Svalinn
SOMER Blink
Cognitive Development
3
   |
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: We had a chat with the CSM, we agreed on that a change was needed but at the end of the day we didn't chose the patch Alekseyev wanted because I felt it catered too much to a specific playstyle which very people engage in at the cost of everyone else.
It's worrying that CCP chose not to implement the mercenary-based option and consider a different one, while simultaneously creating a system that snuffed it out entirely. I'm not sure what I've missed, but a mercenary option can only be a good thing unless the goal is the suppression of that play style.
" I felt it catered too much to a specific playstyle which very people engage in at the cost of everyone else"
It's a bit more concerning that the excuse that such a change would impact on another persons play-style, when if you reduce it to a basic level, is simply one side declaring war upon another. One side fights another. I'm unsure why this is a problem (In EVE of all places), it seems you have a problem with a battle having a loser, focusing on the losing side and their experience. So it really doesn't actually involve mercenary corps at all, it involves every entity that war-decs another, in any situation where there is a winner and a loser.
The differentiation you are (wrongly, imo) making is to penalise those groups that fight in Empire under war-dec rules as being somehow detrimental to everyone else. Significantly, it most affects those groups that start fights against groups in Empire, those predominantly being mercenary and griefer corps, but crucially the system is set up that there is no longer any advantage to hiring help to defend, when the cost of bringing in 5 'free' allies is negligible. The system still favours the defender, offers no incentive to pick your allies carefully, and doesn't scale against the sizes of the allies you bring in, or the scale of the war at large.
Are the proposed changes better? Relatively speaking yes, its a change from "complete disaster", but it is still "pretty terrible". The CSM who were passionate about changing it were those voted in by those who wanted to keep combat on the agenda, to represent the values they hold dearest. By your own admission, large alliances in null sec have little to no regard for this change, yet even their CSM candidates didn't like the idea.
CSM can't influence policy, but you can actually try to respect play-styles and the effort made to create a viable mercenary system long before you brought in your own. The analogy would be, you destroyed the nice creation of the sandbox, and now want us to play without the tools to properly rebuild them. Wonder why people are angry?
- S |