Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:22:00 -
[301] - Quote
Believe it or not, this is the shorter version 'cos I wrote a crapload more and buggered it up when posting... probably a good thing, considering
Somebody a few pages back asked about the fleet compositions, FCs info and whatnot of Jade's allies/friends. While it was meant as a bit of a dig, I think it kinda made an important point. They're people who don't like Goons and unsurprisingly, there's a lot of 'em. But they are NOT professionals in the way that mercs are and for that reason, I can't see that these wardec changes are the way to protect mercs. If a merc outfit can't offer more to a defending corp than random, uncoordinated groups of well-wishers, they have no business being mercs. It seems to me that what's needed to help merc outfits flourish (and this is an idea off the top of my head, so pick holes by all means) would be more about facilitation - make it easy to find a decent merc outfit and make an arrangement with them. It could be something as simple as a new type of contract, maybe have some way for people to rate the merc corps or give other viewable feedback.
Outside the merc thing, I don't see dogpiling as a problem. Seriously, even the Goons have said they don't have a problem with it either. If a group of people make ongoing trouble for another group of people, why should they be protected when those groups come together against them? I really don't understand why this was such a big problem that it had to be "fixed" in such a hurry, especially if it doesn't really impact professional mercenary outfits. It feels like the new mechanics aren't needed and get in the way of sandbox gameplay (off topic, but I think the CONCORD aggro rules have the same problem - too convoluted and impose very artifical rules on what should be a much more intuitive situation)
Other thing is, if I'm understanding CCP Soundwave (least I think it was him) correctly, I agree with him that war shouldn't necessarily be fair, but I think he's got the wrong end of the stick there - what people seem to be saying is not that they want war itself to be fair, but they want the mechanics to be balanced and the proposed changes don't seem to be balanced, they favour the aggressor. Instead, I think Eve needs to encourage more Social/Corporate Darwinism - there should always be little corps bubbling up to disrupt and displace corporate rivals. If the game mechanics favour more established corps too much, we end up with unchallengable monopolies and in a game that relies on player-generated content, that route leads to stagnation.
tl:dr 1) allies shouldn't be considered competition for mercs - the benefits of professional mercenaries should be worth their cost. 2) consider helping merc outfits by helping match them up with potential clients instead. 3) Even Eve needs Equal Opportunities! |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:40:00 -
[302] - Quote
As a former merc - I believe CCP's limitations off the ally system with exponential increase is a terrible, terrible idea.
Sure the unlimited ally and indefinite duration was ridiculous, but what CCP is doing is now even worse.
Creating exponential high costs of ally recruitment hurts mercenaries even more.
The swarm of people who become free allies are only interested in shooting war targets, they do not care what happens to you and will mostly not give a crap about your needs and desires.
A Mercenary however will do what you want and need them to do for a price, the unlimited allied system does not obsolete mercs.
These free allies will not come and protect you or your assets, they will go and gank people, but will run off at the first sight of trouble or uncertainty. Mercenaries will stay and fight for your cause.
The added exorbitant fees of more allies will simply limit the wallets of potential hirers and make it even less likely for them to hire Mercenaries.
Besides people who won't hire Mercs now will not hire Mercs after the patch.
I believe the cost of getting more allies should not be exponential and ridiculous. I propose a linear system of increasing costs 20 million per ally would be reasonable after the first free ally: # Ally = Total Cost 1 Ally = Free 2 Ally = 20 mil 3 Ally = 40 mil 4 Ally = 60 mil 5 Ally = 80 mil
This is fair and balanced since Allies can now only fight for you for 2 weeks now and mutual wardecs can be cancelled by the aggressor.
Exponential cost for hiring more allies is ridiculous and makes it far exceed the cost of the wardec, that is unreasonable CCP. |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:02:00 -
[303] - Quote
Pink Marshmellow wrote:
Exponential cost for hiring more allies is ridiculous and makes it far exceed the cost of the wardec, that is unreasonable CCP.
Man, I don't even get why there's a set cost for hiring allies - surely that should be a market-driven thing..
|
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
673
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 07:15:00 -
[304] - Quote
Rythm wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Which is ironic seeing as how one of the stated reasons for removal of the defensive ally dogpile was it "wasn't fair" Well it was not fair in a sense that we were having a privateer alliance mk2 moment, bla bla etc...
I thought eve isn't fair? - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
325
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:38:00 -
[305] - Quote
Kneejerk wardec fixes just make it worse. The 1.1 version will make wardecs a toy for the big alliances. Jade may be a rabid tinfoil poster, but he's right about that. FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
160
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 08:58:00 -
[306] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:hummm how was it indicated in the old one? we just display the time a war ends because it's within 24 hours.. so if it says 16:00 it means next time it's 16:00
Putting yourself in the situation of the users is the most common thing developers ignore because they are overconfident or busy realizing their own ideas... It's good to know we have developers listening, but still be carefull in the first place to remove or simplify stuff. I still remember someone removing that window pinning option because "nobody used it".
Not everybody has Eve Online running at all times even if we try to and to avoid confusion it's important for many people to get an exact date and time on subjects like this... Especially on eve mails because people sometimes have to go through a few of them evemails after a short break.
Pinky |
DangerosoDavo
EVE Is Dead
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:35:00 -
[307] - Quote
bad changes, terrible CCP |
Sacrifixe
NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 09:37:00 -
[308] - Quote
If you all are so eager to fight us get all your ally's and your cryboats to Deklein. So you can fight us for FREE!! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2294
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 10:24:00 -
[309] - Quote
Sacrifixe wrote:If you all are so eager to fight us get all your ally's and your cryboats to Deklein. So you can fight us for FREE!!
Nobody wants to fight you in Deklein. You have NAP'd virtually the whole of 0.0 already. We wanted to kick your teeth for the next couple of years in empire, but it seems the game is being changed to make it more FAIR for you thus removing that option.
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! |
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:55:00 -
[310] - Quote
DangerosoDavo wrote:bad changes, terrible CCP
Very constructive. Thx. |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1340
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:58:00 -
[311] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Sacrifixe wrote:If you all are so eager to fight us get all your ally's and your cryboats to Deklein. So you can fight us for FREE!! Nobody wants to fight you in Deklein. You have NAP'd virtually the whole of 0.0 already. We wanted to kick your teeth for the next couple of years in empire, but it seems the game is being changed to make it more FAIR for you thus removing that option. Yet, again, GSF actually want the war with you. The only person who thinks they don't is you.
You are such a ******* tired record by now, you really are.
I'm pretty sure GSF are going to keep the war live on you, so I don't know why you're saying that option is gone, you're just going to have to work with it differently. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1340
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 12:59:00 -
[312] - Quote
You ignored my posts completely again by the way, and went back to selectively quoting other people and spouting the same false rhetoric.
Please answer them or the discussion is pointless.
In particular if you can tell us why your allies are anything other than dogpiled corps who want to shoot anyone, and don't care who that is : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1475469#post1475469 - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
52
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:20:00 -
[313] - Quote
The wardec shenanigans are just stupid. You say you don't want war to be fair, then someone dogpiles against an aggressor unfairly and you rush out a fix... urhghgh.
Here's an idea: Keep the 1.0 mechanics, but make it so turning the war mutual removes allies / the ability to have allies. That way small defenders can dogpile against bigger aggressors and potentially win, but they can't then trap the aggressor / force them to surrender through the mutual-war mechanic |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
52
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:27:00 -
[314] - Quote
its fun to watch the mechanic ping pong between heavily skewed in favour of the aggressor to heavily skewed in favour of the defender, then back to aggressor... defender... aggressor...
the huge amount of tinfoil hattery and even larger amount of crap-posting/"PR" from goons is bloody annoying, however |
Letrange
Chaosstorm Corporation
46
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:43:00 -
[315] - Quote
Kneejerk reactions would be best explained by removing the word Knee.
One can only assume that this has nothing to do with "Mercenary Marketplace" but ONLY to do with the Mittani and various Null sec alliance CSM representatives hitting the Dev Bat-phone. Nice to see CCP backsliding as usual after the un-natural forward progress of Crucible.
One can see that the philosophy of EVE developers is: "You will reap the consequences of your actions - unless you're Goons"
Dear devs, would you please HARDEN THE **** UP. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
53
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 13:55:00 -
[316] - Quote
Letrange wrote:Kneejerk reactions would be best explained by removing the word Knee.
One can only assume that this has nothing to do with "Mercenary Marketplace" but ONLY to do with the Mittani and various Null sec alliance CSM representatives hitting the Dev Bat-phone. Nice to see CCP backsliding as usual after the un-natural forward progress of Crucible.
One can see that the philosophy of EVE developers is: "You will reap the consequences of your actions - unless you're Goons"
Dear devs, would you please HARDEN THE **** UP.
I'm pretty sure I remember a bunch of people pointing out how the ally system would destroy mercs before the patch came out. And they were ignored and the mechanics rushed out anyway. Funny timing with them realising there was an issue that needs to be addressed though, and incredibly funny how fast the fix was pushed out. |
None ofthe Above
216
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:21:00 -
[317] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:The wardec shenanigans are just stupid. You say you don't want war to be fair, then someone dogpiles against an aggressor unfairly and you rush out a fix... urhghgh.
Here's an idea: Keep the 1.0 mechanics, but make it so turning the war mutual removes allies / the ability to have allies. That way small defenders can dogpile against bigger aggressors and potentially win, but they can't then trap the aggressor / force them to surrender through the mutual-war mechanic
I seem to recall that this was the original way they where going to do things, then for some reason it didn't get implemented that way.
I have to admit, I am starting to favor the more epic "let both sides recruit unlimited allies in a mutual war". Now that would be a mechanic worthy of the title "Inferno".
|
Cassius Marcellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:26:00 -
[318] - Quote
Some of the 1.1 changes do make it look like CCP wants to re-instate the "pay to grief" aspect of high sec wars, and protect large alliances from emergent consequences of their actions.
I do like the idea that mutual wars should exclude allies. But I think that the new costs for defender allies have now been set too high for most of EVE's player corporations except for the largest, and that two weeks is too short of an ally cycle (one month makes a lot more sense to me). If the giant alliances want to exert Null Sec influence in High Sec, it should cost them more than it costs the defenders. Well, unless you want to favor everyone having to join one of the big alliances (and that doesn't seem like a good way to keep growing the customer base from new market opportunities).
As for mercenary corporations -- if they want merc ISK, let them do the hard stuff they've always been paid to do and not be lsckluster "me too!" defenders on war decs for lazy ISK. The good ones get paid well anyway for the things they do. And soon enough they'll also have a role in supporting DUST 514 endeavours, as well. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1340
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:45:00 -
[319] - Quote
People are *still* talking about how this benefits large alliances and completely ignoring 99.9% of EvE.
Can anyone exactly explain how? You realise you can go shoot them in nullsec, for free, all day every day right? You realise absolutely nothing in this change STOPS you from forming a large "coalition" to go and fight nullsec powerblocks, right?
Do you also realise the self same groups were wardeccing the Goons before the change, and paying a small 50-150mil a week to do it?
Given your answers to the above, do you really want a mechanic which is designed to be usable only in the case of a large alliance wardeccing you?
If people could take "goons" off their brains for 2seconds they'd see the change for what it is.
I'm coming to understand that none of you are able to do this. Pity.
Jade keeps telling us about his "mighty coalition of allies who have banded together" but still dodges basic questions about them, such as whether he has even spoken to the people pressing "ally all" in their Neocom. Someone who wants to "shoot goons for free" (his words) is not an ally fighting for his ideals. - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Cassius Marcellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 15:52:00 -
[320] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:People are *still* talking about how this benefits large alliances and completely ignoring 99.9% of EvE.
Can anyone exactly explain how? You realise you can go shoot them in nullsec, for free, all day every day right? You realise absolutely nothing in this change STOPS you from forming a large "coalition" to go and fight nullsec powerblocks, right?
I'm talking about perceptions and growing the EVE player base, myself. But you do seem focused on the Goons -- remember that we're talking about growing new players from sources other than places like the SA forums, and how they view ALL large alliances. It's not just about the Goons (sorry; you guys are important, but you're not THAT important).
|
|
Laashanna
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:15:00 -
[321] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Orakkus wrote:I highly disagree with this: Quote:There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies. You are still free to hire as many allies as you want, but there is an increasing cost in doing so. Refer to this:
GÇóAlly #1 GÇô Free! GÇóAlly #2 GÇô 10 million GÇóAlly #3 GÇô 20 million GÇóAlly #4 GÇô 40 million GÇóAlly #5 GÇô 80 million GÇóand so onGǪ I think this point alone discourages smaller alliances and corporations from defending against large, generally better funded, alliances. And to be honest, this sounds too much like the Mittani's influence because of what happened between Goons and Star Fraction. Smaller alliances should have the ability to contract as many allies as they need.. without financial cost. 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.
So basically you are saying you are ignoring the forums and sites like eve news. Because I barely read anything and I've heard the Goons whining. |
Laashanna
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:25:00 -
[322] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:AMirrorDarkly wrote:Wow, this shifts War decs firmly back to the advantage of the aggressor, I expected some sort of rebalance in light of what's happend with Goons getting a taste of their own medicine but this seems like it's gone the other way again.... Shame The biggest issue was that being able to invite everyone and the kitchen sink to your war meant that hiring a merc became completely irrelevant. Hopefully limiting the options slightly will provide people with more incentives to hire mercs (but still let you throw a ton of money at allies).
Hiring Mercs has always been irrelevant, and always will be. Why because there is no point unless you have a fixed target like a POS or something. Why would I ever hire a Merc to join a war. Either the aggressor hides from the mercs, or the mercs suck so much that the aggressor wants the war to continue. I'm better off hiding off for a week, leaving corp or playing another game. What you need to do to fix wars is to force the aggressor to put up some isk, and a structure some where. Then the defender would be able to force a fight to bring a war to a close. Then it would make sense to hire mercs.
PS- Most of your professional mercs are trade hub and pipe gankers who refuse to go out huntung a war target, and dock up at the mere hint of a fair fight. In short worthless as most aggressors do the same thing, and the aggressor has lots of neutral alts.... |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1341
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:32:00 -
[323] - Quote
Cassius Marcellus wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:People are *still* talking about how this benefits large alliances and completely ignoring 99.9% of EvE.
Can anyone exactly explain how? You realise you can go shoot them in nullsec, for free, all day every day right? You realise absolutely nothing in this change STOPS you from forming a large "coalition" to go and fight nullsec powerblocks, right? I'm talking about perceptions and growing the EVE player base, myself. But you do seem focused on the Goons -- remember that we're talking about growing new players from sources other than places like the SA forums, and how they view ALL large alliances. It's not just about the Goons (sorry; you guys are important, but you're not THAT important). Edit: To be fair, I'm not saying that Khanh'rhh is a Goon; he's in Sudden Buggery. But I think this is much more than just a pissing contest between the CFC and Jade "Wall o'Text" Constantine. It's how new players see things when they come into EVE and start learning the ropes.
As a member of BUGRY, members 50, we were wardecced by a small corp, members 15, who had a massive grudge against us because we'd pulled down their space trousers and did our namesake.
Day 1-4 of the war led to a handful of engagements.
Day 5 saw inferno.
By Day 6, we had 15 allies for a total of 250-300 people. We actually also were the first corp to receive an ally under the new system, toot.
By Day 10 we had almost 900 allies from 25corps (mostly the exact same ones "helping" Jade and every single other corp. One of our allies was a 5man corp in 50wars).
We paid for none, we spoke to none.
The wartargets didn't bother undocking again, because any concept of who was fighting who was completely lost in the mire.
This story repeated itself across every war going, every aggressed party effectively had every "merc" working for them, for free.
Nothing constuctive came of this except Jita 4-4 was a sea of Red for anyone who had issued a wardec. Goons lost every ship that passed through Jita, just like they'd lost every ship that passed through Jita pre-inferno. It doesn't take 900 people to nab the silly JF pilot or the autopilot badger.
This was not good. This broke the wardec system completely.
Now, Jade will tell you this change is all about Goonswarm (and if you think he's climbed down from insane conspiracy theories, he just wrote this: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/06/15/eve-online-inferno-scorches-the-mittani%E2%80%99s-knickers-ccp-turns-down-the-heat/ ) because having you think that suits his agenda.
It isn't. It's literally about everyone else, since the only people who are able to effectively wardec WITH the dogpiles ARE the very large alliances.
Do you see now, the issue? - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1341
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:38:00 -
[324] - Quote
Laashanna wrote:So basically you are saying you are ignoring the forums and sites like eve news. Because I barely read anything and I've heard the Goons whining.
Link?
- "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
666
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:46:00 -
[325] - Quote
These changes aren't adequate to resolve the problems with the current system, but they are (just barely) better than nothing.
You still have the problem of the total cost to declare a war being multiplied by 1+ the number of active wars you have, so if you declare a war against a 5 man corp for 50 million it then costs you 1 billion to declare war on an 8000 man alliance, but if you declare war on the 500 man alliance first it costs you 500 million and the 5 man corp costs 100 million. (I **** you not this is a real thing).
Also because it's still much, much cheaper and considerably less risky to join wars as a defender than it is to declare your own wars people will straight up pay the bill for the defender to join their wars. Unless you bring up the cost for multiple allies to be in 50 million increments that's going to keep happening. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2301
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:52:00 -
[326] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:People are *still* talking about how this benefits large alliances and completely ignoring 99.9% of EvE.
Do you also realise the self same groups were wardeccing the Goons before the change, and paying a small 50-150mil a week to do it?
And now they must pay 500m a week to do it.
How is increasing the cost to dec Goonswarm by up to 10x on the pre inferno expense NOT benefiting the large alliances exactly?
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade keeps telling us about his "mighty coalition of allies who have banded together" but still dodges basic questions about them, such as whether he has even spoken to the people pressing "ally all" in their Neocom. Someone who wants to "shoot goons for free" (his words) is not an ally fighting for his ideals.
Why is that even relevant?
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
2301
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 16:57:00 -
[327] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:As a member of BUGRY, members 50, we were wardecced by a small corp, members 15, who had a massive grudge against us because we'd pulled down their space trousers and did our namesake. Day 1-4 of the war led to a handful of engagements. Day 5 saw inferno. By Day 6, we had 15 allies for a total of 250-300 people. We actually also were the first corp to receive an ally under the new system, toot. By Day 10 we had almost 900 allies from 25corps (mostly the exact same ones "helping" Jade and every single other corp. One of our allies was a 5man corp in 50wars). We paid for none, we spoke to none. The wartargets didn't bother undocking again, because any concept of who was fighting who was completely lost in the mire. This story repeated itself across every war going, every aggressed party effectively had every "merc" working for them, for free. he just wrote this: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/06/15/eve-online-inferno-scorches-the-mittani%E2%80%99s-knickers-ccp-turns-down-the-heat/
So you are complaining about the fact that you got wardecced ... your CEO asked for allies and you got allies? If you wanted to keep the war small why didn't you just well ... NOT ask for allies?
In addition of course the change I have proposed widely (and in the EveNews24 article you link) would solve this problem because as the larger defending ally you couldn't add ANY allies for free and you'd need to pay on the same principle as the 1.1 patch (only with a more sensible free structure.)
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
2302
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:10:00 -
[328] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:These changes aren't adequate to resolve the problems with the current system, but they are (just barely) better than nothing.
You still have the problem of the total cost to declare a war being multiplied by 1+ the number of active wars you have, so if you declare a war against a 5 man corp for 50 million it then costs you 1 billion to declare war on an 8000 man alliance, but if you declare war on the 500 man alliance first it costs you 500 million and the 5 man corp costs 100 million. (I **** you not this is a real thing).
Also because it's still much, much cheaper and considerably less risky to join wars as a defender than it is to declare your own wars people will straight up pay the bill for the defender to join their wars. Unless you bring up the cost for multiple allies to be in 50 million increments that's going to keep happening.
Well yes. but I mean really - where do you want to go with the wardec system? At the moment it costs 500m isk a week to make war on the largest alliances. By your logic you'd set the minium cost to ally against the largest alliances to be 1000m (for the 2 weeks) to balance it.
So that way there would be no way to cheat the fee of the formal declation but is that your vision for wars in eve online?
I mean I know I've said this 1.1 change is massively unbalanced in favour of making this crazy FAIR for the large alliances but how far can you turn the screw on this?
Your concerns are real though.
Come 1.1 patch I will be selling allied slots for war against Goonswarm:
Ally 1 = free (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 1b discount) Ally 2 = 10m (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 990m discount) Ally 3 = 20m (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 980m discount) Ally 5 = 40m (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 940m discount) Ally 6 = 80m (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 920m discount) Ally 7 = 160m (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 840m discount) Ally 8 = 320m (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 780m discount) Ally 9 = 640m (cheapest price for 2 week dec otherwise = 1b for 360m discount)
Or perhaps auctioning them - there's an idea - it would be great if I could sell an ally slot for 2 weeks against an incoming wardec on the contract auctions.
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! |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:14:00 -
[329] - 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 -
[330] - 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. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |