Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |

Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
123
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 19:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Jypsie wrote:Selissa Shadoe wrote:From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it Quote:It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate. That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair. Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread. This makes more sense CCP. The larger alliances already have an advantage in manpower and resources to bring into a fight. Artificially giving them even more advantages preventing defenders from getting Allies by a game induced tax is unnecessary. Once some sort of parity is approached, you can start applying fees to keep the kitchen sink from being thrown. Mercs will still be appealing, in their own niche. For example: A 10 man high-sec piracy corp decs a 30 man mining corp, demanding ransom or exploding Orcas. At this point the defender is already over the manpower headcount of the aggressor with an apparent 3:1 "advantage." Make them pay an exorbitant fee to bring in an ally. Reality knows that they need some combat pilots. This is where the Mercs come into play. They could be hired for less than the cost of bringing in Allies. Mercs would also be appealing to bring in an advantage once you have an approx. 1:1 headcount with your enemy for less than the cost of Allies. Sadly Soundwave is 100% committed to this large-alliance boosting change and its pretty much set in stone. No feedback on revising the plan has been considered as far as I can tell - and the CSM itself (those who were at the meeting) was ignored completely when they gave the thumbs down to this particular "fix". I strongly suspect we'll all be stuck with it for six months at least.
What precisely were you expecting from Goonwave http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |

Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
123
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 19:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Actually I think this just gives a reason to stay in a NPC corp if youre gonna be in High sec. Till they make those deccable anyways http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |

Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 02:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Alia Gon'die wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP?
yea the changes in the blog. I like how ppl try to pretend they arent related lol
Bet you thought T20 was just another dev and those charges were trumped up too lol http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |

Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
129
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 04:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
j Haginen wrote:Well im gona say this short ; ccp good job!!!!!!! with your war decking system,youjust fd up pvp again go on f*** it up more , the only thing whats happening is your gona lose more eve players. the only ones gona stays in this game are your goonpets
It does appear that while its not supposed to be fair, as Soundwave said, its only supposed to be unfair for the defenders. If it becomes unfair for the attacker, the rules will be changed.
Nikon Nip wrote:Maybe all the highsec carebears need to arrange a little uprising like we did for the whole incarna thing. How do you think ccp would respond if several thousand carebear accounts suddenly just stopped subscribing. Maybe then we would get some carebear love
You do that, Goons unsub, yer back at square one.
Gl with that O.o http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |

Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 03:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
That seems to be the general sentiments - wars should be unfair... so long as the unfairness is in favour of big nullsec alliances. If it's unfair AGAINST them then that's unfair and we need to make the unfairness unfair to be unfair for other people because thats only fair.
I think I said that
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |

Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 04:10:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kale Freeman wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Kale Freeman wrote:Another suggestion...
What about separating mercs from allies
Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!
Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.
EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end! Works for me. Although after reading this a few times it suddenly dawned on me that the right way to do this would be to have treaties. Manage your friends a mutual defence treaty, and hire your mercs through this expensive wardec ally mechanic. Perhaps so, but I suspect the same people whining about the defensive ally "dogpile" consequence would still moan about treaty-dogpiling if it turned out that wardecs turned sour when too many people alligned with the defender. End of the day its diffcult to divorce people's in-game interest and bias from this discussion on any level - thats kinda what we need the devs for.
Funny tho; isnt that how the big dogs in 0.0 work it? Set to blue all the ppl in the "treaty" in this case. Nobody seems to be QQing that theres too many ppl giving brohugs and asking CCP to change that.
CCP Goliath wrote:
On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
SO I do have a specific question then, how does the crapload of smalls forming together to take on a large functionality work?
Cause toppling a large isnt usually gonna come from another large getting tired of being bloated and fat.
Small groups getting together to get rid of a bigger group
like for instance say all the high sec miners getting sick of getting decced by Goons, banding together and having at it (yeah fantasy, I realize, but hey its what Goons say to do, "come at me bro" and all)in a war.
Doesnt work real well when the costs to bring people into the war to get the edge in numbers (thus NOT "making it fair") goes into the infinite. Working as intended? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |

Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Molic Blackbird wrote:I've read the statement several time that the current system isn't working because if one small corp war decs another small corp, the defending corp could bring in enough allies to make it 10 to 1 in their favor. That is considered bad. Yet, if the opposite happens and a 2000 member alliance war decs a 200 member corp that is considered to be an 'edge case' and something to tolerate. In the case of two small corps, the attacking corp can end the war after 1 week if things go bad. In the second example, all a 200 member corp can do is hope none of its membership gets someone in large alliance mad enough to war dec them.
If it is true that allies have a 24-48 hour cool down before they can be renewed, then corps having a POS to defend will need 2 merc corps hired staggered a week apart to make sure at least one is around for defense. But wait, you can only hire 1 before you need to pay a penalty fee?
I said it before, EVE isnt meant to be fair but only for the defender apparently
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
|