|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:21:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Selissa Shadoe wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Limiting the number of allies is feedback we've gotten from the merc industry, I'm not sure Goons care. If they do, they haven't voiced it to us vOv. I'm sure you realize that it appears that CCP bends to the will of Goons. I'm pretty sure that CCP is part of the goons at this point. Why in the world would the Goons fight against a chance to gank everyone that ever complained about them, in highsec, without CONCORD interference?? This argument makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. The idea that Goons quaked with fear and ran crying to CCP to bail them out is pretty ludicrous. To this day, neither Jade nor any of the other tinfoil-conspiracy crowd have been able to produce a good reason why Goons stood to lose so much without bending the wardec system to "save" them.
******* nailed it. I have yet to see anyone offer a good reason why in the hell the Goons would want LESS people in high sec to shoot at. They literally have nothing to lose here. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
I like how everyone acts like the goons have brought 8000 people to fight in high sec and it requires a united high sec to stop them.
In reality there aren't more than 50-100 of them fighting in high sec, and if you guys really think that you need 9000 people to make things "fair" then I think you drastically overestimate the goons or underestimate yourselves.
Also, these changes obviously hurt the goons more than anyone else. Before this change, they only have to pay to wardec a few high sec alliances and then they still get to go to war with most of high sec. After the change, they are going to have to pay for a lot more wardecs to achieve the same results, since their enemies will not be able to recruit as many allies. It seems pretty clear to me that the goon wardec budget (which is almost insignificant compared to the things that they actually spend isk on) is the real victim here. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Why not just allow allies such that the total number of players in the defender's coalition = number of people in the attacking alliance/corp? That's been suggested many times, the only reason against it seems to be that Eve isn't fair. Which is ironic seeing as how one of the stated reasons for removal of the defensive ally dogpile was it "wasn't fair"
Wait where was this about CCP saying that they were changing this because it wasn't fair? I'm pretty sure they said the opposite of that. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:28:00 -
[4] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.
How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons.
They answered this a thousand times. The price goes up because of the additional targets that are granted. If you wardec a small corp you are only buying a few potential targets, so it is relatively cheap. If you wardec a large alliance, you are buying potentially thousands of targets so it is expensive. Seems pretty straight-forward. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:11:00 -
[5] - Quote
Otin Bison wrote:Kind of funny how for years the small HiSec corps have been told by 0.0 and CCP to HTFU and "go get some friends" if you want to fight back against the big-guys.
Now we can (and did) but, only for a short while longer until it is nerfed into oblivion. Nice job screwing over the Small guys ...
Except this makes no sense because the changes hurt the goons more than pubbies. Guys please take a second to think logically about what you are about to post before posting. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:14:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: You also, at some point, need to accept that running your mouth off about an entity that is 90 times your size is going to result in repercussions, (sandbox 'n' all) and you shouldn't be expecting CCP to patch in changes that help you get out of it for free. Of course the sandbox of repercussions only goes one way. When turnabout is attempted (quite successfully as in this example) suddenly the sandbox has new walls and the nerftbat strikes. You are being very deceitful to categorize a desire on my part to "get out of this". I made the war mutual, I invited anyone in new eden who wanted to punish goons to come punish them. I'm pretty convinced we were winning and would have ultimately won. Our side of the war wanted consequences and repercussions to set hisec aflame.
I think you need some perspective here, bud. 10B isk in ship (referring to the GSF vs Star Fraction "war") damage is less than the cost of a single super. I've seen many nullsec battles where a lot more isk that that is destroyed without batting an eye, so please stop with the self important nonsense about 10B isk breaking GSF and causing them to batphone CCP.
You beat the 50 goons living in high sec. You are free to call that winning (I certainly would and don't blame you for that). Consider this though, what if the Goons had a button that enabled them to wardec all of high sec? If you think for one second that they wouldn't press it you obviously are dumber than your "GOONS DID 9/11" stuff makes you seem. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:21:00 -
[7] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Tithi wrote:Pink Marshmellow wrote:CCP you still haven't answered the issue that I have pointed out here.
How come Goons only have to pay 50 million to wardec a small corp, but it costs the small corp 500 million to wardec Goons. They answered this a thousand times. The price goes up because of the additional targets that are granted. If you wardec a small corp you are only buying a few potential targets, so it is relatively cheap. If you wardec a large alliance, you are buying potentially thousands of targets so it is expensive. Seems pretty straight-forward. Well okay. By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?
I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally.
1.1's changes solve this problem though. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:13:00 -
[8] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Tithi wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:
Well okay.
By that logic then the aggressor should be paying the ally fee right? More targets?
I could certainly imagine a scenario where an aggressor would, in fact, help pay the cost for a defending ally, as long as the cost of adding an ally to the defender is less than the cost of a separate wardec for that ally. 1.1's changes solve this problem though. Could happen I suppose, would likely be the exception rather than the rule I would expect. Doesn't refute the absurdity of the premise, however.
I agree, and so does CCP, so they are changing it... |
|
|
|