliances a 10x wardec fee protection bonus in boosting the default from 50-500m). But sure you let the large bully the small and sit back and call it the sandbox. Thats great, but as with the roaming ahacs they are not going to find people very interested in fighting and the targets will generally ignore the wardec. Why would anyone sensible engage massively outnumbered in a war that is completely biased in the attackers favour? This is why people getting a wardec from GS/TEST etc just outsource it to the trade hub raiders and forget about it.
If instead you give the defender tools to fight back if they can find and motivate allies then fighting the war becomes something sensible to consider and people will do it. People will take an interest and put some effort into engaging with the war rather than just shrugging and ignoring it.
Inferno is an expansion about war. But it should be an expansion about how to seduce people into war, how to excite people about war, how to make people see the possibilities in war. Thats how it becomes successful. While sure, its good old mittani style soundbite to talk about how eve isn't fair and the big crush the small and the aristocracy of 0.0 has all the advantages and if you don't like it HTFU and get out etc etc. This message has tactical limits - because if you can't interest people in the possibilties of the wardec system through the changes you roll out in Inferno then its going to be a failure - if people don't care about wars because they perceive the big guys have ALL the advantages they'll just keep wardec evading and ignoring and nobody is going to be hiring mercs to fight these things.
CCP Soundwave wrote:The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them.
See I had no problem with that thinking coupled with the allied system which could potentially even the field while adding targets (value) to the attack wardec. Take the example that is discussed widely in this thread. I have been attracting allies to the GS vs SF wardec. GS people say they like more targets. Every ally I bring adds more targets to the dec. I am effectively giving more specific value to the 50m per week that goonswarm are paying. Now either the goonswarm dec should increase in value to reflect the total number of the defending coalition - OR increasing the size of the defending coalition should be free because frankly (I'm giving GS more targets). Giving them more targets AND costing me money is just being double charged - sure eve is not fair but there has to be a point where you realize giving a double benefit to the largest alliances is just not really on.
CCP Soundwave wrote: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.
But it does massively boost the Mercenary Market and will make good merc corps excellent allies to have. Allowing a war to grow organically and dynamically as allies join will create a good balanced war which will interest people, will enthuse people, will suck people in. Why should a war be an arbitary one punch tilt for the attacker? What is the problem with having Inferno wardecs grow large and involve large numbers of corps and alliances?
Thats consequence. Why should the largest alliances in Eve be protected from consequence by arbitary wardec mechanics? This is eve. Design a system where we can play war for real. Take off the training wheels and let the chips fall.
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! |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
846
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:50:00 -
[367] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:I agree with Jade. If you couldn't bring in world renowned PvP allies like We help Noobs, INVARIANT TENSOR, Angelserivce, Dukes of Noobs, Spontaneous Castigation, Pods Must Cry, Nocturnal Twins, I AM UGLY AND THIS MAKES ME ANGRY ALSO JUMP, Kicking Smurfs, Hostile Kids, Freight Club, Next Era Dawn, Kamikaze Tactics, Unicorn Zero, PAX Interstellar Mercenary People, The Blacklist LTd., Kursk Security, Destruction Overload, Envy., Multicultural Appreciation Society, Pandora Cartel, P I R A T, Iron Oxide., Corsairs., Let Us Sleep, Ex Obscuritas, Electric Society, Tactical Knightmare, New eden lotto, Hikage Corporation, Rowdy Ramblers, Moustache Twirling Space Cads, and Corpus Alienum to fight the Goon menace, then there is NO WAY to fight them. It's impossible, really. The only way to kill Goons is to have 100 random allies in Empire. Then and only then can their nullsec empire crumble. So Elise - since you find these allies so utterly laughable and irrelevant why should I have to pay concord a premium for them as long as the total size of my alliance and these corps is less than the total size of the entity making the incoming wardec? Riddle me that.
I'm suuuuuuuuper sorry. I thought that since you framed a grievance over an upcoming mechanic under the guise that it was implemented to generate favoritism for an alliance (which will be largely unaffected by said change) that you weren't into having an actual discussion. Regardless, let's delve into the mysteries of this war mechanic. We'll start small.
First I guess we should look at your main point - that this change will unfairly affect enemies of Goonswarm. Goonswarm is a very large alliance, and like most very large alliances they live in Nullsec. VFK, the home system for Goons, is the most active market in all of Nullsec. Using Eve-kill data, in the last two years over 99% of their kills have been in Nullsec or Lowsec - an area of the game where war decs are irrelevant.
So now we get back to your argument where you proudly stand on your ragged soap box and scream "CCP FAVORITISM" as loud as you can while quixotically claiming that Goons can destroy Eve unless you can bring in unlimited allies. To which you back-pedaled and went with unlimited allies until the summation of members from my allies is equal to that of the aggressor. In the old war mechanics, the one without allies, how many times did Goons wardec an empire entity and kill it off because it was too expensive to bring 50 other alliances (as you say is the necessary amount) to combat the Goon? Oh, zero in six years? You don't say!
So this is why the community at large is laughing at you. I know this feeling isn't new to you and you don't care, but can you at least understand why nobody is taking what could be a rightful gripe seriously? Instead of rallying support for your cause, you just come across as some spergy badposter who really doesn't like Goons. Not putting words into your mouth, just giving you honest feedback.
Let's keep going onto the actual point. Why do I think that having (free) 50 allies, of which 80% have scored fewer than 10 kills, is a bad thing? I think we can agree that scarcity breeds competition. From the mercenary perspective, there is no scarcity when you can call in unlimited help. Why should a mercenary alliance strive to better than someone else? The current system is effectively "hi Moar Tears - how many free war decs do you want?" instead of providing an environment for mercenary corps to flourish.
Hope this cleared things up.
~ |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
362
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:54:00 -
[368] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:So now we get back to your argument where you proudly stand on your ragged soap box and scream "CCP FAVORITISM" as loud as you can while quixotically claiming that Goons can destroy Eve unless you can bring in unlimited allies. To which you back-pedaled and went with unlimited allies until the summation of members from my allies is equal to that of the aggressor. In the old war mechanics, the one without allies, how many times did Goons wardec an empire entity and kill it off because it was too expensive to bring 50 other alliances (as you say is the necessary amount) to combat the Goon? Oh, zero in six years? You don't say! I think we actually killed some highsec research alliance by wardeccing them and blowing up all their towers and stuff, but my memory is a little hazy. So its actually once, maybe, in six years.
Hopefully I didn't just undermine your point. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 16:56:00 -
[369] - Quote
Hi Elise - Do you think after this change the war dec mechanic is perfect?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:04:00 -
[370] - Quote
Fuujin wrote:Lallante wrote:
I agree quality > quantity (although its impossible for a mechanic to judge this) - Out of interest, why do you support a mechanic that escalates the cost of bringing in allies with the quantity of ally entities then? Is it just to troll jade (a noble endeavour).
Quantity has a quality all of its own. Especially for small scale wars--100 v 200 or 200 v 100, if you bring in a large merc corp of 200 guys you'll likely swamp the aggressor even if they aren't good. There needs to be a limiter on allies, if not a hard number than an effective ISK wall works just as well. Ideally, the wardec system will be relatively simple and not bogged down with escalation rules, number count rules, weekly comparisons, derivatives of the membercounts, etc. You want Risk, not the board game of Game of Thrones.
I guess this just comes down to whether you think the "relatively simple" mechanic is better as number of corp/alliances or number of players.
I think the latter is, though a bad indicater of power, a huge amount better than the former.
PS: I'm not trying to make highsec safer or wars less common or more consensual, I want more glorious deaths not less. |
|
Dovinian
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1075
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:04:00 -
[371] - Quote
Hi Elise, what changes would you make to the current system to make it viable and awesome? EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath
Please use bulleted points
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:07:00 -
[372] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote: snipped general ranting
So now you've got all that off your chest would you like to address the specifics of my proposal?
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.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
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
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:09:00 -
[373] - Quote
Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?
Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries? |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:12:00 -
[374] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?
Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?
Most people don't read the forums. All they can do in-game is solicit offers, look at their war histories, and make determinations that way. A trash "merc" corp can glom onto wars and have a kickass undefeated streak, while still being trash. A quality merc corp can fight hard and do stuff, and have the same record, but fewer members.
Who would you hire? The larger undefeated corp, or the smaller? |
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:12:00 -
[375] - Quote
Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.
Also stop with the tinfoil hat bullshit.
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
353
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:14:00 -
[376] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Has those not involved in a war assisting those in combat via assist modules (remote repair, remote sensor boosting, etc) been addressed? As in not allowed? We are going to be addressing that in the next phase of crimewatch work that Team Five-0 has planned. This is general aggression issue rather than a specific war issue (since wars are just another form of legalised aggression, much like loot-theft and kill-rights) and we want to fix the general problem of interfering in someone else's fight.
So yes, it is going to be sorted, but no, not in an Inferno point release (and so let's not derail this thread away from 1.1 feedback) "This one time, on patch day..." CCP Masterplan -á| -áTeam Five-0: Rewriting the law |
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
363
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:15:00 -
[377] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?
Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries? If the point is to achieve results, why does the ability to hire a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable) even need to exist? I mean, unless inflating GFs own kills, thus making our war more fun/profitable is your desired result. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:17:00 -
[378] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?
Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries?
The arguement is (and I really don't think its a good one) is that mercenaries are being disadvantaged by the fact that random hisec trade hub raiders offer their services for FREE.
ie "good mercenaries" can't make any money from being defensive allies.
Also,
traditional merc contracts (where entity A pays entity B to wardec C for some purpose) are being ruined because entity C can call in free allies and make it difficult for entity B to complete its job.
The first stage of the argument is a bit bunkum because it assumes that an entity like SF or Honda Accord would be paying for mercs in any situation on receipt of those wardecs and the answer is no.
The second stage is a little more convincing but isn't resolved by the Inferno 1.1 changes either. Nothing would stop GS from allying for free with anybody wardecced by a merc in new eden in the new system. Instant blob same result.
So basically these changes to boost mercs are simply not happening.
There is a different solution needed.
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2047
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:19:00 -
[379] - Quote
Syndic Thrass wrote:Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.
So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?
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.
Can you see anything wrong with this solution?
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! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
552
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:23:00 -
[380] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?
I understand what you're trying to do, but please stop requoting yourself in every post. It's OK to turn the other cheek and ignore people once in a while. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:23:00 -
[381] - Quote
corestwo wrote:Lallante wrote:Surely the merc market isnt ruined by free allies - people dont pay for mercs to make up numbers, they pay for the results they achieve. As has been noted the vast majority of the corps who joined in on the GF-JF war havent achieved much in the way of results - why should a competent merc outfit lose out on contracts to a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable)?
Can someone explain the reason free allies affects mercenaries? If the point is to achieve results, why does the ability to hire a ragtag bunch of small entities who, though free to ally, can't achieve 1/100 of the results and also inflate GF's own kills (thus making their war more fun/profitable) even need to exist? I mean, unless inflating GFs own kills, thus making our war more fun/profitable is your desired result.
Because it is funny.
Also it is fun for the ragtag guys (and hopefully for the attacker too - more defenders should mean more kills), while being a reasonably balanced method of defence (albeit not the most effective one, by far) against abusive wardecs. It encourages more PvP basically. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:29:00 -
[382] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?
I understand what you're trying to do, but please stop requoting yourself in every post. It's OK to turn the other cheek and ignore people once in a while.
Yeah fair enough, guess its okay if I link them instead :)
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! |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:29:00 -
[383] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: The first stage of the argument is a bit bunkum because it assumes that an entity like SF or Honda Accord would be paying for mercs in any situation on receipt of those wardecs and the answer is no.
Found your problem; its your incessantly self-centered argument.
So you and issler won't hire mercs; fine. What about the research alliance that gets dec'd? Or the small industrial group? Will you ignore their needs to defend their towers/assets/members?
Take the focus off yourself and consider the typical situation. Allowing for unlimited free allies is a Bad Thing for merc competitiveness because it dilutes the War History as a determinant of quality.
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
365
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:31:00 -
[384] - Quote
If you're going to keep linking to it, can I keep linking to Soundwave's post that smacked it down? I mean, that's all that matters, really - getting anyone to affirm "yes this is a good idea" is just you seeking validation. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1116
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:31:00 -
[385] - Quote
Syndic Thrass wrote:Jade, the problem with all of your arguments is that you think of nothing but Goons this and Goons that. I have yet to see a post where you put more emphasis on mercs and high-sec wars than you put on "STOP THE GOONIES FROM BLOBBING EVERYONE". Maybe just repost your idea without all the anti-Goon sentiment and it will more than likely be received much better.
Also stop with the tinfoil hat bullshit. It has been done multiple times in this thread, but you as well as others just ignore them and focus on Jade's posts. Lallente has been making very good posts in regards to the war dec mechanic. Why don't you go toe-to-toe with him. I would very much like to see that.
Unless of course you are not ready for that.
/popcorn
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:36:00 -
[386] - Quote
Fuujin wrote: Found your problem; its your incessantly self-centered argument. So you and issler won't hire mercs; fine. What about the research alliance that gets dec'd? Or the small industrial group? Will you ignore their needs to defend their towers/assets/members?
If I was wardecced by an entity that wanted to blow up my towers I'd consider hiring mercs to help defend at the reinforcement timer. I wouldn't be adding freebie "mercs" through the ally system. There is a world of difference between getting defenders for a specific purpose and simply reacting to a generalized trade hub ganking dec. But that pretty much goes for anybody else. No small entity that gets randomly decced and never sees its attackers is going to hire "serious mercs" to defend them -
Quote:Take the focus off yourself and consider the typical situation. Allowing for unlimited free allies is a Bad Thing for merc competitiveness because it dilutes the War History as a determinant of quality.
Come again? How does that work ?
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! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2048
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:38:00 -
[387] - Quote
corestwo wrote:If you're going to keep linking to it, can I keep linking to Soundwave's post that smacked it down? I mean, that's all that matters, really - getting anyone to affirm "yes this is a good idea" is just you seeking validation.
Well its actually seeking a discussion on a solid proposal rather than random trolling and argument. Soundwave made a post, it had his opinion. I disagreed with his approach in many respects and answered in turn. It appears many other players disagreed with his post as well. Hopefully he'll come back and respond.
This is how a conversation works.
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! |
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:39:00 -
[388] - Quote
It's all a Goon conspiracy, Soundwave only smacked your post down because he is favoring the Goonies, isn't that right Jade?
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:40:00 -
[389] - Quote
CCP Paradox wrote:You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec? A number of others have pointed out the silliness of this question. According to CCP's reasoning, the attacker must pay more for more targets. If only high sec targets count then large null sec alliances should cost less. Obviously the assumption is that equivalent numbers will do something else. Some possible other motives are: area protection (make high sec as hostile as null sec), unify towards an actual threat on null sec territory, or deterrence against large vs small wars. There are probably many more reasons to create numerically equal sides.
CCP Soundwave wrote:making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. Thank you for your entire response. At least now I understand why you are doing this and I even like the goal, although I disagree with the method. Thinking as a mercenary's customer these changes do not change the reasons why I would not hire a merc corporation. The war system needs a method by which a defender can actively remove the war declaration by fighting (and hiring mercenaries to do that fighting).
The free allies seem to be high sec ganking corps. These corporations provide one function, area harassment in trade hubs. Given significant numbers of opponents in non-industrial ships and they will dock. Now let us look at Noir.'s (a merc corp) list of services and compare that with these new allies and the solution suggested.
1) Declarations of War 2) System/Regional Assault (0.0 or anti-piracy) 3) Asset Denial These three require focus which high sec gankers do not seem to have outside of the trade hubs.
4) Small/Medium POS Destruction A free ally is looking for cheap targets not coordinated actions to benefit you.
5) Surveillance/Reconnaissance 6) Consulting 7) Scouting/Escort These seem like generally non-war related items, and require communication, which a free ally is not likely to bother with.
8) OPFOR Unless you fancy docking games an opposing force needs to be someone with some coordination.
9) Force Multiplication Requires coordination, again not in the province of free mercs.
10) Corporate Expansion/Alliance Creation Not wardec related.
From my perspective, the only three reasons to hire a merc outfit remain the same both before and after this change. 1) Harass someone you don't like. 2) POS destruction. 3) Training. Perhaps there are other cost effective tasks that mercenaries can do that I have not heard about. Based on this perspective what mercs need is a real way to benefit people not methods to hinder war dec defenders.
If you want to aid mercs add a method for defenders to actively fight against a war dec. Mercs can then be hired to reach this goal when the corporation does not feel it is capable. It seems like this idea has been dismissed by CCP because they think it constrains the activity in war. This is wrong.
A new option besides hide or fight a more powerful enemy could make the wars about fighting, which would encourage the hiring of mercs. The old wars were boring because you felt like there was nothing you could actually do to change the situation or encourage a fight. Allowing the defender to try and end the war through an activity will cause the inferno you actually wanted, instead of boredom that often results.
|
Syndic Thrass
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 17:46:00 -
[390] - Quote
Dovinian[b wrote:EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath[/b] So that is who keeps deleting all of my comments poking Jade.
Reguards, Iskies-mommies-toonies-corpies-goonies 0707 m8m8m8 |
|
|
|
|
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 |