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) |

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2137
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:54:00 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: I'm saying you're fabricating things because you're incorrectly making assumptions about meetings you have no information about. Unless you have read rights to the CSM forum you can't accurately gauge our communication with the CSM. Secondly a CSM member just posted on this page saying he supported the changes.
Sure, and I was careful to say "CSM AT THE MEETING" opposed your change. As far as I'm aware the CSM member who supported your change on this thread was not at the meeting. And in any case, I'm just quoting what Alekseyev Karrde posted.
CCP Soundwave wrote:The function of the CSM has never been to dictate changes. If that was the case, we'd be building features to suit individual people, which isn't going to happen. The CSM meetings aren't where features are designed either, so if we talk about things at meetings that doesn't lock us into a certain development path. 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.
Obviously I can't comment on the patch Alekseyez wanted because he hasn't told us. My comment on this thread and elsewhere was that you chose to implement a change that Alekseyez told us the CSM at the meeting universally downvoted. I quite understand the CSM's roll is not to dictate changes but to sanity check proposals and as I've pointed out here you went ahead with this change against the advise of the CSM on this specific "fix".
CCP Soundwave wrote:Your assumption that we "don't listen" is entirely incorrect, and either grounded in the fact that you have no idea what goes on between us and the CSM at closed door or because you selectively choose to believe that "listen" means "do what they tell us", which it certainly doesn't. This topic has been discussed at length with the CSM on their forum, regardless of of what your theory about the subject is. Anyway, I understand you disagree with the feature and that's fine, but after reviewing the feedback this is the direction that I at the end of the day chose.
Okay. Well I asked yesterday who wanted it pushed through and you've answered me ... thanks. Obviously when I say "you didn't listen" I mean - you decided to disregard the CSM's collective advise not to adopt the fix you decided on.
Its clear you have made your mind up and there is no room for discussion or compromise here so be it.
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! |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3337
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:56:00 -
[62] - Quote
Great changes, I appreciate all the thought and effort that went into this. |

Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:59:00 -
[63] - 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 |

Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:02:00 -
[64] - Quote
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. |

Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:14:00 -
[65] - 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 |

Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
186
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:15:00 -
[66] - 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.
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.
|

Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:19:00 -
[67] - 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.
I hear that repeatedly attacking a developer of the game is now bannable. I would be careful how many times you attack soundwave, who has done nothing but promote great changes and fixes to this game ever since he has joined ccp games. |

Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:20:00 -
[68] - Quote
Thanks CCP for the hard work at fixing broken game mechanics. Keep it up ^_^ |

Tarkoauc
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
44
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:20:00 -
[69] - Quote
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. |

Ibrahim Khashanti
Metropolis Risk Management
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:22:00 -
[70] - Quote
I'm not that up on in-game lore, but aren't wardecs essentially bribes paid to CONCORD and shouldn't CONCORD have some incentive in not letting 2000 player entities dec 2 player entities and vice versa?
Also, IMO, since CONCORD, in some respects, operates with the permission of the four empires, shouldn't influence with them have some sort of impact?
My take on allies is CONCORD should make wars more expensive depending on how lopsided the size of the various entities are under the auspices of "preserving balance". Smaller entities could higher allies up to the size of the aggressor and then it would start costing money. Or perhaps some outfit with very high empire standings could "pay off" the empire in question to get the war invalidated in that empire alone (but not the other three).
Just my 0.02 ISK. |

Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:22:00 -
[71] - 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 -
[72] - 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! |

Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:24:00 -
[73] - Quote
Going from unlimited allies to one is simply a knee jerk reaction to a problem that could have been postponed until a true solution was completed. Some moderation could be used and something like 5-8 allies are free before you start having to pay. While not perfect it's better then the constant full throttle - BRAKE - full throttle approach we are seeing.
Marketplace should have been first before any changes were made to the war dec system. People were at least used to 'what was' instead of being subjected to an incomplete 'yet to come'. After the marketplace we should have seen the treaty system. Then the last step should have been changing the mechanics of how wars are initiated.
So much focus on making mercs happy when there are some pretty blatant issues in other aspects of the game affecting even more people *cough- highsec miners- cough*. |

Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
962
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:24:00 -
[74] - Quote
A good change on the path towards a properly balanced wardec system. eh |

Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
85
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:25:00 -
[75] - 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.
Null alliances dec'ing high sec alliances/corps is complete silliness. It isn't like the entire Goon alliance has deployed to attack Jade. The ally system, if anything, is attracting more of the null pilots to roam into high sec in search of targets. That's a bad thing. I'm still baffled that Jade is against this 1.1 change which, let's be honest, is for the good of high sec in the long run. |

Reppyk
The Black Shell
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:26:00 -
[76] - Quote
I like the changes and the prices.
+1 from a merc. |

Dezolf
DAX Action Stance
16
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:28:00 -
[77] - Quote
This thread needs more tinfoil.
Also, I disagree with the pricing scheme (as many others), and agree that a different solution should be found/used. |

Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:28:00 -
[78] - Quote
AMirrorDarkly wrote:The choice to sign up allies or employing mercenaries to humiliate the aggressor by forcing a humble pie surrender is no more!
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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. The idea that Goon leadership (not necessarily the rank-and-file) is afraid of being globally vulnerable to anyone not Goon is questionable, given that their MO is to troll everyone and their mothers to begin with. By the same token, though, Jade's response to the war dec was quite an ingenious solution to the problem, and exactly the sort of "We never expected that, but it's kinda cool" emergent behavior that also gave rise to things like jetcan mining and insta bookmarks. Personally, I'd have rather had CCP go, "Oh, Snap!!" and then sit back and watch what developed for a while before slapping together what appears to be a knee-jerk response. This doesn't appear to have been a nuclear-level fsck-up (e.g. Incarna, NEx) that required CSM summits or panicked roll-backs, so where's the harm in waiting a month or two and iterating slowly? |

Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3344
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:32:00 -
[79] - Quote
Atum wrote: This doesn't appear to have been a nuclear-level fsck-up (e.g. Incarna, NEx) that required CSM summits or panicked roll-backs, so where's the harm in waiting a month or two and iterating slowly? As mentioned in the test server thread, the reason this is being dealt with isn't so much to block jade's attempt to let us shoot everyone in highsec, but to allow actual mercs to market their services. Since that's a major feature of this expansion, mercs being unable to charge a fee is the sort of broken mechanic that needs a quick CCP response. |

Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1058
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:33:00 -
[80] - Quote
Unsure if I appreciate the fixing of broken game mechanics or the smacking down of Jade "ebrothel" Constantine more. Whatever, :hfive:. |

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2151
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:34:00 -
[81] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:I hear that repeatedly attacking a developer of the game is now bannable. I would be careful how many times you attack soundwave, who has done nothing but promote great changes and fixes to this game ever since he has joined ccp games.
Something tells me Soundwave doesn't need you to defend his e-feelings.
We have had a spirited disagreement over a game mechanic. It is possible for adults to do this. Perhaps its something you could investigate yourself?
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! |

Aleph Phi
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:35:00 -
[82] - Quote
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.
|

Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1059
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:36:00 -
[83] - Quote
i think you've had a spirited disagreement with the majority of the game over this mechanic, jade!!! |

Crasniya
Legio Geminatus Gentlemen's Agreement
130
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:36:00 -
[84] - Quote
I'd be more in support of a cost/number of allies structure based on head count. Big alliances, small alliances, big corps, and small corps should not all be handled the same way. |

Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2477
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:39:00 -
[85] - Quote
Atum wrote:Personally, I'd have rather had CCP go, "Oh, Snap!!" and then sit back and watch what developed for a while before slapping together what appears to be a knee-jerk response. This doesn't appear to have been a nuclear-level fsck-up (e.g. Incarna, NEx) that required CSM summits or panicked roll-backs, so where's the harm in waiting a month or two and iterating slowly?
Once again though, your argument assumes that this was a knee-jerk response to Goonswarm's plight, an idea which has zero basis in reality whatsoever. Goonswarm never came up once in any of the CCP / CSM talks about the war dec issue, despite all the loonies trying to suggest as much.
The harm has been stated quite clearly multiple times now - the *design objective* of these changes was creating an outlet for mercenary work - NOT making wars perfectly balanced or fair. The changes instituted in Inferno completely undermined this objective, and needed modification. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|

Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2477
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:42:00 -
[86] - 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.
What ship are you planning to use this on where you are running out of capacitor because of this new hardener, or where you need capacitor boosters in order to run normal active hardeners? Care to share your fit? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|

Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:42:00 -
[87] - 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................. 
^This got me thinking...
It would seem to me that is the goal is to promote merc contracts then the whole idea of allies goes straight against it. Just get rid of allies and go with mercs. If you will end up paying one way or the other why even bother with allies.
On the other hand, it also seems the war dec feature could use a bit more work and include treaties...who define who your allies (before a war starts) and join the war for free. If you want help above that then hire mercs.
And since we are on that topic... will there be tools to evaluate which merc outfits are better than others? (besides scouring dubious killboards).
|

Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:54:00 -
[88] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:I hear that repeatedly attacking a developer of the game is now bannable. I would be careful how many times you attack soundwave, who has done nothing but promote great changes and fixes to this game ever since he has joined ccp games. Something tells me Soundwave doesn't need you to defend his e-feelings. We have had a spirited disagreement over a game mechanic. It is possible for adults to do this. Perhaps its something you could investigate yourself?
I am just looking out for your safety. I wouldn't want you to get banned from highsec in a game your life seems to depend on. But, how is it possible for you to have adult conversations with soundwave, wouldn't that imply that you are over the age of ten? |

Aleph Phi
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:56:00 -
[89] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:What ship are you planning to use this on where you are running out of capacitor because of this new hardener, or where you need capacitor boosters in order to run normal active hardeners? Care to share your fit? Just about anything that's under neut pressure. People use capacitor boosters to run modules under neut pressure all the time, since a single injection will let you run all your mods for a cycle before you get neuted back down again. A shorter cycle time would leave you vulnerable until you could inject more capacitor -- definitely not a good thing.
As for a ship that'd be troubled by the additional capacitor consumption? How about an Abaddon? They're already quite reliant on their cap boosters to run their lasers. Any additional pressure is just going to make them run through their charges that much faster. It's a factor, whether you admit it or not. |

Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 18:59:00 -
[90] - Quote
Midnight Hope wrote:
^This got me thinking...
It would seem to me that if the goal is to promote merc contracts then the whole idea of allies goes straight against it. Just get rid of allies and go with mercs. If you will end up paying one way or the other why even bother with allies.
On the other hand, it also seems the war dec feature could use a bit more work and include treaties...who define who your allies (before a war starts) and join the war for free. If you want help above that then hire mercs.
And since we are on that topic... will there be tools to evaluate which merc outfits are better than others? (besides scouring dubious killboards).
I think the design thought was -Get wardec'd -solicit for allies through interface -get bids from mercs through interface -Approve mercs you want -Mercs join your war without having to declare their own.
Unfortunately, "1000 market/roaming ganker corps joining for free" wasn't a consideration. This not only works contrary to providing work for "Real" mercs, but it also has the effect of chilling wardecs from smaller entities (the vast majority of wardecs) since even a 20 vs 20 can become 20 vs 400 overnight. System was broken.
I also LOVE how people are taking away "ZOMG you only get 1 ally now!!!1eleven" when in fact to carry 3 allies is a mere 30M per 2 weeks. Even for level 3 mission runners that's nothing. Unless your goal is to just load up on trash allies...in which case, that isn't the goal of the system so go ahead and cry it out. |
|
|
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 |