| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
   |
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:29:00 -
[1] - Quote
Why oh why are we still tlaking about the wardec system? and seriously do you honestly think the goons or ANY large allianc ein nullsec gives a f*ck about wardecs? Nullsec, only an idiot would be in highsec on his main hauling etc, thats why we all have alt corps and such |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
AS A NOTE TO CCP/Soundwave/devs:
I still think that most of nullsec would enjoy the ability to be able to set wardec-types...
Nullsec only = Free but no killrights or flagging in lowsec or highsec ... but you get the nice stat tracking and kill tracking etc, i'd say make this free or very low cost since theres no concord bribery
Nullsec + Lowsec = Lowsec kill rights so no gate agressions vs enemys, mid cost to low cost as its also not that big its more for stat tracking the war, and some bribery to gateguns :)
Standard wardec / high / null / low killrights, normal costs like it is now..... |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Manssell wrote:You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow. It's funny you should mention this................. 
PLEASE |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
Amdor Renevat wrote:Rrama Ratamnim wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Manssell wrote:You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow. It's funny you should mention this................. PLEASE Yep, this is a good idea. Especially if it was put in BEFORE having allies starts to cost money. Since having a treaty system would fundamentally alter the way wars are considered and would have a dramatic effect on Merc recruitment.
yes but adding some fees to deter a broken system in the meantime had to happen dude the unlimited allies was obviously a broken mechanic that was being abused... implementing a treaty system actually requires some indepth programming and ui |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:22:00 -
[5] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Amdor Renevat wrote:Rrama Ratamnim wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Manssell wrote:You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow. It's funny you should mention this................. PLEASE Yep, this is a good idea. Especially if it was put in BEFORE having allies starts to cost money. Since having a treaty system would fundamentally alter the way wars are considered and would have a dramatic effect on Merc recruitment. This is pretty much what everyone thought the merc marketplace was going to be like from the start. I think most everyone has been pretty disappointed on the iterations so far, or lack thereof, without much discussion of the plan going forward. The marketplace should have been first, then wardec changes, etc. This just seems like another inventory UI debacle where function follows form. "Make it pretty, then make it work" is a horrible game design philosophy.
its not the inventory UI, the inventory UI was good just buggy as f*ck and missing features... still mssing the damn shortcuts but anyway i digress
The war system was released... sort of like out of order, as you said it was shuffled around ...
but then again they probably couldn't have released a treaty system based on the broken ass old wardec system if they were releasing a new one, and it was probably too much code to postpone everything until treaties were ready as well... so what we had was a revised wardec system with a stupid ally exploit, that is now patched though is pissing people off because they can't have a billion allies...
Personally i hope we see the treatie system sooner than later, that way people can finally breath easy
But then again i also hope that we see multi-type wardecs (Null Only / Null + Low / All Sec Status systems) so that nullsec alliances cna war each other with nice ingame statistics tracking without having to deal with an insane wardec costs and screwing there own highsec logistics... |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tarkoauc wrote:The increasing cost scale is helping the large aggressors against the small war target.
I would propose that the cost scale only goes into effect when the war target has accumulated the same number of allies so that on both sides the same number of combatants are active. As the victim, you get get as many friends until you are as strong as the agrressor.
Mercs still have the offensive war options. They should have plenty to do there.
For the love of god!, YOU CAN"T CALL YOURSELF A SMALL GUY VS A BIG ALLIANCE WHEN YOUR SMALL ALLIANCE HAS 9000 allies!!?!?!?!?!
At that point you've now expanded your war to such a scale that your now the BIG GUY!
Stop acting like just because you were a 100 man corp wardecing a 9000 man alliance that your the little guy when you recruited 10000 allies! |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:22:00 -
[7] - Quote
Aleph Phi wrote:devblog wrote:Lastly, there is a new skill out there, called Armor Resistance Phasing. It reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners (or, well, the one that currently exists) by 10% per level. This skill costs ca. 600k, has a skill rank of 5 and is sold wherever good skill books are sold (i.e. the usual places). Reduced Cycle time? While I'm all for a skill to make reactive armor hardeners adapt faster, this isn't a good way to go about it. Here's why: Neutralization vulnerability. A module with a shorter cycle time is far more prone to being deactivated by capacitor warfare -- particularly when you're relying on a capacitor booster to keep your hardeners running. This is particularly critical on the reactive hardener, where deactivation means that adaptation has to start all over again.
Increased capacitor consumption. Unless you're also intending to reduce the activation cost, a faster cycle time results in correspondingly higher energy cost on a per second basis. The reactive armor hardener already consumes dramatically more capacitor than standard armor hardeners -- this would only make that worse.
For these reasons, I would actively avoid training the skill. The reactive armor hardener can be situationally useful without it, but the drawbacks make it a liability. P.S.: Did you mean to make the reactive armor hardener stacking penalized against damage controls? Neither module makes any mention of stacking penalties, but they most definitely act against each other.
100% agree, Soundwave please make this a activation cost Reduction + Cycle time reduction to maintain cap stability as it is its already very cap sensitive
And yes the stacking penalty is annoying... do to its situational usage i really wish they would make it in a stacking group by itself. i mena if i'm gonna dump that much cpu into a DCU and a Reactive armor let me get the resists lol
|
| |
|