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) |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
2459
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:57:00 -
[1] - Quote
Inferno 1.1 is just around the corner bringing some new features and a bunch of iterations and defect fixes. To tell you what Team Superfriends have been doing with the War Dec System for 1.1, here's CCP SoniClover with a new blog.
Oh, and in case you forget, we want your feedback as always CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |-á@ccp_guard |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
146
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
First! |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2482
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:59:00 -
[3] - Quote
I wanted to be first @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Kane Plekkel
Dvice Shipyards
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:00:00 -
[4] - Quote
Non-dev first?
Your comments link in the dev blog redirects to the dev blog.... This is my Raven. There are many like it, but this one is mine.-áMy Raven is my best friend. It is my life. I must ma-*pop* ... This is my pod. There are many like it, but this one is mine. My pod is my best friNONO STOP IT GO AWAY!! |
|
CCP Guard
C C P C C P Alliance
2459
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I wanted to be first
You were the first to get more likes than me on the forums...wasn't that enough :'( CCP Guard | EVE Community Developer |-á@ccp_guard |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2482
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Guard wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I wanted to be first You were the first to get more likes than me on the forums...wasn't that enough :'(
you're just posting this to get pity likes @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
353
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
Your comments link on the Dev Blog is broken....
IMO, if you are paying for an ally to join in the fight... a fight the opposition can end at ANY time... Then 2 weeks is too short for the ally contracts. I would suggest a 1 Month Ally period. |
Mangala Solaris
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kane Plekkel wrote:
Your comments link in the dev blog redirects to the dev blog....
Mangala is not FC, yet another randomly updated EVE blog.
http://mangala.rvbganked.co.uk/ |
AMirrorDarkly
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:04:00 -
[9] - Quote
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 |
Xercodo
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Dark Matter Coalition
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Oh for the love of...
THE COMMENT LINK IS ALWAYS BROKEN FOR THE FIRST FEW MINUTES, NOW GET ON WITH IT.
THIS HAPPENS EVERY TIME, STOP TELLING THEM IT'S BROKEN UNTIL IT'S AT LEAST TEN MINUTES OLD.
gawd.
P.S. Stuff looks nice but I have't been deced for like a year since before the changes and haven't been deced since so I don't even know how god/bad 1.0's changes were tbh :3
edit: lol at the removal of the non-dev first The Drake is a Lie |
|
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1836
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
Looking good, and I like the new Utility menu. No more panicing because regular members can see the 'Make Mutual' option in the rightclick, and less rightclicking...
Countdown to Jade in 3... 2... 1... Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
231
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
ccp = goon pets On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent, It was a sun-á |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
236
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:09:00 -
[13] - Quote
Looks a bit better. It's not done yet, but then again you guys never said it was.
Still haven't tried out the adaptive hardener. Might have to put it off a little longer just to get the skill trained up a bit now. Damn you! http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
280
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:11:00 -
[14] - Quote
2 weeks is to short. By the time a contract is set up it's almost over.... 4 weeks would be better.
Also why the cost increase for more alliances....why are they penalized for mor epeople coming to help them?
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1392
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:18:00 -
[16] - Quote
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). |
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1392
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
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. |
|
Selissa Shadoe
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:23:00 -
[18] - Quote
Does the money go to the group aiding the defender? I could see just having a minimum help fee (that goes to the ally) would be all that was needed, then it provides incentives for allies to offer help - they'll get some money out of it! Just having a 'tax' levied against the defender for daring to ask for help seems kinda crap and yet another way to stick it to the non-combatant crowd.
Why a specified contract length too? Why not just for the duration of the war?
|
BugraT WarheaD
Astromechanica Federatis
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:24:00 -
[19] - Quote
Orakkus wrote: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. Please ... Don't say such things ...
A cap limit for funding war and protection ? that's ridiculous. And if i'm dec, can I ally for free to PL, Goon and other big alliance ? That makes no sense.
In Eve there's big alliances and small corporation. When you create and/or enter an small corp/alliance, you know the risks and the benefits, wardec are still part of the game, and it's making perfect sense that big alliances can protect themselves easier than small ones. |
Anvil44
Independent Traders and Builders MPA
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:25:00 -
[20] - Quote
Not First...by any stretch.
Not involved in any wars but the change in cost for getting allies is a very good idea. Otherwise there is far too much of an imbalance in favour of the defending alliance. And it did make mercs nearly irrelevant.
I like the idea of the skill book for adaptive hardeners. I actually felt that there should be something similar for reloading weapons. Though the speed of reloading hybrids would then be far too fast. I may not like you or your point of view but you have a right to voice it. |
|
Selissa Shadoe
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:26:00 -
[21] - Quote
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. |
Cuchulain Spartan
Cryogenic Creations Warden.
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:28:00 -
[22] - Quote
So an Ally classifies as a Corp or Alliance?
The size of said Ally doesnt affect the price?
Bringing in a 1 man Corp as an Ally will cost the same as a 500 man Alliance?
Shouldnt the Ally "fee" be based off of headcount of the Ally Corp/Alliance rather than what order they join the fight? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
717
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:30:00 -
[23] - Quote
E man Industries wrote:2 weeks is to short. By the time a contract is set up it's almost over.... 4 weeks would be better.
Also why the cost increase for more alliances....why are they penalized for more people coming to help them?
Wars were getting very one sided. The aggressor would dec, then a goodly fraction of eve would join as allies, for free, just to get something to shoot at. As a result very few are willing to make a dec, the system is grinding to a halt. Not a good thing, even for someone like me who has no interest in war. I do like selling stuff to those that do.
Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.
CCP, I've heard rumors that there will be some system for a war following a single member who drops corp, to be introduced in a future expansion. But no mention of that for 1.1 in the blog. Is that because there is nothing, or was it just not mentioned? Is there going to be something like this? When? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Elijah Craig
Trask Industries Li3 Federation
24
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Does anyone here ~seriously~ think the Goons care about lots of folks being at war / allied against them in highsec?
The changes look like common sense to prevent silly, infinate, sprawling war decs which clearly are not the intention of the system.
Frankly I am hella bored of reading about this tedious tinfoil hat topic. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1392
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:31:00 -
[25] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:E man Industries wrote:2 weeks is to short. By the time a contract is set up it's almost over.... 4 weeks would be better.
Also why the cost increase for more alliances....why are they penalized for more people coming to help them? Wars were getting very one sided. The aggressor would dec, then a goodly fraction of eve would join as allies, for free, just to get something to shoot at. As a result very few are willing to make a dec, the system is grinding to a halt. Not a good thing, even for someone like me who has no interest in war. I do like selling stuff to those that do. Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved. CCP, I've heard rumors that there will be some system for a war following a single member who drops corp, to be introduced in a future expansion. But no mention of that for 1.1 in the blog. Is that because there is nothing, or was it just not mentioned? Is there going to be something like this? When?
Nope, that change currently isn't on the table. |
|
Selissa Shadoe
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:32:00 -
[26] - Quote
Elijah Craig wrote:Frankly I am hella bored of reading about this tedious tinfoil hat topic.
And yet you still clicked on the topic, read it and posted your viewpoint. If you don't care or are bored with it, stop reading :) |
Mana Sanqua
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:35:00 -
[27] - Quote
Except for the prettier interface, I fail to see how this really addressed the problems with the old War dec system. Small groups are now a no risk option for big groups. I personally think that there should be a discount for extra allies as long as the combined number of participants on the defenders side is lower than the opponent.
With the nerf to defenders in terms of fees, why are allies now banned from mutual wars, given the two week timer. Surely they could just have a button which allows them to join the mutual war for as long as they wish? The reason for allies to be excluded really isn't clear as it again makes it a no risk option for the aggressor.
I'm all for war decs in empire, but this system really isn't any real improvement on the old with these changes. It's just preventing corp hoping and exploits to end the war quickly on the defenders part. |
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
BugraT WarheaD wrote: Please ... Don't say such things ...
A cap limit for funding war and protection ? that's ridiculous. And if i'm dec, can I ally for free to PL, Goon and other big alliance ? That makes no sense.
In Eve there's big alliances and small corporation. When you create and/or enter an small corp/alliance, you know the risks and the benefits, wardec are still part of the game, and it's making perfect sense that big alliances can protect themselves easier than small ones.
Oh I agree that the inherit advantages that large alliances tend to bring to the table should not be limited, it wouldn't be realistic and it is right and proper that their better organization and better finances should be an advantage.
Nevertheless, at this point, it doesn't look to me like there would be any way for a small corp or alliance to be able to stand up to a large alliance aggressor without forking over what would be relatively large sums of money, either in fees or in defense contracts. I understand the merc viewpoint that having a "fee" for allies brings them more business.. but their own kill records should be sufficient enough as it is.
|
AMirrorDarkly
Ekchuah's Shrine Comporium Kill It With Fire
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:44:00 -
[29] - 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).
Understand the reasons for the change, still stand by the fact this reduces consequences for the attacker. It was clear itteration was needed, but it feels a bit severe.
Don't mind the cost of ally's, or even the two week contracts....
But, I think locking out allies in a mutual war goes back to the mentality of oh we'll dec them, there isn't anything they can do because in two weeks if it isn't going our way we just don't pay the bill again.
The choice to sign up allies or employing mercenaries to humiliate the aggressor by forcing a humble pie surrender is no more!
Still, can't please everyone, and I'm glad you're itterating on ideas and not just leaving them by the wayside |
Selissa Shadoe
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:48:00 -
[30] - Quote
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. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2474
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:48:00 -
[31] - Quote
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. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
115
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:[quote=E man Industries] Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.
+1 for this. War dec mechanics should encourage social interaction (or at least the possibilities for interaction). If you want a large group of people to be allies for a long time, form an Alliance.
"The Mittani isn't even gone for a day and CCP's management is already making bad decisions."
THE MITTANI for CEO of CCP 1-800-273-8255 |
Max Swagger
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
Oh well back to where we started from. I guess we got a war report outta the deal???? |
Cid Tazer
The Green Cross Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:51:00 -
[34] - Quote
Would be nice to give defender's an objective besides don't undock until the war dec runs out. Even with the ally system, defenders can just turtle up and suffer nothing besides loss of potential gains. (Yes, they will not be able to do anything that they cannot do in station but until they are out of the station it is only a potential gain. So if you normally mine but are under a war dec as the defender, you are not losing anything but potential gains.) |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
This is a step in the right direction. However, I still think the entire cost structure is borked (doubling fee based on how many wars you have running, "more money for more targets" stupidity, 50m base fee for corporations, etc.) |
Selissa Shadoe
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:[quote=E man Industries] Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.
+1 for this. War dec mechanics should encourage social interaction (or at least the possibilities for interaction). If you want a large group of people to be allies for a long time, form an Alliance.
No, because alliance indicates other things - one corp has to be the executor corp, and then the whole alliance can be dec'd for the same cost as just one of the participant corps. So no, not a good solution. Don't even get started on alliance access to certain assets etc. A 'working relationship' to help out in a war is not worth the cost and hassle associated with forming an alliance. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:02:00 -
[37] - Quote
Congratz on bringing the wardec mechanic back to the pure griefing tool it has always been. Obviously, providing non-pvp corporations with options to defend themselves was deemed very un-EVE like, so better rise the "war is unfair" banner as long is the advantage lies purely with the griefers.
Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs.. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
754
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:05:00 -
[38] - Quote
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
its not clear how it adds up.
will 5 allies cost 5x80mil or 0+10+20+4+ƒ+80mil? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2129
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:Looking good, and I like the new Utility menu. No more panicing because regular members can see the 'Make Mutual' option in the rightclick, and less rightclicking...
Countdown to Jade in 3... 2... 1...
Sigh tbh. It was pretty clear this change was set in stone the moment it was posted.
I obviously think its pretty terrible and it is caving into the needs of the largest alliances in Eve at the cost of the smaller entities while doing absolutely nothing to help out the merc profession in Eve online.
It was pointed out on the test server feedback thread that NO CSM MEMBER (who was at the meeting) was in favour of this change so its something CCP have foisted against the advise of the player council and (it must be said) against the huge majority of posters giving feedback so far.
This is nothing to celebrate over. Its simply a bad decision made on bad reasoning to the detriment of aspects of the game.
Still eventually we got the ship hanger back last year.
Maybe this will go the same way in six months.
Until then its back to pre-inferno wardec system with large alliances costing 10x as much to dec.
Business as usual.
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! |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:17:00 -
[40] - Quote
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.
|
|
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
466
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP y u no buff Gallente hulls? |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2132
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:23:00 -
[42] - Quote
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.
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! |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:25:00 -
[43] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:Looking good, and I like the new Utility menu. No more panicing because regular members can see the 'Make Mutual' option in the rightclick, and less rightclicking...
Countdown to Jade in 3... 2... 1... Sigh tbh. It was pretty clear this change was set in stone the moment it was posted. I obviously think its pretty terrible and it is caving into the needs of the largest alliances in Eve at the cost of the smaller entities while doing absolutely nothing to help out the merc profession in Eve online. It was pointed out on the test server feedback thread that NO CSM MEMBER (who was at the meeting) was in favour of this change so its something CCP have foisted against the advise of the player council and (it must be said) against the huge majority of posters giving feedback so far. This is nothing to celebrate over. Its simply a bad decision made on bad reasoning to the detriment of aspects of the game. Still eventually we got the ship hanger back last year. Maybe this will go the same way in six months. Until then its back to pre-inferno wardec system with large alliances costing 10x as much to dec. Business as usual.
I completely agree with your take on this situation:
1. The largest alliances haven't asked for this change. I'm not sure where you're getting this information but it has yet to reach me. From reading the thread on Sisi they seem to be making it abundantly clear that they don't care about this feature.
2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:28:00 -
[44] - 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.
We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion. |
|
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:29:00 -
[45] - 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 |
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1424
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:29:00 -
[46] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:First!
This is the level some of the devs are on.....Pro
I am very glad to see some new cost structure for allies, as the changes gave getting allies in a war a "clown car" aspect that really killed the whole idea of mercenary marketplace off. I would like to put something conspiracy theory wise about Goons, CCP etc. but the merc/war dec changes are a good plan and endorsed by many of us who actually fight in wars/have an interest in seeing the merc marketplace tree bear some meaningful fruit.
As for the skillbook, I dont care one way or another as I think most of the new modules are superficial garbage and shouldn't have been included in this, or any other patch.
Glad that CCP is listening to community feedback though +1 for that Hmmm |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:31:00 -
[47] - Quote
Darius III wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:First! This is the level some of the devs are on.....Pro I am very glad to see some new cost structure for allies, as the changes gave getting allies in a war a "clown car" aspect that really killed the whole idea of mercenary marketplace off. I would like to put something conspiracy theory wise about Goons, CCP etc. but the merc/war dec changes are a good plan and endorsed by many of us who actually fight in wars/have an interest in seeing the merc marketplace tree bear some meaningful fruit. As for the skillbook, I dont care one way or another as I think most of the new modules are superficial garbage and shouldn't have been included in this, or any other patch. Glad that CCP is listening to community feedback though +1 for that
:Hfive: |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:32:00 -
[48] - 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).
I do not believe this will have your intended effect. In short the mercenaries you want to help provide a completely different service from the free allies. On the other hand this change clearly discourages small corporations from trying to gather allies to defend against significantly larger groups. More discouragement means fewer fights. I support the idea of waiving any war ally fees until the parties reach parity, since unlimited allies is correctly identified as a problem. I guess we will just have to see what actually happens.
As for the other changes, I am glad you are doing something to allow allies to leave wars. The rest looks like clean up. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2132
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:33:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion.
So would you care to comment on the following quote from the one CSM member present at your meeting on wardecs with the most actual experience of mercenary work and wardecs Soundwave?
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way.
Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.
I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against.
I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
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! |
Elende Brainfire
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote: No, because alliance indicates other things - one corp has to be the executor corp, and then the whole alliance can be dec'd for the same cost as just one of the participant corps. So no, not a good solution. Don't even get started on alliance access to certain assets etc. A 'working relationship' to help out in a war is not worth the cost and hassle associated with forming an alliance.
So your argument boils down to wanting a special advantage for not being in an alliance, when you fight against people who are in an alliance? |
|
Elende Brainfire
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:37:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against.
I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
You're putting words in the CSM rep's mouth and then claiming they're being contradicted. Stop imagining conspiracies and work with the facts already, holy crap. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2133
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:39:00 -
[52] - Quote
Elende Brainfire wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against.
I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
You're putting words in the CSM rep's mouth and then claiming they're being contradicted. Stop imagining conspiracies and work with the facts already, holy crap.
How exactly am I doing that by quoting a CSM member directly. I even underlined it for you.
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! |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:39:00 -
[53] - 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..... |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2474
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:42:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: :Hfive:
This is perhaps the only situation more alarming than GOONSPIRACY 2012 Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1398
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:42:00 -
[55] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion. So would you care to comment on the following quote from the one CSM member present at your meeting on wardecs with the most actual experience of mercenary work and wardecs Soundwave? Alekseyev Karrde wrote: But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way.
Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.
I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against. I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
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.
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.
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. |
|
Elende Brainfire
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: How exactly am I doing that by quoting a CSM member directly. I even underlined it for you.
The passage you quoted says that a change was put into place that a lot of people didn't like (you underlined this part), and that CCP and the CSM are working together on coming up with a better solution (you didn't underline this part).
Your out-of-thin-air assertion is that CCP is ignoring the CSM, which is contradicted by the very post you quoted. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:48:00 -
[57] - Quote
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. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1398
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
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................. |
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
117
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:51:00 -
[59] - Quote
The entire ally system is totally bogus and has been right from the start. We already had allies, via alliances.
What we needed was a mercenary marketplace, not a redundant ally system that doesn't even really work. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:53:00 -
[60] - Quote
Because the CSM is a fair and true sampling of the entire Eve population, thus their opinion should somehow matter more. Yeah, Right.
Anyway, the cost is way too high to bring in allies. You should get about 10 allies for free before you start getting charged. That way you can have your actual friends help you out when playing a massive multiplayer online game. Crazy I know to think some Corps/alliances might actually have some friends that want to support them.
There are better ways to make hiring mercs appealing then forcing people to pay to have their friends help them out.
As for the two weeks, why can't the duration be up to the players? Why does it have to be two weeks? Let the players decide if they want to help for a week, two, month, or duration of war.
Why should the balance of power go to the corner of the bigger group instead of on behalf of the defender? |
|
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. |
|
Elijah Craig
Trask Industries Li3 Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:03:00 -
[91] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:Elijah Craig wrote:Frankly I am hella bored of reading about this tedious tinfoil hat topic. And yet you still clicked on the topic, read it and posted your viewpoint. If you don't care or are bored with it, stop reading :)
Nope, I clicked on the topic "Inferno 1.1, Changes to the War Dec system" not "OMG CCP are Designing the game for Goons".
I commented because that other thread became silted up with endless repetition of the same tinfoil rubbish and I am dismayed this thread is going the same way. There is a debate to be had about a number of issues around the wardec subject and the way this newly revisted mechanic could evolve, but this endless repetitioIsis yet another thread is stifling that debate.
|
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:10:00 -
[92] - Quote
TBH, goonswarm doesn't care about empire for the most part. It's a playground to visit, buy stuff in, and cause chaos in general. Anyway, :words: because people are confused about this patch.
Here is a break down of our wars. We have approximately 8,901 members in Goonswarm Federation right now, though I'd be surprised if more than 50 were down in empire taking part in these wars. We do have a lot of dumb pilots who ignore war decs though and try to buy something in Jita, dying on the undock!
Quote:Goonswarm Fed vs Mabrick Mining and Manufacturing (3 members) 0 Allies 0 kills, 0 losses
Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Noesis (2 members) 0 Allies 0 kills, 0 losses
Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Philanthropists (3 members) 0 Allies 0 kills, 0 losses
Goonswarm Fed vs The Honda Accord (154 members) (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Honda+Accord) 38 Allies 40 kills, 341 losses (7 bil killed, 17.8 bil lost)
Goonswarm Fed vs The Star Fraction (70 members (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Star+Fraction) 40 Allies 19 kills, 62 losses (1.4 bil killed, 10.2 bil lost)
So, to replicate this circumstance in this new system, Honda and Star Fraction would have to spend approximately 1.4 Quintillion and 5.5 Quintillion respectively (short system). Versus the Inferno War dec system, which cost 0. Now, if you have significant resources to protect, 10 allies is 20 bil, which is somewhat reasonable. But you better choose your mercs wisely! I also assure you that we will have similar losses in the new system as well, we are bad at eve.
The current system is obviously broken, this is not the merc system as was requested. It's not like goonswarm is showing up in groups of 400 in empire to kill one small group either. We're showing up in packs of two's and four's to gank haulers and industrials. And we are losing tons of single pilots on jita undock, because we have dumb pilots.
In the end, you have to hire competent mercenaries that can protect your assets with small groups with a fleet doctrine and you'll be fine. Hiring the entire universe to defend you is crazy talk. Also, why would people hire mercenaries if they can get some people to randomly show up for free? Give people a reason to hire the best mercenaries rather than just gankers. Hiring a group like the Privateers is great if you want them to sit on Jita undock and pop random goons. But to protect you in the belts and hauling, that takes a real mercenary crew.
Also, I made this quick spreadsheet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort:
Quote: 1 ally = 0 Million 2 allies = 10 Million 3 allies = 30 Million 4 allies = 70 Million 5 allies = 150 Million 6 allies = 310 Million 7 allies = 630 Million 8 allies = 1 Billion 9 allies = 2 Billion 10 allies = 5 Billion 11 allies = 10 Billion 12 allies = 20 Billion 13 allies = 40 Billion 14 allies = 81 Billion 15 allies = 163 Billion 16 allies = 327 Billion 17 allies = 655 Billion 18 allies = 1 Trillion 19 allies = 2 Trillion 20 allies = 5 Trillion 21 allies = 10 Trillion 22 allies = 20 Trillion 23 allies = 41 Trillion 24 allies = 83 Trillion 25 allies = 167 Trillion 26 allies = 335 Trillion 27 allies = 671 Trillion 28 allies = 1 Quadrillion 29 allies = 2 Quadrillion 30 allies = 5 Quadrillion 31 allies = 10 Quadrillion 32 allies = 21 Quadrillion 33 allies = 42 Quadrillion 34 allies = 85 Quadrillion 35 allies = 171 Quadrillion 36 allies = 343 Quadrillion 37 allies = 687 Quadrillion 38 allies = 1 Quintillion 39 allies = 2 Quintillion 40 allies = 5 Quintillion 41 allies = 10 Quintillion 42 allies = 21 Quintillion 43 allies = 43 Quintillion 44 allies = 87 Quintillion 45 allies = 175 Quintillion 46 allies = 351 Quintillion 47 allies = 703 Quintillion 48 allies = 1 Sextillion 49 allies = 2 Sextillion 50 allies = 5 Sextillion
PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though! |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:22:00 -
[93] - 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
|
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
375
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:32:00 -
[94] - Quote
I don't know if Jade is from the US or not but if he is he should go into politics. The whole "I'm going to hammer a point over and over despite multiple people pointing out I'm wrong" would fit very well into American politics, especially on the right wing. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
159
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:41:00 -
[95] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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. So these are changes that needed to be made, and the game will be better for it. Up until now the new wardeck mechanics were a little silly. With everyone being able to dogpile into a war there was very little incentive to shop around and actually hire mercenaries. And being able to declare a war mutual and lock someone into a war against multiple alliances probably wasn't the best game mechanic.
But this whole fiasco comes down to a problem of perception. From the outside it looks like these desperately needed changes were not brought into the game because they were desperately needed changes, but rather because the goons whined about it.
In a very short amount of time people saw the goons wardeck some people in highsec. The people highsec asked for help. They got help (a lot of help). And then a nerf was announced to prevent them from getting the same kind of help again. No matter what CCP's intentions were with their patch, that's what people saw.
The same thing happened with the tracking titan nerf. tracking titans needed to be fixed. But they only got fixed because the goons were shouting about it.
If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.
I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:42:00 -
[96] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:TBH, goonswarm doesn't care about empire for the most part. It's a playground to visit, buy stuff in, and cause chaos in general. Anyway, :words: because people are confused about this patch. Here is a break down of our wars. We have approximately 8,901 members in Goonswarm Federation right now, though I'd be surprised if more than 50 were down in empire taking part in these wars. We do have a lot of dumb pilots who ignore war decs though and try to buy something in Jita, dying on the undock! Quote:Goonswarm Fed vs Mabrick Mining and Manufacturing (3 members) 0 Allies 0 kills, 0 losses
Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Noesis (2 members) 0 Allies 0 kills, 0 losses
Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Philanthropists (3 members) 0 Allies 0 kills, 0 losses
Goonswarm Fed vs The Honda Accord (154 members) (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Honda+Accord) 38 Allies 40 kills, 341 losses (7 bil killed, 17.8 bil lost)
Goonswarm Fed vs The Star Fraction (70 members (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Star+Fraction) 40 Allies 19 kills, 62 losses (1.4 bil killed, 10.2 bil lost) So, to replicate this circumstance in this new system, Honda and Star Fraction would have to spend approximately 1.4 Quintillion and 5.5 Quintillion respectively (short system). Versus the Inferno War dec system, which cost 0. Now, if you have significant resources to protect, 10 allies is 20 bil, which is somewhat reasonable. But you better choose your mercs wisely! I also assure you that we will have similar losses in the new system as well, we are bad at eve. The current system is obviously broken, this is not the merc system as was requested. It's not like goonswarm is showing up in groups of 400 in empire to kill one small group either. We're showing up in packs of two's and four's to gank haulers and industrials. And we are losing tons of single pilots on jita undock, because we have dumb pilots. In the end, you have to hire competent mercenaries that can protect your assets with small groups with a fleet doctrine and you'll be fine. Hiring the entire universe to defend you is crazy talk. Also, why would people hire mercenaries if they can get some people to randomly show up for free? Give people a reason to hire the best mercenaries rather than just gankers. Hiring a group like the Privateers is great if you want them to sit on Jita undock and pop random goons. But to protect you in the belts and hauling, that takes a real mercenary crew. Also, I made this quick spreadsheet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort: Quote: 1 ally = 0 Million 2 allies = 10 Million 3 allies = 30 Million 4 allies = 70 Million 5 allies = 150 Million 6 allies = 310 Million 7 allies = 630 Million 8 allies = 1 Billion 9 allies = 2 Billion 10 allies = 5 Billion 11 allies = 10 Billion 12 allies = 20 Billion 13 allies = 40 Billion 14 allies = 81 Billion 15 allies = 163 Billion 16 allies = 327 Billion 17 allies = 655 Billion 18 allies = 1 Trillion 19 allies = 2 Trillion 20 allies = 5 Trillion 21 allies = 10 Trillion 22 allies = 20 Trillion 23 allies = 41 Trillion 24 allies = 83 Trillion 25 allies = 167 Trillion 26 allies = 335 Trillion 27 allies = 671 Trillion 28 allies = 1 Quadrillion 29 allies = 2 Quadrillion 30 allies = 5 Quadrillion 31 allies = 10 Quadrillion 32 allies = 21 Quadrillion 33 allies = 42 Quadrillion 34 allies = 85 Quadrillion 35 allies = 171 Quadrillion 36 allies = 343 Quadrillion 37 allies = 687 Quadrillion 38 allies = 1 Quintillion 39 allies = 2 Quintillion 40 allies = 5 Quintillion 41 allies = 10 Quintillion 42 allies = 21 Quintillion 43 allies = 43 Quintillion 44 allies = 87 Quintillion 45 allies = 175 Quintillion 46 allies = 351 Quintillion 47 allies = 703 Quintillion 48 allies = 1 Sextillion 49 allies = 2 Sextillion 50 allies = 5 Sextillion
PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!
lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24: Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.
The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:45:00 -
[97] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24: Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.
If only there were an NPC buy order for pretentious words. Jade would have no problem paying those fees then. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2479
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:45:00 -
[98] - Quote
Aleph Phi wrote: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.
No no, I get it, stuff takes cap. I was just asking to find out whether you'd actually played with this in practice on a specific fit and tested it under such conditions, or were just talking in principle. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:46:00 -
[99] - Quote
Since CCP is turning the ally rules on thier head so completely I'm sure that CCP is giving current mutual War DEC's the option of quitting the war with no costs on the date of the rule change? The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:52:00 -
[100] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[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.
This must be one of the most boneheaded responses I have ever read.
So basically you are arguing that wars BY DESIGN (not by players striving to get an advantage) should be unfair, favouring the agressor.
Fine. Personelly I think The Caldari and and Amarr militia militia should be capped at 200 members while the obvioulsy sucessful Gallente and Minmatar militia should not be touched. That would make the current FW wars about the same level of unfair BY DESIGN. After all, this is what you are advocating.
Unfairness by DESIGN. |
|
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
160
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 19:57:00 -
[101] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.
I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck.
You really need to read the CSM notes from previous sessions. Goons have been at the forefront of shouting for a technetium fix for a very long time, we just have not gotten it yet. Then we started using all of our tech because CCP is not fixing it.
More details: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/230860/page/2
E: oh yeah, and the CSM notes in question: http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2011/CSM_CCP_Mettings_7-9_12_2011.pdf |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
561
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:04:00 -
[102] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:\ Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs.. Im strongly opposed to the change to the ally system and CCP has ignored me.
So try again, it's not my fault nor has anything to do with a damn thing I've said. Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:13:00 -
[103] - Quote
Weaselior wrote: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. I'm not an empire dweller (spent the last few months in a WH, now I'm in null), so this stuff doesn't affect me all that much. I just don't see how the merc market is really screwed up by this... There was no merc market before Inferno, so why is changing something that's not even a month old completely screw the pooch? Everyone loves to hate the Goons, and I think most folks (besides TEST and the rest of the CFC) would probably love to shoot Goons just on the principle of the thing. That they can do so without the corresponding security hit would just be an added bonus.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: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. Once again??? Uhhh... that was the first post I made in this thread. I'm not arguing right or wrong on making this change, and the "design objective," as you say, is one that I agree with. What I don't like is that rather than sitting back and watching a little longer, CCP is moving forward with a major change that breaks the emergent response to an interesting conundrum, and which, intentionally or not, is directly favorable to a faction generally regarded as a royal PITA. *I* never said anything about the Goons coming up during talks (others, though, have), and had this happened five years ago and worked in favor of BOB, I'm sure we'd be having this same discussion.
As I mentioned above, considering that the merc market is completely new with Inferno, waiting a little while to watch the evolution would not be a game-breaker. Let's say this were Star Fraction versus Stain Wagon... would either side be worried about the other going mutual and bringing the rest of the cluster in on the fun? I rather doubt it. I agree that this is a broken mechanic, but I'd much rather give it some time before going in and changing things, since this is also a brand new mechanic. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:13:00 -
[104] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:\ Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs.. Im strongly opposed to the change to the ally system and CCP has ignored me. So try again, it's not my fault nor has anything to do with a damn thing I've said.
Soundwave goes out of his way to acertain that the ONLY thing that he wanted to make sure of is that mercs was a viable proffesion. The rest of the dec mechanic seems to be totally uniteresting to him, even if this was the FLAGSHIP of the Inferno expansion. If that is not pampering to your playstyle, I dont know what is.
You might not agree with the implemenation, and this is confirmed by Soundwave as well:
CCP Soundwave wrote: 2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.
So basically, he says that the ENTIRE CSM wanted an even more merc-tailored solution than the one we have got. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2164
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:14:00 -
[105] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:\ Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs.. Im strongly opposed to the change to the ally system and CCP has ignored me. So try again, it's not my fault nor has anything to do with a damn thing I've said.
I kinda repeated that a fair bit earlier Alekseyev but seemed nobody was listening :)
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
3349
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:18:00 -
[106] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: I kinda repeated that a fair bit earlier Alekseyev but seemed nobody was listening :)
well no you claimed "the entire csm" was against the change and naturally were ignored when you were repeatedly contradicted by csm member after csm member |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3349
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:21:00 -
[107] - Quote
I kept claiming the sun orbited around the earth, and people kept ignoring me! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2165
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:22:00 -
[108] - Quote
corestwo wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24: Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.
If only there were an NPC buy order for pretentious words. Jade would have no problem paying those fees then.
See this is the irony about the whole goonie thing. Whenever some poor miner pipes up on GD and goes "oh noes goons ganked my hulk lets all form up a giant alliance and go bash them!" the goons will generlaly say "come at me bro" and encourage the attack with bluster and bravado.
Problem is that the first time we ever got close to actually putting together a hisec coalition to do just that and you guys are backpeddling faster than a trick unicyclist from an escaped tiger.
End of the day you guys want the right to do "grief decs" on your terms without effective counter. And you have now got a sequence of game changes to your clear benefit.
1. Loopholes gone - check. 2. 10x the cost to counter dec - check. 3. Mutual lock-in removed - check. 4. Defensive allies priced out of stratosphere - check.
And we are going to be stuck with this system for quite some time.
So while sure, you guys are going to be eating high the hog for a while - just don't expect the rest of Eve Online to keep eating your line of blather about welcoming wardecs. You don't. You are wardec evaders end of the day - on the grandest scale Eve Online has ever witnessed.
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
2165
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:23:00 -
[109] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: I kinda repeated that a fair bit earlier Alekseyev but seemed nobody was listening :)
well no you claimed "the entire csm" was against the change and naturally were ignored when you were repeatedly contradicted by csm member after csm member
Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
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! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2479
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:25:00 -
[110] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.
I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck.
Honestly, I think constantly catering to public misconception and wasting extra time and resources trying to combat conspiracy theorists is more detrimental to the overall process than just asking players to screw their heads on straight and not leap to conclusions all the time.
The bottom line is that Goons are *NOT* the driving force behind every major decision in EVE, despite their numbers and despite all the erroneous hype. Going out of our way to select a feature change that GÇ£hurts GoonsGÇ¥ is giving them exactly what theyGÇÖre after: attention. If you donGÇÖt understand Goon motivations for why they do what they do, I donGÇÖt know where to start. They would be *thrilled* to know the game was changed on their behalf, whether its in support of or in spite of their efforts.
Besides, The Mittani has been one of the most outspoken supporters of a Technetium nerf, so thatGÇÖs not even a place you can go to hit them GÇ£below the beltGÇ¥. Again, its important that you understand Goon motivation for the tactics they employ, often using silly mechanics to their extreme end in order to make a statement about the game design in the first place. However, there is a critical difference between using behavior as an *example* to the developers, and using oneGÇÖs insider influence to actually *control* the developers as so many have fearfully suggested.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2480
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:29:00 -
[111] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
And you can stop telling fibs as well Jade. Kelduum was most certainly present at the CSM summit in Iceland.
Also, saying that only one CSM member tried to contradict you is completely misleading. We certainly agree that the fees model was not ideal, but most of has have repeatedly rebuked your insistence that all of this was done to cater to Goon influence. There is no reason to suggest any kind of implied solidarity with your cause. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3350
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:29:00 -
[112] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
why on earth would i care about en24
tons of people with csm tags posted in that thread and the only one not explicitly mocking you was hans, and you could tell how much it took out of him to not mock you |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
3718
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:33:00 -
[113] - Quote
Yay Protective Armor Hardeners.... :P
|
|
Kody Grey
Banana Pants Incorporated
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:36:00 -
[114] - Quote
Why does CCP feel it has to create a merc industry in a sand box game? If a defender in a war wants to ally with free help and that free help wants to help for free, why not let them. If they suck then hey you get what you pay for.
So if you want "awesome" protection, hire real merc's with a proven track record but at a cost. Seems simple. The group of players in this sandbox game that would want to white knight for free should be allowed to do so.
So if you happen to get the situation where a giant alliance war decs a target and more people want to side with the defenders for free, well life sucks sometimes, this is a player driven sandbox game. Instead we have the developers stepping in, stopping the player driven content for I don't really know what exactly. |
Selissa Shadoe
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:39:00 -
[115] - 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.
Attacking the POINT OF VIEW of a CCP member is NOT the same as attacking them personally. Learn to read. People are free to disagree with others' viewpoints. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2167
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:46:00 -
[116] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
And you can stop telling fibs as well Jade. Kelduum was most certainly present at the CSM summit in Iceland.
In which case either Kelduum or Alekseyev Karrde is lying. Because Alekseyez says that the proposal was universally rejected by the CSM representatives present. Either Kelduum was present and supported the change (in which case Alekseyez is telling fibs) OR Kelduum wasn't present and you are telling fibs.
Stop trying to attack players because you CSM reps cannot seem to get your story straight on this fiasco.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Also, saying that only one CSM member tried to contradict you is completely misleading. We certainly agree that the fees model was not ideal, but most of has have repeatedly rebuked your insistence that all of this was done to cater to Goon influence. There is no reason to suggest any kind of implied solidarity with your cause.
You are in no position to "rebuke" anybody so I advise you to quit the stuffed shirt strutting chickenlord act and float back gently to earth with the rest of us mere mortals. We have been told this change was universally downvoted by the CSM present at the meeting by a member of the CSM. If you think there is something wrong with that statement then take it up with Alekseyev and stop lashing out at players trying to make sense of this nonsense.
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! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1138
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:51:00 -
[117] - Quote
Lack of communication strikes again it seems.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1760
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 20:55:00 -
[118] - Quote
Chribba wrote:Yay Protective Armor Hardeners.... :P
I know, right? CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2006
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:01:00 -
[119] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:01:00 -
[120] - Quote
Basically what I get out of this thread is that there is a whiney babby whining that he isn't able to get free help anymore. Self-appointed forums hallway monitor |
|
Dovinian
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1078
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:02:00 -
[121] - Quote
Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. I also concur. Jade, you're putting words into the mouths of the CSM and it's inexcusable, knock that off and stop trying to run your own "spin control" |
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:03:00 -
[122] - Quote
Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere.
I think it would be a safe assumption that everyone everywhere is contradicting everything that Jade Constantine says. Self-appointed forums hallway monitor |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2167
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:03:00 -
[123] - Quote
Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere.
Frankly I don't consider anything you've ever said worthy of note and I'm hardly likely to start now.
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! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
564
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:06:00 -
[124] - Quote
Honestly neither of us are lying. I talked to Kel, he barely remembered the adding cost to allies discussion because it went by so quick. He certainly wasn't pushing for it, and I was not left with the impression he liked it till I talked to him about it today.
Kel explained his position to me as that the ally fees are better than nothing since they'd stop "things from going silly" (which they will). From the merc point of view they're better than nothing but not by much. But I feel the spending power advantage now granted to big/rich groups at the expense of small/poor groups (and the middle guys tbh) outweigh the meager gains mercs get from this.
The "merc tailored" option Soundwave referenced that I pushed for was a cap on allies (2-3 would have been nice) but you would not have any cost for taking them. If you wanted to hire a merc, you could at whatever price you negotiated. If you wanted to bring friends in, you could do it for free. If you wanted to accept free help from strangers (or strangers that buy in to your war dec) you could do that too, or any combination of the three. I feel this would have restored the merc market (the real one, not the Inferno mechanic) close to where it was before Inferno while not further unleveling the playing field between the big guys and the little guys.
I'm sure most of the people opposed to this fees change would be equally opposed to any limiting factor on allies, and certainly would oppose a flat limit. My position is whatever limit to the allies system is put in place should achieve the goal of restoring the viability of the long established mercenary profession that was undermined when the system was launched. I didnt/dont expect the fee system and prices described in this blog to do that, and so would do more harm than good. Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
613
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:06:00 -
[125] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.
Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.
Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.
Then why are you removing the ability to dogpile allies onto an attacker? It's NOT about 'saving' the merc profession, because these 'free allies' are no substitution for a proper merc corporation. Why do you think the Goons are mocking Jade with this several dozen of 'allies'? These opportunists only provide some distraction at best and everyone knows it (with apparently the exception of you, CCP Soundwave). They are no threat to the merc profession.
There's no good reason to exponentially tax their service. Allies are now quickly more expensive then wardecs FFS!
And here's the problem: there simply aren't enough actual mercs in EVE to help you defend against an entity like GoonSwarm and their CFC, let alone taking the fight to them in DeKlein. So that's why the ability to take in as many 'free allies' should remain, so the defender can at least fight back with de-centralized asymmetric warfare in empire. The only option left, yet CCP wants to take that away as well. How is that not CCP catering to the 'big boys'?
And then the removal of allies in mutual wars: You're removing THE BEST consequence mechanic of Inferno. : facepalm
Without allies in a mutual wardec a corporation will, in reality, NEVER manage to force a stronger attacker into surrendering. Yet this SHOULD be the main 'consequence' design philosophy behind the wardec system! How can CCP be so blind?!
What kind of reasoning is behind this decision? This has NOTHING to do with locking mercs indefinitely , because that issue is simply and completely solved by making ally contracts renewable every two weeks.
This also should have NOTHING to do with unlimited 'free allies' being unfair. Only fools think those 'free' opportunists will ever help you win a war. And only carebears (or pathetic null-bears) think they deserve some 'because we're bigger' protection on top of being bigger and thus able to simply deal with these annoyances (and living in null helps even more). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2171
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:07:00 -
[126] - Quote
Dovinian wrote:Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. I also concur. Jade, you're putting words into the mouths of the CSM and it's inexcusable, knock that off and stop trying to run your own "spin control"
So in quoting Alekseyev Karrde's statement that every CSM present at the wardec meeting in Iceland downvoted this proposal you are making the claim I'm somehow "putting words into people's mouths."
Get real.
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
2171
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:09:00 -
[127] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Honestly neither of us are lying. I talked to Kel, he barely remembered the adding cost to allies discussion because it went by so quick. He certainly wasn't pushing for it, and I was not left with the impression he liked it till I talked to him about it today.
Kel explained his position to me as that the ally fees are better than nothing since they'd stop "things from going silly" (which they will). From the merc point of view they're better than nothing. But I feel the spending power advantage now granted to big/rich groups at the expense of small/poor groups (and the middle guys tbh) outweigh the meager gains mercs get from this.
The "merc tailored" option Soundwave referenced that I pushed for was a cap on allies (2-3 would have been nice) but you would not have any cost for taking them. If you wanted to hire a merc, you could at whatever price you negotiated. If you wanted to bring friends in, you could do it for free. If you wanted to accept free help from strangers you could do that too, or any combination of the three. I feel this would have restored the merc market (the real one, not the Inferno mechanic) close to where it was before Inferno while not further unleveling the playing field between the big guys and the little guys.
I'm sure most of the people opposed to this fees change would be equally opposed to any limiting factor on allies, and certainly would oppose a flat limit. My position is whatever limit to the allies system is put in place should achieve the goal of restoring the viability of the long established mercenary profession that was undermined when the system was launched. I didnt/dont expect the fee system and prices described in this blog to do that, and so would do more harm than good.
Thanks for clarifying and showing a bit of class.
Something your fellow CSM's could do with learning.
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! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2484
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:09:00 -
[128] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Stop trying to attack players because you CSM reps cannot seem to get your story straight on this fiasco.
Your disrespectful and venom-filled language is far more of an attack than anything that has been directed at you, stop victimizing yourself. I've tried to be cordial to you throughout this process despite the outrageously false allegations you continue to hurl at the CSM who isn't even to blame for the changes you're so angry about.
Let's entertain the idea for a second that Aleks made a mistake - and didn't hear Kelduum's agreement with the proposal. After all, Aleks was observing the meeting via a Live Stream, and as someone who was in the same position, I can understand how its easy to mistake a statement or miss a few words. Aleks was present, but not physically in the room. He was speaking from what he remembered of the session, filtered through computer audio transmission.
That being said, why in the world have you lashed yourself to THE CSM IS LYING TO US? What difference does it make whether we were unanimous, or *mostly* unanimous, other than to play GOTCHA games and try to discredit us in the process? I fail to understand how clarification here changes the discussion in any kind of significant way. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
98
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:12:00 -
[129] - Quote
Dovinian wrote:Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. I also concur. Jade, you're putting words into the mouths of the CSM and it's inexcusable, knock that off and stop trying to run your own "spin control"
You mean Jade isn't going to take us to his "No-spin zone"? Self-appointed forums hallway monitor |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:13:00 -
[130] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:corestwo wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24: Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.
If only there were an NPC buy order for pretentious words. Jade would have no problem paying those fees then. See this is the irony about the whole goonie thing. Whenever some poor miner pipes up on GD and goes "oh noes goons ganked my hulk lets all form up a giant alliance and go bash them!" the goons will generally say "come at me bro" and encourage the attack with bluster and bravado. Problem is that the first time we ever got close to actually putting together a hisec coalition to do just that and you guys are backpeddling faster than a trick unicyclist from an escaped tiger. End of the day you guys want the right to do "grief decs" on your terms without effective counter. And you have now got a sequence of game changes to your clear benefit. 1. Loopholes gone - check. 2. 10x the cost to counter dec - check. 3. Mutual lock-in removed - check. 4. Defensive allies priced out of stratosphere - check. And we are going to be stuck with this system for quite some time. So while sure, you guys are going to be eating high the hog for a while - just don't expect the rest of Eve Online to keep eating your line of blather about welcoming wardecs. You don't. You are wardec evaders end of the day - on the grandest scale Eve Online has ever witnessed.
Show me where we have actually said any of what you just claim we said.
You can't find it. Stop making bullshit up.
|
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
613
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:13:00 -
[131] - Quote
Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere.
Your voters must feel themselves so properly represented in your personage.
Yes, Jade definitely is a dog with a bone when it comes to discussions, but he usually DOES have valid point or at the very least good arguments. You're the fool for simply waiving them away for not liking the person. But I'm guessing as a WH-dweller you don't give a flying **** about what happens in empire. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:17:00 -
[132] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I'm sure most of the people opposed to this fees change would be equally opposed to any limiting factor on allies, and certainly would oppose a flat limit. My position is whatever limit to the allies system is put in place should achieve the goal of restoring the viability of the long established mercenary profession that was undermined when the system was launched. I didnt/dont expect the fee system and prices described in this blog to do that, and so would do more harm than good.
I dont se many - if any at all - that think unlimited allies isnt gamebreaking. Even Jade. So thats not the issue here. Unlimited allies is dumb (because only the defender can have them) and need to go.
However, due to Concord, you dont have the freedom nullsec enjoys when it comes to setting up blues and allies that will help fight your enemies. In highsec, you have to be in on the wardec to participate. Which is why the wardec mechanic benefits from an ally system in the first place. But it cannot get out of hand, because unlimited allies essentially kills the mechanic. Hence why a few of us proposes a "numerical parity" mechanic, after which it will hurt financially to escalate, alternatively open up for allies to the agressor as well.
Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots.
To summarize, 1) a parity mechanic should hurt you as a defender if you try to achieve numerical superiority, 2) it maintains the (good) change that opened up the highsec wardec mechanic to the sorts of higher level organization that permeates nullsec (diplos, allies, blues etc), and 3) since you will be fighting with roughly equal numbers, quality comes in to play, which lends itself to a descision wether you should hire high quality mercs instead of just relying on your carebear friend corp. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
118
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:18:00 -
[133] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Two step wrote:I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. Your voters must feel themselves so properly represented in your personage. Yes, Jade definitely is a dog with a bone when it comes to discussions, but he usually DOES have valid point or at the very least good arguments. You're the fool for simply waiving them away for not liking the person. But I'm guessing as a WH-dweller you don't give a flying **** about what happens in empire.
I was trying to figure out how to say just this. Then again, none of the current CSM really represents me (with the possible exception of Alek) so I may just be a little biased myself. At any rate, I would like to see more discussion and less turd flinging (from everyone, not just the CSM or Jade.)
So far, it's only a few of the random people in this thread and Alek that are both contributing meaningfully without being assholes.
Inferno has been great, with the exception of the inventory system (which is mostly ironed out now) and this "allies" nonsense that seems to be trying to replace the alliance mechanic we already have, and failing miserably at it. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2172
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:20:00 -
[134] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Your disrespectful and venom-filled language is far more of an attack than anything that has been directed at you, stop victimizing yourself. I've tried to be cordial to you throughout this process despite the outrageously false allegations you continue to hurl at the CSM who isn't even to blame for the changes you're so angry about.
Its a bit late to play the shrinking violet. I've found the collective CSM conduct (with 2 clear exceptions) to be pretty awful throughout this discussion. Most of you have been profoundly disrespectful of fellow players and seemed to have taken an absolute joy in speaking down and condescending through this. If you want "respect" then you need to show it.
I'm not even sure what "false accusations" you are talking about now - surely you aren't going to challenge the assertion that these changes are to benefit of the big guys and will do nothing to help the merc profession in Eve? I'm in complete agreement with Alekseyev's assessment of the impact these changes will have on the game henceforth.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Let's entertain the idea for a second that Aleks made a mistake - and didn't hear Kelduum's agreement with the proposal. After all, Aleks was observing the meeting via a Live Stream, and as someone who was in the same position, I can understand how its easy to mistake a statement or miss a few words. Aleks was present, but not physically in the room. He was speaking from what he remembered of the session, filtered through computer audio transmission.
So if mistakes were make they get owned up and we move on. The problem has occured because most of the CSM who have responded to these threads have been spinning and wriggling and evading and spin-doctoring and out and out trolling without even trying to give straight answers. That gets old fast.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: That being said, why in the world have you lashed yourself to THE CSM IS LYING TO US? What difference does it make whether we were unanimous, or *mostly* unanimous, other than to play GOTCHA games and try to discredit us in the process? I fail to understand how clarification here changes the discussion in any kind of significant way.
Well since you ask, its because I wanted to know whether the CSM was unanimous in the condemnation of this change so I had to option of saying that to Soundwave when he admitted the changes were his. Its a fairly strong argument to tell a developer that the player council was opposed to a change he is dead set on bringing into the game. But I wanted to get my argument straight and have some confidence I wasn't going to get contradicted. Hence this was something I needed to know and I sought clarification.
It hasn't helped that most of the CSM has been spinning and trolling and running interference and tripping each other up and engaging in ad hominem attacks rather than being prepared to answer straight questions.
End of the day, I hope this is something you learn from.
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! |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:22:00 -
[135] - Quote
134th!!!
Sensible changes I think, but I'm out of touch with war. |
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
376
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:22:00 -
[136] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:I'm not even sure what "false accusations" you are talking about now - surely you aren't going to challenge the assertion that these changes are to benefit of the big guys and will do nothing to help the merc profession in Eve? I'm in complete agreement with Alekseyev's assessment of the impact these changes will have on the game henceforth.
"These changes will incidentally benefit the big guys" is not what you are and have been arguing. What you are and have been arguing is "These changes were put in place at the request (or because the whining) of the big guys."
There is a very large difference there, and frankly it isn't true either way, as we'd prefer to have an abundance of targets for the goons who do like shooting up highsec. |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
86
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:23:00 -
[137] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. Your voters must feel themselves so properly represented in your personage. Yes, Jade definitely is a dog with a bone when it comes to discussions, but he usually DOES have valid point or at the very least good arguments. You're the fool for simply waiving them away for not liking the person. But I'm guessing as a WH-dweller you don't give a flying **** about what happens in empire and wardecs. edit: how about the CSM stop bitching on Jade and start defending CCP's decision to toss the dogpile mechanic and remove allies from mutual wars. I would LOVE to see some good reasons justifying those decisions, because CCP isn't offering any.
Both null and w-space pilots really don't care about high sec war decs. Alekseyev was the only member of CSM to actually be impacted by any war dec changes, really. He's already made his opinion on the matter clear. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
614
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:24:00 -
[138] - Quote
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots. .
You can't be serious about a rag-tag bunch of opportunistic 'free allies' putting proper mercs out of a job.
They'll provide with some distraction for your attacker at best, but they'll only serve their own interests.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
None ofthe Above
199
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:26:00 -
[139] - Quote
I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.
I'd also be a good thing if Jade could put aside the accusations, and lets have a constructive talk about the effects.
...
I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".
It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.
The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!
The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.
I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).
It nukes the interesting defense coalitions that have sprung up around some of these wars. Where is the praise for emergent game play and sandbox systems in this regard?
I'd like to see the two week timer go in and leave the ally fees out. That may be enough to revive the Mercenary trade without disrupting the emerging allies. Doing both at the same time twists too many dials at once and I am not sure if we can be clear on the results. If fees are put in place (now or later), I don't think uncapped geometric is the way to go.
BTW - I've seen the 30+ allies called "absurd on its face" and ridiculous. Personally I'd think "karma" is a better description. I've only seen it reported to be happening with big alliances that have "ruining your game" as a reason for existence, attacking smaller entities. Its interesting to actually see people banding together to fight that.
|
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
40
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:29:00 -
[140] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots. .
You can't be serious about a rag-tag bunch of opportunistic 'free allies' putting proper mercs out of a job. They'll provide with some distraction for your attacker at best, but they'll only serve their own interests.
Thats exactly what I am saying. as long as you limit "free allies" to numerical parity in a wardec situatiuon, pro mercs should have no probs competing. But if it comes to a point where numerical superiority compensates for quality, that is obviously not the case any more. |
|
Kody Grey
Banana Pants Incorporated
26
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:31:00 -
[141] - Quote
In 0.0 sec space (Wormholes, Null Sec) a group of smaller entities are free to dog-pile against a single larger entity. I don't play in Null Sec on a regular basis but I have been in a few good fights in wormhole space where this happens quite often. Now, before this fix its currently possible to do the same in High sec.
Why is that bad? Never ending war across all of Eve? Let me introduce you to this thing called PVP. The single giant entity could always just surrender if they need a breather. Nothing is broken about that concept. Totally player driven. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2178
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:32:00 -
[142] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.
I'd also be a good thing if Jade could put aside the accusations, and lets have a constructive talk about the effects.
...
I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".
It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.
The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!
The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.
I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).
It nukes the interesting defense coalitions that have sprung up around some of these wars. Where is the praise for emergent game play and sandbox systems in this regard?
I'd like to see the two week timer go in and leave the ally fees out. That may be enough to revive the Mercenary trade without disrupting the emerging allies. Doing both at the same time twists too many dials at once and I am not sure if we can be clear on the results. If fees are put in place (now or later), I don't think uncapped geometric is the way to go.
BTW - I've seen the 30+ allies called "absurd on its face" and ridiculous. Personally I'd think "karma" is a better description. I've only seen it reported to be happening with big alliances that have "ruining your game" as a reason for existence, attacking smaller entities. Its interesting to actually see people banding together to fight that.
Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.
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! |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:38:00 -
[143] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".
It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.
The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!
Yes. Looking at the massive list of corps and alliances that have "come to the aid" of Honda Accord or Star Fraction finds the usual suspects from the old, broken, "war dec everyone and camp Jita undock" types (and a few other of the more respectable high sec war dec'ers of old - nod to Moar Tears).
None ofthe Above wrote:The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.
I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).
CCP had to put a limiter on there or defenders would go for the quantity over quality approach which is the antithesis of what promotes the use of good merc groups.
These changes are reasonable. However, it dos not address the root problem of a lack of real victory or defeat conditions in high sec wars. Okay, now a defender has a rational reason to hire a merc. What is the merc's stated goal to bring about favorable end to this war for the defender? The attacker can toss on a war, but for what purpose? It is still impossible to actually pin down an entity in high sec and demand their submission.
War decs are broken at their core. Arguing these mechanics is pretty useless. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
617
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:43:00 -
[144] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.
The best way, the only way, would be reversal of the removal of allies in mutual wars (making them essentially useless), and removing the exponential fee from allies (instead a fixed 10 to 25 M to keep out the worst thrash would be fine). Weaker corporations need to keep their ability to unleash a plague of opportunists when wardecced by the biggest alliances. And the game NEEDS the option for weaker corporations to force a stronger attacker into surrender (mutual+allies) as the MAIN 'consequence' mechanic of Inferno.
The 'free allies' by the way were never a threat to proper mercs. Good luck trying to get them to defend your mining op or take down an enemy POS. They'll just camp the hubs and routes and if you're lucky go after some targets of opportunity, restricting Empire activities (of what are mostly null-alliances).
No, mercs were handicapped actually by the unlimited time of ally agreements (fixed) and by the complete absence of a contract market for them to advertise their services. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:45:00 -
[145] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.
I'd also be a good thing if Jade could put aside the accusations, and lets have a constructive talk about the effects.
...
I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".
It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.
The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!
The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.
I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).
It nukes the interesting defense coalitions that have sprung up around some of these wars. Where is the praise for emergent game play and sandbox systems in this regard?
I'd like to see the two week timer go in and leave the ally fees out. That may be enough to revive the Mercenary trade without disrupting the emerging allies. Doing both at the same time twists too many dials at once and I am not sure if we can be clear on the results. If fees are put in place (now or later), I don't think uncapped geometric is the way to go.
BTW - I've seen the 30+ allies called "absurd on its face" and ridiculous. Personally I'd think "karma" is a better description. I've only seen it reported to be happening with big alliances that have "ruining your game" as a reason for existence, attacking smaller entities. Its interesting to actually see people banding together to fight that. Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.
What you fail to understand here is that THIS IS THE BLOODY IMPROVEMENT :). Sorry about the yelling but I do not think jade is listening to the 5 CSM reps or the other 100 people telling him that he is batshit crazy. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
570
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:46:00 -
[146] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: I'm in complete agreement with Alekseyev's assessment of the impact these changes will have on the game henceforth.
Could you...not agree with me? I'd like to remain relevant after this is all over, and regardless of what you think Jade your behavior in threads, attacks on CCP employees, attacks on the CSM, and general tinfoil hattery have established you as kind of a loon.
I don't think CCP is in the pocket of Goonswarm or anyone else. Soundwave and SoniClover are not making these changes to benefit because three days ago a group of 9000 forum nerds got worried about people who aren't attacking their centers of activity, wealth, or population.
It doesn't have to be a Goon conspiracy to be a poor choice of options. Arydanika:-á"Alekseyev Karrde mercenary of my heart."-á
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet www.noirmercs.com Noir. Academy now recruiting |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:49:00 -
[147] - Quote
What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.
I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1139
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:49:00 -
[148] - Quote
I no idea rag-tag groups of 'nobodies' were a serious threat to suposed 'real' mercenary groups. Food for thought I guess.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
60
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:50:00 -
[149] - Quote
Alia Gon'die wrote:Basically what I get out of this thread is that there is a whiney babby whining that he isn't able to get free help anymore.
Edit: And also it's because the terrible goonies are crying and running to mommy because the whiney babby doesn't like them. Yeah, pretty much.
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:It doesn't have to be a Goon conspiracy to be a poor choice of options. Poor choice of options, poor choice of timing... CCP's had a fair bit of the first, and a LOT of the second, in the 8+ years I've been playing. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
618
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:51:00 -
[150] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.
What you fail to understand here is that THIS IS THE BLOODY IMPROVEMENT :). Sorry about the yelling but I do not think jade is listening to the 5 CSM reps or the other 100 people telling him that he is batshit crazy.
All of whom have a personal grudge against the person of Jade himself or are on the receiving end of an annoying dogpile.
Inferno 1.1 is NOT an improvement. It basically nullifies that actual wardec improvements made by Inferno. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
50
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:53:00 -
[151] - Quote
Allow aggressors AND defenders to hire allies. Both sides. It should cost for both sides, but not fixed costs, and it shouldn't matter how many wars you have running.
Keep the sand in the sandbox, and don't impose artificial restrictions.
Costs should scale depending on relative strengths. If you have a weak aggressor (low total-SP) declaring on a strong target (high total-SP), there should only be the minimal base cost. If the weak aggressor then adds strong allies, such that the total-SP balance is now on the aggressor side, the costs should dramatically rise.
Costs to add allies for the weaker side should always be less than costs to add allies for the stronger side, including at the tipping point of going weaker -> stronger. Remember, you're bribing/paying off Concord, and possibly the empires, with these payments, not any other player organization. Wardecs are meaningless and unnecessary in Nullsec/W-space.
Wardecs already last one week. Allies should last until the end of the wardec period, with an option to renew assistance if the war continues another week.
A special note about groups who are participating in multiple wars. When paying for allies, the total SP of all Aggressors is taken into account and compared against the total SP of all groups for whom you are Aggressors. A small corp might be the Target of the Goons, but themselves might also be griefing a mission-running corp. If they add allies, those allies will be defenders against Goons, but Aggressors against that mission-running corp.
This may be complicated for a human to try to figure out, but it's easy for a computer (when programmed correctly). All the warring corps need to know is the potential cost of adding a particular ally. If this is implemented on SiSi and actually given time to mature (unlike some other things lately), it can become a robust, easy-to-use, and very fair system for all.
Until you actually balance wars, it will always favour one side or the other. That's the very purpose of "balance", to minimize all bias. It's not a simple "flip a switch and turn on all happy-fun land".
|
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
234
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:54:00 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.
Doesn't this change just benefit experienced and larger merc corps, while discouraging the creation of new or smaller merc corps? Seems to me that no one would bother hiring any of the smaller merc corps, even if they were to offer their services at a discount, (or even for free), due to the fast escalating cost of adding allies.
There is also an assumption on your part that all high sec corps have a "ton of cash" to throw at either hiring "elite people" or "getting a lot of allies in". I don't think this assumption is correct, esp. with regards to noob corps. In the original thread regarding the Inferno wardec changes, one of the arguments supporting the defense of smaller/poorer noob corps against grief decs was the ability to bring in as many free allies as they could find. Now, what are they supposed to do? Camp in station, or just quit playing?
Finally, I seem to recall that one of the original selling points of the ally system was supposed to be getting more high sec dwellers involved in PVP. Now that this appears to be working in one notoriously particular case, why change this aspect, esp. with regards to mutual wardecs? The Goons aren't complaining, so why not actively encourage everyone in high-sec to jump on the dog pile and enjoy the fun? |
Challu
Wishful Desires Inc. Armada Assail
32
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:55:00 -
[153] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.
How noble of you... after spewing conspiratorial drivel for 8 pages. Not that you didn't have good company - it's almost like you and goons were made for each other. Ying and yang. Perhaps you should join TEST.
Anyway, as someone pointed out on EN24, the first 5 allies will cost a mere 120M. For 1B, you get 8! And it's less than 4B for 10 allies. Seriously, if you need more than 10 allies to stand against whoever wardecs you, you should really HTFU or change your lifestyle so you're not a squishy pinata for all and sundry.
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1139
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:56:00 -
[154] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.
I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides. Those empire dwellers were creating content. Granted in your eyes it was not. Just like in a Hulk pilots eyes a T1 fit suicide destroyer blowing up his ship is not content.
I guess it depends on ones point of view. Why do you feel Hulkaggedon or Burn Jita is content, but people who live in empire finding a way to fight those who shoved said content down their throats, not content??
To me, both qualify as content. Don't you agree?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:57:00 -
[155] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.
What you fail to understand here is that THIS IS THE BLOODY IMPROVEMENT :). Sorry about the yelling but I do not think jade is listening to the 5 CSM reps or the other 100 people telling him that he is batshit crazy. All of whom have a personal grudge against the person of Jade himself or are on the receiving end of an annoying dogpile. Inferno 1.1 is NOT an improvement. It basically nullifies that actual wardec improvements made by Inferno.
So please inform me. How is this not an improvement of a broken and unintended game mechanic. CCP flat out said they never intended defending other alliances as a "free wardec" against the attacker. As of current 82 alliances are getting 500mil each worth of free wardecs against goonswarm.
Just because the defending alliances are unable to recruit more then 100 people each is not the problem of the people who put the time and effort into forming a larger ingame alliance of like minded people. There is nothing stopping star fraction or others from growing just as large. Look at test alliance, look at -A-, these are examples of people who grew into larger alliances.
What this does is prevent choice from being taken away. The new system will force smaller alliances to CHOOSE wisely who they pickup to defend their space in empire, which they do not own, and live in stations, which they do not control, in order to fight back. |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
856
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:58:00 -
[156] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. Frankly I don't consider anything you've ever said worthy of note and I'm hardly likely to start now. But in the interests of accurate debate lets remind you of the context. Did you or did you not downvote this specific wardec patch at the Wardec meeting in Iceland 2 weeks ago?
Stop changing the subject, they are talking about you claiming that the CSM agrees with you about this change being because of goonswarm.
And then you are told to stop, so you change the subject? your a terrible poster. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
618
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:59:00 -
[157] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.
I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides.
I'm a fan of GoonSwarm, by the way you're 'generating content' makes you deserving of a dogpile more then anybody else in the game. There is nothing wrong with a NULL-SEC alliance getting wardecced by even a thousand different alliances.
In Dutch we have a saying 'High trees catch a lot of wind' and the Goons simply replaced BoB in that aspect. Do you REALLY want CCP to step in as they do now and make it harder for other to counter your shenanigans in empire?
Also Pandemic Legion hasn't been an actual merc for years, but I doubt any amount of money will buy them to go against the CFC. Besides, PL 'profession' (whatever that might be these days) isn't even remotely inconvenienced by the ability of defenders to dogpile a load of opportunists onto their attackers in empire hubs.
Any proper merc losing work to that (like PL? ROFL) , should have chosen a different line of work to begin with. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
856
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:59:00 -
[158] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
Good post. For the record I'm very happy to discuss improvements to this 1.1 mechanic - and if people can get away from the trolly-flaminess lets do it. "Why this change happened" is now really something for Eve History, In Character propaganda, and 3rd party sites - so lets move on to pure mechanics if its possible and see if there is some kind of resolution to this mess.
What you fail to understand here is that THIS IS THE BLOODY IMPROVEMENT :). Sorry about the yelling but I do not think jade is listening to the 5 CSM reps or the other 100 people telling him that he is batshit crazy. All of whom have a personal grudge against the person of Jade himself or are on the receiving end of an annoying dogpile. Inferno 1.1 is NOT an improvement. It basically nullifies that actual wardec improvements made by Inferno.
why? it's just a hardcap on how many allies you can have. If you want more defense make an allaince. Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 21:59:00 -
[159] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Wolodymyr wrote:If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.
I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck. Again, its important that you understand Goon motivation for the tactics they employ, often using silly mechanics to their extreme end in order to make a statement about the game design in the first place. However, there is a critical difference between using behavior as an *example* to the developers, and using oneGÇÖs insider influence to actually *control* the developers as so many have fearfully suggested.
I am quoting this part of the post. Because you are so very right about extreme. |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:00:00 -
[160] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.
I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides. Those empire dwellers were creating content. Granted in your eyes it was not. Just like in a Hulk pilots eyes a T1 fit suicide destroyer blowing up his ship is not content. I guess it depends on ones point of view. Why do you feel Hulkaggedon or Burn Jita is content, but people who live in empire finding a way to fight those who shoved said content down their throats, not content?? To me, both qualify as content. Don't you agree?
Jita burns and Hulkaggedon allows people to follow the rules of the game and use diplomacy to change it.
Content is point of view, my idea of content in eve is blowing up Super Capital class ships. Empire wars and fighting does not excite me in the slightest. But, 90 alliances being able to prevent me from entering highsec in order to move around because they are able to skirt past a designed wardec system due to a changing system is pretty terrible and I am glad they have fixed this. |
|
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2082
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:00:00 -
[161] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. Your voters must feel themselves so properly represented in your personage. Yes, Jade definitely is a dog with a bone when it comes to discussions, but he usually DOES have valid point or at the very least good arguments. You're the fool for simply waiving them away for not liking the person. But I'm guessing as a WH-dweller you don't give a flying **** about what happens in empire and wardecs. edit: how about the CSM stop bitching on Jade and start defending CCP's decision to toss the dogpile mechanic and remove allies from mutual wars. I would LOVE to see some good reasons justifying those decisions, because CCP isn't offering any. Both null and w-space pilots really don't care about high sec war decs. Alekseyev was the only member of CSM to actually be impacted by the 1.1 war dec changes, really. He's already made his opinion on the matter clear.
I'd point out I am also affected and have offered an opinion about how I would have preferred to have seen this changed. As has already been pointed out the CSM did offer alternatives but in the end we are advisory and not able to dictate to CCP how to change their game.
For me, its a disappointment, but I knew we could expect this to evolve somehow. I don't expect this is going to end up how it stays long term because I don't see it really addressing the problem with the current system. So all I think we can do is continue to offer feedback and suggestions for refinement. Then hope for the best.
Issler
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
618
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:02:00 -
[162] - Quote
MotherMoon wrote:
why? it's just a hardcap on how many allies you can have. If you want more defense make an allaince.
Sounds nice, but won't work very well, because the opportunistic 'allies' don't like that level of commitment (as would most mercs). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2015
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:02:00 -
[163] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: Stop telling fibs and get on the spin control over at Eve news 24 weaselor. Only one CSM member tried to contradict me and he wasn't ever at the meeting referenced.
I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere. Your voters must feel themselves so properly represented in your personage. Yes, Jade definitely is a dog with a bone when it comes to discussions, but he usually DOES have valid point or at the very least good arguments. You're the fool for simply waiving them away for not liking the person. But I'm guessing as a WH-dweller you don't give a flying **** about what happens in empire and wardecs. edit: how about the CSM stop bitching on Jade and start defending CCP's decision to toss the dogpile mechanic and remove allies from mutual wars. I would LOVE to see some good reasons justifying those decisions, because CCP isn't offering any.
I'm pretty sure most of my voters agree that Jade is being terrible.
If I didn't care about wardecs at all, I would have been talking to CCP for the last few months about them. How about you stop assuming what I do and start reading all the posts I made in the other hate filled rant thread, most of which are serious posts about the changes in question. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
263
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:02:00 -
[164] - Quote
not sure if i missed it
what about mutual wars ? will they be reset with 1.1 ? |
Dealth Striker
Striker Ltd
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:03:00 -
[165] - 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.
Why would they? If someone is giving you something that is better than what was currently being offerred - you would be an idiot to say anthing. Pretty naive. |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:03:00 -
[166] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.
I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides. I'm a fan of GoonSwarm, by the way you're 'generating content' makes you deserving of a dogpile more then anybody else in the game. There is nothing wrong with a NULL-SEC alliance getting wardecced by even a thousand different alliances. In Dutch we have a saying 'High trees catch a lot of wind' and the Goons simply replaced BoB in that aspect. Do you REALLY want CCP to step in as they do now and make it harder for other to counter your shenanigans in empire? Also Pandemic Legion hasn't been an actual merc for years, but I doubt any amount of money will buy them to go against the CFC. Besides, PL 'profession' (whatever that might be these days) isn't even remotely inconvenienced by the ability of defenders to dogpile a load of opportunists onto their attackers in empire hubs. Any proper merc losing work to that (like PL? ROFL) , should have chosen a different line of work to begin with.
During the old wardec system many alliances such as privateers, moar tears and others have been able to engage in active wars with multipul 3-4k member alliances ALONE at the same time. This system was intended to allow smaller groups who get wardec'd to recruit and hire groups such as these above to defend them from larger alliances with greater funds. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
622
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:06:00 -
[167] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:
Jita burns and Hulkaggedon allows people to follow the rules of the game and use diplomacy to change it.
Content is point of view, my idea of content in eve is blowing up Super Capital class ships. Empire wars and fighting does not excite me in the slightest. But, 90 alliances being able to prevent me from entering highsec in order to move around because they are able to skirt past a designed wardec system due to a changing system is pretty terrible and I am glad they have fixed this.
Spoken trolled like a true null-bear Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2488
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:07:00 -
[168] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.
I can't speak for all of the CSM members, but I personally don't see correcting Jade's wild allegations about Goonswarm collaboration with either the CSM or CCP as "beating them up", nor as "treating players with profound disrespect". If Jade is going to claim we all did this to protect large alliances, and we know that isn't true, we're going to speak up about it. We have a responsibility to be honest and as transparent with the public as possible, and than means calling tinfoil bullshit when we see it.
Furthermore, its not just "Aleks and CCP" that agree that the ally system needs more reform, all of us with the exception of Kelduum have clearly stated that we weren't happy with the outcome of this change either. The conversation should have been kept to just mechanical changes and their merits from the beginning, instead of dragging it into conspiracy land where we had an obligation to shut down the fearmongering.
As I've said before, I like Jade on a personal level, but I can't just sit around while someone (friend or foe alike) makes statements about the decision-making process that I know to be false without saying something. Believe me, I don't like this kind of combative vibe that has dominated the discussion from the beginning, but it could have been avoided by Jade simply listening to Goliath's statement at the beginning of the thread where he clearly stated that design decisions are not made with a particular player group in mind. That goes for the CSM as well as CCP.
I'll be happy to give Jade credit for the fact that he was once a CSM member, and have experience to draw from that made them overly cautious about trusting the motivation of the CSM or CCP. But a lot has changed over the many years of iterating upon the CSM as an entity, and the picture Jade paints of self-serving powerbloc representatives or alliance collusion with game developers is completely absent from what I've seen since taking office. If that level of corruption ever existed, its certainly not there any longer. Also, we don't even have official "votes" anymore, that's not really how the CSM works these days. It's a free-form discussion, everyone who chooses to participate has equal input, as the CSM is advisory panel not a group that can mandate proposals into a backlog or official work order for CCP. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:08:00 -
[169] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.
I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides. Those empire dwellers were creating content. Granted in your eyes it was not. Just like in a Hulk pilots eyes a T1 fit suicide destroyer blowing up his ship is not content. I guess it depends on ones point of view. Why do you feel Hulkaggedon or Burn Jita is content, but people who live in empire finding a way to fight those who shoved said content down their throats, not content?? To me, both qualify as content. Don't you agree? Jita burns and Hulkaggedon allows people to follow the rules of the game and use diplomacy to change it. Content is point of view, my idea of content in eve is blowing up Super Capital class ships. Empire wars and fighting does not excite me in the slightest. But, 90 alliances being able to prevent me from entering highsec in order to move around because they are able to skirt past a designed wardec system due to a changing system is pretty terrible and I am glad they have fixed this. Not to say that one should make this argument, but one could say that by funding the destruction of a certain ship class in high security space on a permanent basis has a very similar effect to others as what this wardec system has done to you in your description. Both were also within the rules of the system at the time they were done as well. |
None ofthe Above
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:10:00 -
[170] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.
I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed). CCP had to put a limiter on there or defenders would go for the quantity over quality approach which is the antithesis of what promotes the use of good merc groups. These changes are reasonable. However, it dos not address the root problem of a lack of real victory or defeat conditions in high sec wars. Okay, now a defender has a rational reason to hire a merc. What is the merc's stated goal to bring about favorable end to this war for the defender? The attacker can toss on a war, but for what purpose? It is still impossible to actually pin down an entity in high sec and demand their submission. War decs are broken at their core. Arguing these mechanics is pretty useless.
Fair enough on the victory conditions part. I've also lamented on the lack of those.
Do still think its worth discussing whether or not the geometrically increasing ally fees help or hurt the situation though.
IMHO, what killed the mercenary trade was the inability to limit the exposure of entering the fray as an Ally, coupled with the higher cost of wardecing the opponent for a fee (the traditional way). As other commenters have pointed out, if the Mercs can control their costs and be given a level playing fields with volunteers, they should be able to compete just fine on their merits.
Isn't that more the sandbox way?
Protectionists fees may or may not be needed in the long run, but it looks like something that should be avoided if at all possible.
|
|
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet Bruderschaft der Pilger
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:10:00 -
[171] - Quote
Quote:And Now For Something Completely DifferentGǪ
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).
Hum. Can anyone tell me how this new Hardener is affected by the Armor Compensation Skills? Is this counted as an active or a passive Hardener? I could not see any change at all while testing, but certainly it IS an armor hardener?!? |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1139
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:11:00 -
[172] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:
Jita burns and Hulkaggedon allows people to follow the rules of the game and use diplomacy to change it.
Content is point of view, my idea of content in eve is blowing up Super Capital class ships. Empire wars and fighting does not excite me in the slightest. But, 90 alliances being able to prevent me from entering highsec in order to move around because they are able to skirt past a designed wardec system due to a changing system is pretty terrible and I am glad they have fixed this.
Spoken trolled like a true null-bear
Pretty much.
If CCP, CSM or anyone for that matter thinks any amount of real discussion can happen on these forums is sadly mistaken.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Dabigredboat
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:13:00 -
[173] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Dabigredboat wrote:What I do like about this change is the ability to police something that would have otherwise been broken. The fact that 100 different alliances, each with any number of possible people COULD engage in a free wardec system was broken. Goons have 9k members because unlike most of empire we generate content and use organization levels that star fraction and other empire only alliances would dream of having.
I for one am happy that alliances that play like pandemic legion, that are the mercs of eve, will finally be able to earn their way into contracts and have to prove they are quality enough to be HIRED and not just given free rides. Those empire dwellers were creating content. Granted in your eyes it was not. Just like in a Hulk pilots eyes a T1 fit suicide destroyer blowing up his ship is not content. I guess it depends on ones point of view. Why do you feel Hulkaggedon or Burn Jita is content, but people who live in empire finding a way to fight those who shoved said content down their throats, not content?? To me, both qualify as content. Don't you agree? Jita burns and Hulkaggedon allows people to follow the rules of the game and use diplomacy to change it. Content is point of view, my idea of content in eve is blowing up Super Capital class ships. Empire wars and fighting does not excite me in the slightest. But, 90 alliances being able to prevent me from entering highsec in order to move around because they are able to skirt past a designed wardec system due to a changing system is pretty terrible and I am glad they have fixed this. Not to say that one should make this argument, but one could say that by funding the destruction of a certain ship class in high security space on a permanent basis has a very similar effect to others as what this wardec system has done to you in your description. Both were also within the rules of the system at the time they were done as well.
rules changed. jade should deal wit it! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
622
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:13:00 -
[174] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:[ During the old wardec system many alliances such as privateers, moar tears and others have been able to engage in active wars with multipul 3-4k member alliances ALONE at the same time. This system was intended to allow smaller groups who get wardec'd to recruit and hire groups such as these above to defend them from larger alliances with greater funds.
Actually, it was designed so attacking corporations risked becoming a 'free-for-all' in empire. And bigger attackers attract more opportunist. Especially the biggest attackers that make it their mission to **** off the rest off EVE, live safely in null, yet continue to meddle and peddle in empire.
Yes the old mechanics allowed for some of the hub raiders to wardec you, but the Inferno 1.1 would basically revert the game to pre-Inferno and make the whole ally mechanics useless. And it's not like you can hire enough mercs to take on the CFC on their home turf (and privateers are useless when it comes to anything other then distraction). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
1432
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:30:00 -
[175] - Quote
Off topic posts removed.
Please remember that this is a feedback thread about the Inferno 1.1 Changes To the War Dec System devblog, thank you. CCP Phantom - German Community Coordinator |
|
Orakkus
The Fancy Hats Corporation
39
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:41:00 -
[176] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: The "merc tailored" option Soundwave referenced that I pushed for was a cap on allies (2-3 would have been nice) but you would not have any cost for taking them. If you wanted to hire a merc, you could at whatever price you negotiated. If you wanted to bring friends in, you could do it for free. If you wanted to accept free help from strangers (or strangers that buy in to your war dec) you could do that too, or any combination of the three. I feel this would have restored the merc market (the real one, not the Inferno mechanic) close to where it was before Inferno while not further unleveling the playing field between the big guys and the little guys.
I'm sure most of the people opposed to this fees change would be equally opposed to any limiting factor on allies, and certainly would oppose a flat limit. My position is whatever limit to the allies system is put in place should achieve the goal of restoring the viability of the long established mercenary profession that was undermined when the system was launched. I didnt/dont expect the fee system and prices described in this blog to do that, and so would do more harm than good.
If the limit was place to say 5 or 6 allies, this is something that I think would work much better than the system that has been proposed by CCP. Let the defender's isk be use to directly pay for defense or for ship replacement of their own. Don't let it get eaten up by "fees". |
None ofthe Above
204
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:45:00 -
[177] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Since CCP is turning the ally rules on thier head so completely I'm sure that CCP is giving current mutual War DEC's the option of quitting the war with no costs on the date of the rule change?
From my read, when 1.1 comes out all allies in non-mutual wars get a two week timer, and then their war drops. After that they'd have to signed back up as allies (for two weeks) and any appropriate fees would be paid at that point.
For mutual wars the allies are excluded so probably would be dropped immediately. Although I would recommend if CCP is going to change the rules around mutual wars, they should probably give the option to drop the "mutual", possibly drop all mutual wars into a non-mutual state with the option to re-up.
|
Forest Hill
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 22:49:00 -
[178] - Quote
Any change to a game mechanic that actually gave some leverage to a defender had to be removed by CCP sooner or later. There would have been more sensible solutions, such as allowing allies to join for free until both sides match the name number of pilots for instance. It would have fitted the whole sandbox idea too.
But CCP isn't interested in providing a level playing field, it's all about catering to the griefer niche, pretty much. 'HTFU' surely does not apply to highsec wardec and merc corps..
Tbh I've been in Eve since 2008 but I'm getting pretty tired of this one sided business. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1139
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:08:00 -
[179] - Quote
I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?"
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
627
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:23:00 -
[180] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?"
CCP 'solution' to this is simply make it really expensive to get help. CCP Soundwave seriously overestimates the amount of actually useful mercs in this game. There are only like four or five merc corps worth the massive amounts of ISK you'll be forced to throw at them.
At least up til now defenders had the 'dogpile' option to make livng in empire very inconvenient for attackers (and the bigger, the more dogs for the pile) as a deterrent. But don't expect these opportunists to save your POS or help you wring a surrender out of a mutual war (oh, wait, can't do that anymore anyway). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Krios Ahzek
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
895
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:39:00 -
[181] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Problem is that the first time we ever got close to actually putting together a hisec coalition to do just that and you guys are backpeddling faster than a trick unicyclist from an escaped tiger.
Yo Jade
Stop
Lying
We've been saying that this is not the case for three threads now. We liked that fact that an infinite amount of people could be in a forever war with us.
-áThough All Men Do Despise Us |
Jinli mei
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
114
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:41:00 -
[182] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:corestwo wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24: Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.
If only there were an NPC buy order for pretentious words. Jade would have no problem paying those fees then. See this is the irony about the whole goonie thing. Whenever some poor miner pipes up on GD and goes "oh noes goons ganked my hulk lets all form up a giant alliance and go bash them!" the goons will generally say "come at me bro" and encourage the attack with bluster and bravado. Problem is that the first time we ever got close to actually putting together a hisec coalition to do just that and you guys are backpeddling faster than a trick unicyclist from an escaped tiger.
Goons live primarily in VFK in 0.0 -- You don't need a wardec -- You just need a large blue list and a strong leader to head into 0.0 to attack them at their homes. I get that you think this is a goon conspiracy thing, but you could at least realize that you don't need a wardec to attack goons in their own home (which essentially makes your argument meaningless).
The wardec wouldn't even properly organize a "hisec coalition" to do such a thing you are imaging about. Again, you need a support network and a blue list and, protip, those are cheaper and more effective than a wardec.
A wardec against an alliance like Goonswarm (or TEST or other 0.0 entities) is basically just to shoot their newbies and claim cultural victory. Most 0.0 logistics isn't done inside of a major alliance and handled by alts in corporations you've never heard of. |
None ofthe Above
204
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:44:00 -
[183] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?" CCP 'solution' to this is simply make it really expensive to get help. CCP Soundwave seriously overestimates the amount of actually useful mercs in this game. There are only like four or five merc corps worth the massive amounts of ISK you'll be forced to throw at them. At least up til now defenders had the 'dogpile' option to make livng in empire very inconvenient for attackers (and the bigger, the more dogs for the pile) as a deterrent. But don't expect these opportunists to save your POS or help you wring a surrender out of a mutual war (oh, wait, can't do that anymore anyway).
FYI - In a mutual war, I would think either both sides should be able to pull in allies, or neither. It doesn't really make sense to me to treat one side differently than the other in this case.
I am perfectly comfortable with this change as long as people currently in wars that they've declared mutual are given the opportunity to back that down to non-mutual. (Although, allowing both sides to recruit allies could be pretty glorious.)
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
629
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 23:52:00 -
[184] - Quote
Jinli mei wrote:Goons live primarily in VFK in 0.0 -- You don't need a wardec -- You just need a large blue list and a strong leader to head into 0.0 to attack them at their homes. I get that you think this is a goon conspiracy thing, but you could at least realize that you don't need a wardec to attack goons in their own home (which essentially makes your argument meaningless).
The wardec wouldn't even properly organize a "hisec coalition" to do such a thing you are imaging about. Again, you need a support network and a blue list and, protip, those are cheaper and more effective than a wardec.
A wardec against an alliance like Goonswarm (or TEST or other 0.0 entities) is basically just to shoot their newbies and claim cultural victory. Most 0.0 logistics isn't done inside of a major alliance and handled by alts in corporations you've never heard of.
Probably true, but there is too much Goon and TEST support for removal of the dogpile mechanics for null-sec alliances that shouldn't care about empire war-decs and hub raiding opportunists.
Fact is that no matter how deeply invested an alliance is in null, they remain addicted to empire convenience. And they simply don't like it when the game interferes with that (or interferes with their ability to interfere in empire for that matter).
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Industrial Group T A B O O
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:00:00 -
[185] - Quote
Well while I was trying to be opmistic about the new dec system, it seemed that Goons, I mean CCP, sorry I'm starting to get the two confused have changed it back to the old. So I guess congrats to changing the wardec system to be fair and even. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
629
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:02:00 -
[186] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:I dont think these changes are going to make hiring mercs a big thing. What killed the merc trade is players who actually enjoy PvP and don't view it as a job. They just want targets to have fun. They see fun, not $$$. Now structure grinding, there is a job for you. That is when players will think, "Who do we hire to do this crap?" CCP 'solution' to this is simply make it really expensive to get help. CCP Soundwave seriously overestimates the amount of actually useful mercs in this game. There are only like four or five merc corps worth the massive amounts of ISK you'll be forced to throw at them. At least up til now defenders had the 'dogpile' option to make livng in empire very inconvenient for attackers (and the bigger, the more dogs for the pile) as a deterrent. But don't expect these opportunists to save your POS or help you wring a surrender out of a mutual war (oh, wait, can't do that anymore anyway). FYI - In a mutual war, I would think either both sides should be able to pull in allies, or neither. It doesn't really make sense to me to treat one side differently than the other in this case. I am perfectly comfortable with this change as long as people currently in wars that they've declared mutual are given the opportunity to back that down to non-mutual. (Although, allowing both sides to recruit allies could be pretty glorious.)
Making a war mutual shouldn't be about a 'fair fight' (as in both sides can get allies or neither can), but about providing actual consequences for the attacking corporation for war-dec aggression, making them choose their targets more wisely instead of war-deccing willy-nilly or unwilling to deal with the risk of having to surrender yourself if the defender brings unexpected friends.
That is simply the best balance to the massive advantages that comes with attacker's initiative.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Jinli mei
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
114
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:05:00 -
[187] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Jinli mei wrote:Goons live primarily in VFK in 0.0 -- You don't need a wardec -- You just need a large blue list and a strong leader to head into 0.0 to attack them at their homes. I get that you think this is a goon conspiracy thing, but you could at least realize that you don't need a wardec to attack goons in their own home (which essentially makes your argument meaningless).
The wardec wouldn't even properly organize a "hisec coalition" to do such a thing you are imaging about. Again, you need a support network and a blue list and, protip, those are cheaper and more effective than a wardec.
A wardec against an alliance like Goonswarm (or TEST or other 0.0 entities) is basically just to shoot their newbies and claim cultural victory. Most 0.0 logistics isn't done inside of a major alliance and handled by alts in corporations you've never heard of. Probably true, but there is too much Goon and TEST support for removal of the dogpile mechanics for null-sec alliances that shouldn't care about empire war-decs and hub raiding opportunists. Fact is that no matter how deeply invested an alliance is in null, they remain addicted to empire convenience. And they simply don't like it when the game interferes with that (or interferes with their ability to interfere in empire for that matter).
TEST/Goons/etc. only wardec hisec people because it pisses them off. If you noticed, Goons/TEST get by just fine suicide ganking people and don't need a wardec to accomplish ruining your day in hisec.
I see you also glanced over the part where I mentioned they already have been bypassing wardecs for years now by using alt-corps not in an alliance. As in, nothing has changed in the last 2-3 years that puts an alliances highsec logistics at risk. Not right now, not after this change, not before this change, not before inferno, not ever. |
None ofthe Above
204
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:16:00 -
[188] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote: Making a war mutual shouldn't be about a 'fair fight' (as in both sides can get allies or neither can), but about providing actual consequences for the attacking corporation for war-dec aggression, making them choose their targets more wisely instead of war-deccing willy-nilly or unwilling to deal with the risk of having to surrender yourself if the defender brings unexpected friends.
That is simply the best balance to the massive advantages that comes with attacker's initiative.
Making the war mutual is essentially, "screw you I am declaring war back on you".
The difference in the rules is that its a free wardec, in response to the original attackers wardec, and it takes away the aggressor's one advantage, the option to stop the war.
So at that point they are both aggressors.
I do see and understand your counter-arguments, but I can't agree that it's good balance or game mechanics. I don't think the intent is to discourage wars that much. It doesn't seem to preserve what is EVE, just my take on it.
|
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:21:00 -
[189] - 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. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1229
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:22:00 -
[190] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:I'd point out I am also affected and have offered an opinion about how I would have preferred to have seen this changed. As has already been pointed out the CSM did offer alternatives but in the end we are advisory and not able to dictate to CCP how to change their game.
For me, its a disappointment, but I knew we could expect this to evolve somehow. I don't expect this is going to end up how it stays long term because I don't see it really addressing the problem with the current system. So all I think we can do is continue to offer feedback and suggestions for refinement. Then hope for the best.
Issler The system is littlerally so broken it is unreal.
But seriously, these fixes seem to be going in the right direction. Non-mutual wars are still going to be pretty pointless though, some nominal fees just gives us more of an incentive to dec newbie corps that can't afford them.
(Assuming people don't start paying to join wars as an ally. Which, knowing us, would probably happen.)
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
|
Jonuts
The Arrow Project CORE.
187
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:32:00 -
[191] - Quote
So. CRAZY idea. Any chance you can add in a system for a single pilot to join in as a merc without joining an associated corp? Not everyone wants to corp hop to get into a war and help a buddy. To me, that would perhaps be the coolest feature ever. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
756
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:52:00 -
[192] - Quote
what eve needs is a skill which would allow to make your corp wallet negative. If you have enough friends you could now simulate greece with the ally system. a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1145
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 00:56:00 -
[193] - Quote
Jonuts wrote:So. CRAZY idea. Any chance you can add in a system for a single pilot to join in as a merc without joining an associated corp? Not everyone wants to corp hop to get into a war and help a buddy. To me, that would perhaps be the coolest feature ever.
If you are willing to forgo the alliance flag and view one as a means to do this, yes. I will be introducing such an alliance. Think of it like faction warfare. You don't really care much about the faction as a whole and just worry about how well your corp does.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Devore Sekk
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 01:49:00 -
[194] - Quote
Aleph Phi wrote: 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.
How is that different from the skill that reduces the Armor Repairer cycle? The rep one has the benefit of more healing at the cost of cap, the reactive hardener has the benefit of faster adaptation. There are _some_ differences I can see, the hardener, once adapted, doesn't normally need to change again, and there is no skill to make the hardener use less cap. I think either adding another skill to reduce cap use and/or changing the skill to also reduce cap use per cycle (so it's normalized over the same period of time with an unskilled hardener) would probably bring it back into balance. Skills are supposed to always be a benefit, and I think this one can use a tweak. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
241
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 01:59:00 -
[195] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:
Problem is that the first time we ever got close to actually putting together a hisec coalition to do just that and you guys are backpeddling faster than a trick unicyclist from an escaped tiger.
Yo Jade Stop Lying We've been saying that this is not the case for three threads now. We liked that fact that an infinite amount of people could be in a forever war with us.
lol a Goon telling someone else to stop lying? Raise your hands here if you actually believe any Goons! The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1229
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 02:02:00 -
[196] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:lol a Goon telling someone else to stop lying? Raise your hands here if you actually believe any Goons! Raise your hand if you're silly enough to believe goons, who have permanent griefer decs running anyway, really care about having a sea of targets in high sec.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3368
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 02:09:00 -
[197] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote: lol a Goon telling someone else to stop lying? Raise your hands here if you actually believe any Goons!
oh i guess you'll just have to believe every csm member and every ccp employee who commented on it |
Gevlin
Universal Might DSM FOUNDATION
153
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 02:23:00 -
[198] - Quote
what about the issue of Corps splitting from an alliance to try and escape the wardec, Does this now cost the Aggressor substantial amount of money? Since the Cap of 500mill for a wardec is now side stepped? What if 5 Corps leave..... Or is this working as intendened.
warming I am working from heirsay and have yet been able to log on to eve to actually try any of this stuff out... BLoody video card crapping out on me,,, no money... limited internet..... Grr.
Just thank goodness for passive training. Caldari Dread 5 here I come!! The Goons are Coming, The Goons are Coming Jita the April 28, Hulk a geddon April 29 for a month. The Best Tears are the Geifer's Tears. just hope the new crime watch system is in place by then.... oh the chaos will rain!!! |
Lykouleon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
478
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 02:38:00 -
[199] - Quote
Man that utility menu is a sexy little thing... Lykouleon > CYNO ME CLOSER SO I CAN HIT THEM WITH MY SWORD |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
243
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 02:53:00 -
[200] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:DarthNefarius wrote: lol a Goon telling someone else to stop lying? Raise your hands here if you actually believe any Goons!
oh i guess you'll just have to believe every csm member and every ccp employee who commented on it
In that case I'm waiting for Darius III's comment on it The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
189
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:00:00 -
[201] - Quote
I realize that 50B in losses that TEST/goons have in the highsec wars with SF/Honda aren't a big deal to them, but eventually the "idiot" members that keep losing their ships will start to get a bit annoyed, wouldn't they? Do they get a ship reimbursement for getting popped in high sec?
Regardless, it just seems we're heading for a giant merc corp that gets allied as everyone's free ally. Next of course, CCP will have to make another rule so that a merc corp can't be in more than one war at a time. Then someone will find another way to get around the system, and they'll have to make yet another rule ... It will be so structured with rules and conditions, they might as well go that route now, and just make a structured war with end conditions.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1230
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:10:00 -
[202] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:I realize that 50B in losses that TEST/goons have in the highsec wars with SF/Honda aren't a big deal to them, but eventually the "idiot" members that keep losing their ships will start to get a bit annoyed, wouldn't they? Do they get a ship reimbursement for getting popped in high sec?
Regardless, it just seems we're heading for a giant merc corp that gets allied as everyone's free ally. Next of course, CCP will have to make another rule so that a merc corp can't be in more than one war at a time. Then someone will find another way to get around the system, and they'll have to make yet another rule ... It will be so structured with rules and conditions, they might as well go that route now, and just make a structured war with end conditions.
50 / 9000 = 5.5m lost per player.
I don't think they're bothered, you make it sound like 50b has been lost solely by a few individuals. As for end conditions, how would you define them? I've gone to war (well, hounded specific alliances. I didn't declare war being in low/null) for reasons as trivial as an individual smack talking in local.
When you begin defining the purpose of war in Eve you begin limiting its purpose. Not that I'm against giving people reason to go to war, just don't force them into structured wars with objectives and end goals. Eve is supposed to be so much less... synthetic.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
79
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:14:00 -
[203] - Quote
Eve...New Eden..
a place of conflict a place of growth a place of wealth if you desire it a place to build A place to DESTROY
Eve under my impression as i joined the game was about many many things. And i feel no one has ever beaten the BEST scam that took place. BOB scamming the DEVs out of all the BPOs before they were seeded and the DEVs got caught red handed. Community cries out..Hilmar answers that cry that a player council will be formed to help keep things balanced. I thought it was a great move. Then the most recent event on the CSM seem to be more geared to personal agendas.
War. War is ugly! Warmongers come out of the wood work you never thought were there. time to get your big boy pants on.
I find your Support for certain scum in the game unsatisfactory. Soundwave you wanted war within eve seeing the ship wrecks and frozen corpses floating in space. you gave the defenders the chance and the first day GOONs wardec a small corp and they responded in kind making the war mutual and opening it up to allies to join in on the carnage. all these hulk/indy pilots getting ganked by the GOONs. And now the GOONs and pets ran crying to daddy and daddy Soundwave said "Do not worry son we will fix this for you". Sound Wave this is what the player base sees that do not have any desire to say anything in these forums and just unsub from the game.
I like the currrent Wardec system. yes it needed a little fixing like a fee for those joining into the war. You know the paper work Concord has to do; but to have it with a CAP is not right, and also the increased cost for each corp/alliance joining in. 80Mill would have been just fine.
But you already made your decision to give the bully's their bats and clubs back. Soundwave my opinion is mine take it leave it totally up to you how you want the game to grow or crumble. I think you need to take a step back and look at this again but i get the feeling you bias on this issue or I could be totally wrong.
Many folks are so tired of seeing what goes on is the benefit for 1 group. They feel slighted in what has happened and even more now. you gave us the means we took them and ran in a direction you did not expect. Never expect what direction a player will run with it you will never see it coming.
BRING US Crime Watch! LEAVE warded system alone or just make it 80mill per charge Eve is about who you know! |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1230
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:28:00 -
[204] - Quote
Ziranda Hakuli wrote:Eve...New Eden..
a place of conflict a place of growth a place of wealth if you desire it a place to build A place to DESTROY
Eve under my impression as i joined the game was about many many things. And i feel no one has ever beaten the BEST scam that took place. BOB scamming the DEVs out of all the BPOs before they were seeded and the DEVs got caught red handed. Community cries out..Hilmar answers that cry that a player council will be formed to help keep things balanced. I thought it was a great move. Then the most recent event on the CSM seem to be more geared to personal agendas.
War. War is ugly! Warmongers come out of the wood work you never thought were there. time to get your big boy pants on.
I find your Support for certain scum in the game unsatisfactory. Soundwave you wanted war within eve seeing the ship wrecks and frozen corpses floating in space. you gave the defenders the chance and the first day GOONs wardec a small corp and they responded in kind making the war mutual and opening it up to allies to join in on the carnage. all these hulk/indy pilots getting ganked by the GOONs. And now the GOONs and pets ran crying to daddy and daddy Soundwave said "Do not worry son we will fix this for you". Sound Wave this is what the player base sees that do not have any desire to say anything in these forums and just unsub from the game.
I like the currrent Wardec system. yes it needed a little fixing like a fee for those joining into the war. You know the paper work Concord has to do; but to have it with a CAP is not right, and also the increased cost for each corp/alliance joining in. 80Mill would have been just fine.
But you already made your decision to give the bully's their bats and clubs back. Soundwave my opinion is mine take it leave it totally up to you how you want the game to grow or crumble. I think you need to take a step back and look at this again but i get the feeling you bias on this issue or I could be totally wrong.
Many folks are so tired of seeing what goes on is the benefit for 1 group. They feel slighted in what has happened and even more now. you gave us the means we took them and ran in a direction you did not expect. Never expect what direction a player will run with it you will never see it coming.
BRING US Crime Watch! LEAVE warded system alone or just make it 80mill per charge Eve is about who you know! "You do not agree with me, therefore you are bias.".
Odd, coming from a person who consistently posts only in support of high sec/mining/risk free care bearing. Ironically goons, and most of those you denounce as biased, are some of the only people willing to nerf the areas of the game that benefit them.
It is hard to prove impartiality, but I've seen no evidence of it in your posts. I suggest you take a step back, calm down, and read through the issues again.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Ryan Startalker Zhang
Zervas Aeronautics WHY so Seri0Us
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:29:00 -
[205] - Quote
Quote: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).
So it's five seconds or 5.9 seconds (approximately 6 seconds) for each cycle with lvl5 skill. Umm... |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 03:51:00 -
[206] - Quote
Ryan Startalker Zhang wrote:Quote: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). So it's five seconds or 5.9 seconds (approximately 6 seconds) for each cycle with lvl5 skill. Umm... Should be 5 seconds I believe, not 5.9 as at lvl 5 it's a 50% reduction in cycle time from 10 seconds. |
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
79
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 04:22:00 -
[207] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Ziranda Hakuli wrote:Eve...New Eden..
a place of conflict a place of growth a place of wealth if you desire it a place to build A place to DESTROY
Eve under my impression as i joined the game was about many many things. And i feel no one has ever beaten the BEST scam that took place. BOB scamming the DEVs out of all the BPOs before they were seeded and the DEVs got caught red handed. Community cries out..Hilmar answers that cry that a player council will be formed to help keep things balanced. I thought it was a great move. Then the most recent event on the CSM seem to be more geared to personal agendas.
War. War is ugly! Warmongers come out of the wood work you never thought were there. time to get your big boy pants on.
I find your Support for certain scum in the game unsatisfactory. Soundwave you wanted war within eve seeing the ship wrecks and frozen corpses floating in space. you gave the defenders the chance and the first day GOONs wardec a small corp and they responded in kind making the war mutual and opening it up to allies to join in on the carnage. all these hulk/indy pilots getting ganked by the GOONs. And now the GOONs and pets ran crying to daddy and daddy Soundwave said "Do not worry son we will fix this for you". Sound Wave this is what the player base sees that do not have any desire to say anything in these forums and just unsub from the game.
I like the currrent Wardec system. yes it needed a little fixing like a fee for those joining into the war. You know the paper work Concord has to do; but to have it with a CAP is not right, and also the increased cost for each corp/alliance joining in. 80Mill would have been just fine.
But you already made your decision to give the bully's their bats and clubs back. Soundwave my opinion is mine take it leave it totally up to you how you want the game to grow or crumble. I think you need to take a step back and look at this again but i get the feeling you bias on this issue or I could be totally wrong.
Many folks are so tired of seeing what goes on is the benefit for 1 group. They feel slighted in what has happened and even more now. you gave us the means we took them and ran in a direction you did not expect. Never expect what direction a player will run with it you will never see it coming.
BRING US Crime Watch! LEAVE warded system alone or just make it 80mill per charge Eve is about who you know! "You do not agree with me, therefore you are bias.". Odd, coming from a person who consistently posts only in support of high sec/mining/risk free care bearing. Ironically goons, and most of those you denounce as biased, are some of the only people willing to nerf the areas of the game that benefit them. It is hard to prove impartiality, but I've seen no evidence of it in your posts. I suggest you take a step back, calm down, and read through the issues again.
I will admit i am bias. but then again it is said and mostly true the many empire folks have no idea about the forums or wish to read about the goon pets talk about their mighty egos. Mainly they have no desire to deal with the drama. It is actions by many folks like This that many empire folks have issues with. color coded it, paint it, put it in a custom with some label but its all about ruining the game play of others no matter how they like to play.
As for the GOONs nerfing things that benefit them is a blatant lie. Titan Nerf was due to that they had few and or not willing to be used for anything. Carrier Nerf was semi soundbut mainly due to GOON's pets TEST have no skill in cap battles. oh and another good one is that GOONs have no skill in keeping a Off grid Booster hidden in fleet egagements so lets get rid of them. I can keep going on an on about GOONs and their pets.
War is ******* hell. friends and allies can make or break the war. To bad GOONs got bent over the barrel but they deserved it. they screwed over too many people. and from this action it shows that CCP wishes to protect the GOONs and their pets. I have seen this too many times. |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1230
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 04:34:00 -
[208] - Quote
Goons aren't getting "bent over a barrel", they're ******* loving it lol. Some idiot gave them a free forever war against most of high sec.
And if you bothered to read the forums you'd notice goons have been heavily behind the technetium nerf proposals, especially mittens, despite owning large amounts of tech and having set up OTEC. As for soundwave, seriously, its his job. If he is making game design decisions that happen to coincide with what most null sec players want, maybe its because we share ideologies on game design?
Just because people have opinions differing to your own, does not make them biased. If you want to call our ideas stupid, sure, go ahead and try if you can back it up with some sound arguments. But when, unlike you, we are calling for changes whether they benefit us or not it is incredibly hypocritical to call us biased.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
184
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 04:43:00 -
[209] - Quote
Why is the officially sanctioned CCP stance "Bigger is always better/will always benefit the most"?
You claim to run a sandbox, yet push mechanics that almost makes a certain behaviour/playstyle mandatory ..
Whatever happened to the burning desire among the Devs for small scale combat? Did perspective just change over time so that small scale for CCP now means 100+ a side?
Weak, so very weak.
PS: Since it is essentially free for the fat to declare on the anaemic and you tally members at time of declaration anyway, have your exorbitant ally fees but give the smaller party (99% of time will be defender) a discount based on size difference .. to the point where a conflict like that of SF vs Goon is "free" for SF until they have 20-25% of the pilots fighting for them as their attacker has. |
Darth Nenny
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 04:49:00 -
[210] - Quote
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.
2 weeks u might not even bother.... leave it as it is... GSF took a bite of hghsec and are now crying that there teeth are broken.... let them learn there lesson, i think this is a awesome system we have now....
IF, and its a bit IF, u decide 2 implement a cost as the defender to recruit a ally, then make it cheep like 25mill per alliance/corp. Mutual wars where the defender cant recruit help is BS, 100 man corp VS 9100 is BS give the little guys a chance at fighting back... RETHINK THIS PATCH! ITS TERRABAD!
O and did u pass this idea past the CSM? good idea if u didn't, this tread says u should leave it as it is.... the CSM might have said the same as this thread or made a compromise, like i suggested....
|
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
99
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:17:00 -
[211] - 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.................
If done correctly this could literally be a game changer. I wet myself a little at the possibility of an Archduke Franz Ferdinand moment in Eve! |
Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
426
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:39:00 -
[212] - Quote
I like these changes.
I have been saying it from the start something like this is required. As so many other mentioned the clown car aspect of the ally system was a bit ********.
There was no incentive to hire mercs when you can just enable... "I WANT HELP" and just about every corp could join for free. Those people know it was a ******** system that basically killed the Merc market. Not that you care probably as long as it did not kill you right? Great way to look at the bigger picture that is EVE.
People complain this put the advantage back to the aggressor...? No, this makes people now think before they take on Ally that is about as useful as your average trade hub camper. At least now it will be back to were corps look for people they no can defend them, go after your targets, and not just sit in Jita, Amarr, Rens, Hek, or Dix hoping to see a Flashing red target come past.
For the Past month people have been saying HTFU when it came to the Clown Car Ally system.... I suggest you also HTFU with these changes.
And if a 30 man corps decs you, what the problem of getting a 30 man ally in for free or 20 mil that, there are some that ask for no payment which means you only need to float the ally cost.
With these changes I surely have not lost hope with CCP. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African
*Hair done by LGÇÖOr+¬al, because I'm worth it. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
243
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 05:58:00 -
[213] - Quote
Since Jade's WAR is now MUTUAL he can always have his current dogpile 'Allies' join his Alliance quit but still retain the mutual Wardeck correct? -Now if one of his allies was an Alliance only one of the corps would have to join his alliance then quit then rejoin the old Alliance to continue the old 'DOGPILE' CORRECT?
The day that CCP 'fixes' stop sucking is the day they start fixing vaccum cleaners |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
639
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 06:10:00 -
[214] - Quote
DarthNefarius wrote:Since Jade's WAR is now MUTUAL he can always have his current dogpile 'Allies' join his Alliance quit but still retain the mutual Wardeck correct? -Now if one of his allies was an Alliance only one of the corps would have to join his alliance then quit then rejoin the old Alliance to continue the old 'DOGPILE' CORRECT?
In the same way that mercs never uses the ally system when the ally agreement locked them in indefinitely, these 'free allies' won't help if it means they'll have to join your alliances.
This is also because it makes it impossible to help out in several mutual wars. And it means only alliances but not corporations can get help with a mutual wardec.
There is just no good reason not to allow allies for a mutual wardec, since now it will simply obsolete the feature again by everyone except RvB, thus removing the BEST consequence mechanic from the Inferno changes (together with the dogpile mechanic).
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
639
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 06:17:00 -
[215] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:I like these changes.
There was no incentive to hire mercs when you can just enable... "I WANT HELP" and just about every corp could join for free. Those people know it was a ******** system that basically killed the Merc market. Not that you care probably as long as it did not kill you right? Great way to look at the bigger picture that is EVE.
You're absolutely wrong.
These 'free allies' are absolutely NO substitute for actual mercs. They basically provide only some distraction for the attacker at best and everyone knows it.
What killed the merc profession was not this, but the fact that they didn't want to be locked indefinitely into a ally agreement (fixed) and there not being an actual merc market for them to peddle their services. Allowing themselves to differentiate themselves from the many that will PvP for free (but will never save your POS, camp the enemy station, defend your mining op etc)
And many players also overestimate the number of actual effective mercs in this game. There are probably a hundred times more wars in empire then there are actual mercs to help them out with.
The dogpile ability of 'free allies' needs to stay to keep the deterrent for the many corporations that can't get a merc corp to help them out. Especially against null-entities like Goons and TEST that are simply too powerful for ANY current merc group to take on (and don't say PL, because they are hardly true mercs anymore, and the only one able to hire them to take on the CFC... is the CFC) Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
202
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:05:00 -
[216] - Quote
Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1146
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:25:00 -
[217] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP.
Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
IceGuerilla
Poseidon's Wingmen Perihelion Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:44:00 -
[218] - Quote
This might have been mentioned already, possibly in another thread, but: Under this plan, the Armor Phasing skill increases cap use due to the faster cycle. Please either add a skill to counteract this or modify the skill to reduce the cap requirement in line with the cycle time reduction. |
Peta Michalek
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 07:47:00 -
[219] - Quote
Armor Resistance Phasing = awesome, even if it increases cap drain. |
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
667
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:09:00 -
[220] - Quote
So I am in a big alliance I can bring all the friends I can carry.
But if I am smaller but ask people to ally with me in a war that costs money.
Thats stupid.
Not only stupid, I find it very unsandboxy. I thought that they wanted to build mechanics to that small alliances and corps have a future. And a future that doesn't involve getting absorbed by bigger entities.
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit.
And this. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
|
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:18:00 -
[221] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit.
Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving.
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1153
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:29:00 -
[222] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving.
Um no.
Pretty sure I have not seen anyone from CCP say it is an exploit. So it is totally legit until:
A) CCP makes an anouncement specifically saying that being an ally in a war dec is an exploit.
or
B) When 1.1 patch comes out and does not allow entities to save large alliances from... oh wait, sorry that is not the reason. *cough* To save the mercenary part of the.... lolololol... *cough* Sorry about that. I just don't see this change as what will bring back mercenary's as a real part of the game as long as there are players who view PvP as being fun and not a job.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:48:00 -
[223] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving. Um no. Pretty sure I have not seen anyone from CCP say it is an exploit. So it is totally legit until: A) CCP makes an anouncement specifically saying that being an ally in a war dec is an exploit. or B) When 1.1 patch comes out and does not allow entities to save large alliances from... oh wait, sorry that is not the reason. *cough* To save the mercenary part of the.... lolololol... *cough* Sorry about that. I just don't see this change as what will bring back mercenary's as a real part of the game as long as there are players who view PvP as being fun and not a job.
Uhm no ? No exploit ? That's why they fixing. So, stop crying me a river.
|
Mana Sanqua
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 08:58:00 -
[224] - Quote
I am more concerned with what is the point of these feed back threads. Check the first and you'll see people pointing out the exploits of the ally system. CCP refused to listen and didn't change a thing. After deployment we find that the Ally system is being exploited and CCP realise they need to fix. We now have a new feedback thread where the feedback is being ignored. Whilst I feel that Jade is being a bit antagonistic and hasn't helped things, I do feel that this development really is a major step back.
Q's: - Why does the ally cost need to scale so rapidly? Given the two week timer and renewal cost it's almost absurd. - Given the two week timer, why not allow allies a chance to drop from a mutual war at that point.
I agree the current system is terrible for merc's, but this response takes us straight back to pre inferno war decs. It actually makes the development done so far seem a bit pointless. |
Untouchable Heart
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:14:00 -
[225] - Quote
Mana Sanqua wrote:I am more concerned with what is the point of these feed back threads. Check the first and you'll see people pointing out the exploits of the ally system. CCP refused to listen and didn't change a thing. After deployment we find that the Ally system is being exploited and CCP realise they need to fix.
Yes that's why they need to change.
|
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
347
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:14:00 -
[226] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:eet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort: Quote: 1 ally = 0 Million 2 allies = 10 Million 3 allies = 30 Million 4 allies = 70 Million 5 allies = 150 Million 6 allies = 310 Million 7 allies = 630 Million 8 allies = 1 Billion 9 allies = 2 Billion 10 allies = 5 Billion 11 allies = 10 Billion 12 allies = 20 Billion 13 allies = 40 Billion 14 allies = 81 Billion 15 allies = 163 Billion 16 allies = 327 Billion 17 allies = 655 Billion 18 allies = 1 Trillion 19 allies = 2 Trillion 20 allies = 5 Trillion 21 allies = 10 Trillion 22 allies = 20 Trillion 23 allies = 41 Trillion 24 allies = 83 Trillion 25 allies = 167 Trillion 26 allies = 335 Trillion 27 allies = 671 Trillion 28 allies = 1 Quadrillion 29 allies = 2 Quadrillion 30 allies = 5 Quadrillion 31 allies = 10 Quadrillion 32 allies = 21 Quadrillion 33 allies = 42 Quadrillion 34 allies = 85 Quadrillion 35 allies = 171 Quadrillion 36 allies = 343 Quadrillion 37 allies = 687 Quadrillion 38 allies = 1 Quintillion 39 allies = 2 Quintillion 40 allies = 5 Quintillion 41 allies = 10 Quintillion 42 allies = 21 Quintillion 43 allies = 43 Quintillion 44 allies = 87 Quintillion 45 allies = 175 Quintillion 46 allies = 351 Quintillion 47 allies = 703 Quintillion 48 allies = 1 Sextillion 49 allies = 2 Sextillion 50 allies = 5 Sextillion
PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!
Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1038
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:43:00 -
[227] - Quote
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. This change has got nothing to do with the fact that the goons were involved
I'm pretty sure it was that the whole infinite allies thing broke the war dec system
Why are you people all so quick to jump to tinfoil hat conclusions all the time? My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2543
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:45:00 -
[228] - Quote
Lykouleon wrote:Man that utility menu is a sexy little thing...
agree @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
1038
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 09:49:00 -
[229] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving. Um no. Pretty sure I have not seen anyone from CCP say it is an exploit. So it is totally legit. True, wardecs for 0 isk were not an 'exploit' but they were definitely broken My homeboys tried to warn me But that butt you got makes me so horny |
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
203
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:05:00 -
[230] - Quote
Untouchable Heart wrote:Mana Sanqua wrote:I am more concerned with what is the point of these feed back threads. Check the first and you'll see people pointing out the exploits of the ally system. CCP refused to listen and didn't change a thing. After deployment we find that the Ally system is being exploited and CCP realise they need to fix. Yes that's why they need to change.
+1 |
|
Stridsflygplan
Ventures
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:28:00 -
[231] - Quote
Peta Michalek wrote:Armor Resistance Phasing = awesome, even if it increases cap drain.
The skill should also reduce cap cost of each cycle by the same amount. Just stupid to have a kinda of negative effect build into a skill since you cant unlearn them or disable them. |
Hermia
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:29:00 -
[232] - Quote
There should be consequences for indiscriminate Ganking in high-sec.
If a member of a corporation gets ganked in 0.5 or higher then CONCORD should award a free war declaration to that member's corporation. Then, it would be great if such a ticket could be used independently or used to join a coalition, like Jade Constantine's.
Hulkaggeden, while not breaking game mechanics is still a cynical play on the mechanics. I do laugh (with not against) when Mittani calls it "Emergent Gameplay" lol, but its not right they get off scott free, no consequences.
Something like this has a measure of control so it wouldn't upset the Mercenary market and frankly i want to see a JC Coalition. Thats emergent gameplay. |
Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels In Tea We Trust
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:30:00 -
[233] - Quote
At work so can't read the whole thread (so requisite apologies if I'm repeating someone) but given I find myself in the strange position of mostly agreeing with Jade about something, I thought I'd continue this world of bizarre strangeness by trying to write a cogent post on the ally changes.
First though:
To tinfoil hatters. Enough, please. Yes this change is massively advantageous to GF, but testing and change control cycles virtually guarantee that this change was planned and proposed long before GF declared war on SF, so unless you have evidence that they bypassed this, cut them some slack. To devs: T20. Yes it was years ago. No it's not fair that people still wonder about such things, but remember you're arguing with people on the internet. It makes us all crazy people.
Now the meat of the issue.
I'm not going to repost Jade's proposal. Go look it up for yourselves, I'm at work. What I did find interesting about the thread, though, was Soundwave's comment; namely that war should not necessarily be fair. In context, he very clearly meant that war should not be guaranteed to be fair to the defender, and everyone I think agrees with this. Left unsaid, however, is this. Why should war be fair to the attacker? An analogy was made in defence of the Soundwave's position in the same thread by comparing a fleet engagement in nullsec and posing the question as to whether or not a larger fleet should wait for its target to find allies before stomping on them. This analogy I think is perfect. Should, in contrast, a larger fleet be allowed to stop the smaller fleet from batphoning for support? Is it not part and parcel to engagements that the aggressor should always be allowed to bite off more than he can chew, and pay the price for it?
If we accept this design philosophy, then we can look again at how this applies to the war system. Consider a large alliance A that declares war against small entity B. In nullsec if B has friends C to Q, that give some numerical parity to the action, then A would pause before considering agression, because there would be actual consequences to the action. In hisec, however, the opposite is true. A can engage without any real risk of reprisal for the following reasons
- It is economically more difficult for B to declare war on A
- If A would beat B easily B would need C to Q and that would be even more economically non-viable
- If B engages C to Q in aid, A simply stops paying the war costs and withdraws from the conflict
- if B makes the war mutual, all other parties are locked out of the war, allowing A to kill B at its leisure
There is simply no mechanism by which alliance A can ever face serious consequences for biting off more than they can chew. Are we really saying that aggressors should get to dictate all the terms of a war? Surely when a CEO (or director) presses the button to release the hounds, then at the back of their mind, there should always lurk the possibility that their action could lead to the destruction of all they hold dear, and the mechanic as is manifestly fails to provide that.
On the other hand there is the issue that the mechanic IS targeting - namely that of "dogpiling" being a contributing factor in the lack of a vibrant mercenary marketplace. Honestly I'm not in a position to judge whether this is the case or not, but I can see how it could be. In any case I think we can agree that it's axiomatic that once a merc is in a contract they shouldn't be locked into it for all time because they fight voluntarily. In the spirit of the above, however, there should be some recognition of mercs that cry off their contracts before the term expires. That's a whole can of worms I'm not going into now though. In the meantime, however, Jade proposal does address a lot of these issues? Is it perfect? Far from it - the issue of how you deal with this situation for instance
Hypothetically wrote: Alliance A has 200 Dudes Alliance B has 100 Dudes A decs B B batphones C who has 3000 dudes
is poorly defined and needs consideration, but some mechanism whereby the defender CAN tip the odds in his favour by calling 2000 of his good friends (even if they're not his closest) I think is sorely needed.
Now I have to go fix an issue I introduced to UAT because I was thinking about this... |
|
CCP Spitfire
C C P C C P Alliance
1507
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:39:00 -
[234] - Quote
Offtopic posts removed. Please stay on the subject.
CCP Spitfire | Russian Community Coordinator @ccp_spitfire |
|
Chanina
ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Viking Empire
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 10:55:00 -
[235] - Quote
Mutual wars: Allowing no Allies at all is an interesting approach. Since both confirmed it as a War they want allies should cost a lot and should be limited. If you want an ally you can hire them to war dec your mutual enemy. It would be nice to see an option to "add an ally" by paying the same fee you would have to pay to wardec again. Limiting the number of allies to +1 over your enemy would create an interesting competition between mercs to hire. It would have meaning who you hire and also gives the other side the option to add 2 others once you have called in allies.
Wardec costs: Capping the cost at 500m is a good move. The limit is high enough to stop random wardecs but still allows to hire mercs by paying that bill. In order to address the balance between forces it might be possible to simply always count the higher one. If 20 declare war on 50 they pay the same as if 50 declare on 20. If a big alliance (like triple A) is wardecing a small entity they would have to pay the same needed to wardec them. The big powerblocs have the money to do that and there is no way you will stop things like that by raising the cost but it would be a bit more even.
What happens to the Money Concord gets? Obviously its a ISK sink. But would it help to get a part of this money into a fund for allies? If you get wardect by -A- there is 500m going to concord. 200m of those are available to hire mercs, payout or just covering the concord cost for adding allies. Even with an exponential raising formula 200m should be sufficient to hire some mercs to assist you without spending too much money on concord and more on the mercs directly.
New Skill "GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners" Shifting resistance faster is good but at the cost of doubled energy cost it looks very hard. If this was a Rig i could decide to put in or not like the ancillary nanobot accelerator (to reduce repper cycle time) it would be ok but a skill is either you have it or not. Some cap use reduction wouldn't hurt and make it worth while skilling it.
@Web-Dev-Team: please add an option to hide "tinfoil hat posts". would make this thread much more readable ;-) |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
157
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:23:00 -
[236] - Quote
If a war becomes mutual why not allow both parties to hire mercs?
Have you considered the terms of surrender changing when a war goes mutual, so the former agressor can end up with a penalty for deccing the wrong corp/alliance instead of just stopping the war getting at least 24 hours of break and putting an economic pressure on the defender if they want to counter-wardec? |
Dex Tera
New Eden Burns Moist.
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:28:00 -
[237] - Quote
Hermia wrote:There should be consequences for indiscriminate Ganking in high-sec.
If a member of a corporation gets ganked in 0.5 or higher then CONCORD should award a free war declaration to that member's corporation. Then, it would be great if such a ticket could be used independently or used to join a coalition, like Jade Constantine's.
Hulkaggeden, while not breaking game mechanics is still a cynical play on the mechanics. I do laugh (with not against) when Mittani calls it "Emergent Gameplay" lol, but its not right they get off scott free, no consequences.
Something like this has a measure of control so it wouldn't upset the Mercenary market and frankly i want to see a JC Coalition. Thats emergent gameplay.
clearly you are a moron! as there are consequences for "indiscriminate Ganking" in high-sec as you call it first you lose your ship to concord second you take a hit to your sec stat. obvious but hurt pod pilot is obviously but hurt lol stop being a whiney b***h and HTFU! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1334
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:40:00 -
[238] - Quote
"Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons" "Large alliance" "goons"
Is basically all you people are talking about.
Jade has effectively won his tinfoil hattery by having you all discuss the very rare cases where a massively larger force attacks a much smaller one. Before the Goons started miniluv, this basically happened once in the last 6 years.
The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Quite the opposite, if this remained unpatched it would mean that EVERYONE needs to suffer this ****** dogpile mechanic just so the Goons can have it happen to them, which is basically the desire of the incredibly biased posters in these threads.
The hilarious part in all this, is that highsec crying out in pain because Jade wants allies to be free would make them very happy.
Nearly every wardec is either relatively equal numbers attacking one another or a much much smaller "griefing" entity going for a larger target, both scenarios are better played out under these changes. - "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 |
Prime FLux
The Rising Stars The Volition Cult
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 11:49:00 -
[239] - Quote
Quote:And Now For Something Completely DifferentGǪ
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).
Tbh It would be better if the new skill change the amount of resist shifting per cycle then provide a shorter cycle.
Right now it shifts 1% per cycle => from 15% to 30% in 15 cycles (150 seconds)
Say that Armor Resistance phasing increas the shift % by say .25 % /cycle
with level 3 it would shift 1,75% per cycle => from 15% to 30% in 9 cycles (90 secounds) With level 5 it would shift 2,25% per cycle => from 15% to 30% in 7 cycles (70 secounds)
|
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:31:00 -
[240] - Quote
Darth Nenny wrote:GSF took a bite of hghsec and are now crying that there teeth are broken.... let them learn there lesson, i think this is a awesome system we have now.... Except for the tinfoil hat brigade, what evidence exists that GSF asked for this nerf? I thought that was pretty well debunked by now. |
|
Hermia
Aliastra Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:36:00 -
[241] - Quote
Dex Tera wrote:Hermia wrote:There should be consequences for indiscriminate Ganking in high-sec.
If a member of a corporation gets ganked in 0.5 or higher then CONCORD should award a free war declaration to that member's corporation. Then, it would be great if such a ticket could be used independently or used to join a coalition, like Jade Constantine's.
Hulkaggeden, while not breaking game mechanics is still a cynical play on the mechanics. I do laugh (with not against) when Mittani calls it "Emergent Gameplay" lol, but its not right they get off scott free, no consequences.
Something like this has a measure of control so it wouldn't upset the Mercenary market and frankly i want to see a JC Coalition. Thats emergent gameplay. clearly you are a moron! as there are consequences for "indiscriminate Ganking" in high-sec as you call it first you lose your ship to concord second you take a hit to your sec stat. obvious but hurt pod pilot is obviously but hurt lol stop being a whiney b***h and HTFU!
Hi!
Inferno is about making war easier. Currently if you get killed by an individual you get kill rights. Not only do i think this should be extended to the corporation (because its an act of war) but the rights should last it until one side surrenders.
Losing a throw-away ship and getting a sec-hits on a throw-away alt is meaningless. Goonswarm agree with me :) |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
185
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 12:41:00 -
[242] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:...The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.... If that is the intended mechanic then surely it would make more sense to limit a corps to having ally status in two or maybe three wars at any given time .. this new fiasco will require the newt (small being griefed by big being most common due to dec costs) to not only potentially having to pay mercs for help but also fork over cash to Concord for the privilege.
The entire system is so heavily biased towards bloat that it isn't even funny.
By the by, where is the effect of wardecs among null dwellers? .. sure there is no sec. hit and such out in the sticks, but declaring on an enemy is just plain old good form. Have it affect some small but essential part of a sov war for instance, such as halving anchor/online time of SBU (not that I condone the use of SBU/EHP Grind mechanics *spit*, used for example only).
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2201
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:24:00 -
[243] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly.
Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY.
NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair".
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
2201
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:28:00 -
[244] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:Kismeteer wrote:eet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort: Quote: 1 ally = 0 Million 2 allies = 10 Million 3 allies = 30 Million 4 allies = 70 Million 5 allies = 150 Million 6 allies = 310 Million 7 allies = 630 Million 8 allies = 1 Billion 9 allies = 2 Billion 10 allies = 5 Billion 11 allies = 10 Billion 12 allies = 20 Billion 13 allies = 40 Billion 14 allies = 81 Billion 15 allies = 163 Billion 16 allies = 327 Billion 17 allies = 655 Billion 18 allies = 1 Trillion 19 allies = 2 Trillion 20 allies = 5 Trillion 21 allies = 10 Trillion 22 allies = 20 Trillion 23 allies = 41 Trillion 24 allies = 83 Trillion 25 allies = 167 Trillion 26 allies = 335 Trillion 27 allies = 671 Trillion 28 allies = 1 Quadrillion 29 allies = 2 Quadrillion 30 allies = 5 Quadrillion 31 allies = 10 Quadrillion 32 allies = 21 Quadrillion 33 allies = 42 Quadrillion 34 allies = 85 Quadrillion 35 allies = 171 Quadrillion 36 allies = 343 Quadrillion 37 allies = 687 Quadrillion 38 allies = 1 Quintillion 39 allies = 2 Quintillion 40 allies = 5 Quintillion 41 allies = 10 Quintillion 42 allies = 21 Quintillion 43 allies = 43 Quintillion 44 allies = 87 Quintillion 45 allies = 175 Quintillion 46 allies = 351 Quintillion 47 allies = 703 Quintillion 48 allies = 1 Sextillion 49 allies = 2 Sextillion 50 allies = 5 Sextillion
PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though! Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P
We're currently up to 40 allies so rest assured we will.
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! |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1232
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:28:00 -
[245] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly. Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY. NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair". So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2201
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:31:00 -
[246] - Quote
Ribikoka wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Ribikoka wrote:Nice wardec exploit fixing, thanx CCP. Funny. Suicide ganking is classified as content and players rallying together to fight a common enemy is considered an exploit. Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving.
It really isn't an exploit. I recommend you check the Inferno devblog on war. CCP intended this mechanic - they have probably been surprised at the way its been used however, and weren't expecting people to band together so effectively to fight nullsec aggression with the system.
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
2201
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:34:00 -
[247] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly. Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY. NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair". So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new.
Well it would benefit me, it would benefit anyone else who gets wardecced by a large aggressor and wants to assemble a defensive coalition. It would benefit a small merc corp deccing an equal target that doesn't want to get dogpiled, it would benefit a medium corp fighting a medium corp to ensure the war doesn't get silly. It benefits pretty much everyone in eve.
(if you guys are to be believed - it even benefits goons who are now telling us they wanted more targets).
So I'm struggling to see ANYONE my proposal doesn't help.
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! |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1232
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:38:00 -
[248] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly. Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY. NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair". So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new. Well it would benefit me, it would benefit anyone else who gets wardecced by a large aggressor and wants to assemble a defensive coalition. It would benefit a small merc corp deccing an equal target that doesn't want to get dogpiled, it would benefit a medium corp fighting a medium corp to ensure the war doesn't get silly. It benefits pretty much everyone in eve. (if you guys are to be believed - it even benefits goons who are now telling us they wanted more targets). So I'm struggling to see ANYONE my proposal doesn't help. It doesn't help merc corps, when indie corps instead of limiting their options and choosing the "best" people for the job choose to just allow anyone into the war.
The whole idea of the merc marketplace is that a small, but rich, corp attacked by a big bunch of griefers can hire mercs as allies. Under your system you're just back to free allies and a free goon forever war.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
The D1ngo
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:43:00 -
[249] - 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.
Of course you are right. However, there is public opinion to consider. Every time I sign on to TS or Eve voice whether it be here or WoT, everyone is talking about how "the Goons have bent CCP".
In order to combat that erroneous perception why not leave wardecs that exist as mutual w/ allies before the patch as is and all subsequent decs follow the new rule?
I think that would make everyone happy.
|
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1232
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:48:00 -
[250] - Quote
The D1ngo wrote: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. Of course you are right. However, there is public opinion to consider. Every time I sign on to TS or Eve voice whether it be here or WoT, everyone is talking about how "the Goons have bent CCP". In order to combat that erroneous perception why not leave wardecs that exist as mutual w/ allies before the patch as is and all subsequent decs follow the new rule? I think that would make everyone happy. Because the game isn't just about goonswarm? And doing that would leave a lot of alliances and corporations who actually care in positions they don't want to be.
Plus, the same tinfoil hat idiots shouting "CCP corruption" would just start complaining that CCP left goons with their free forever war. A blatant sign of favouritism. Nevermind the inherent contradictions, or complete 180 on their opinions, these idiots are used to backpedaling and making stuff up.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
|
XXDadXX
Intersteller Minerals Wonder Kids
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 13:55:00 -
[251] - Quote
CCP Guard wrote:Inferno 1.1 is just around the corner bringing some new features and a bunch of iterations and defect fixes. To tell you what Team Superfriends have been doing with the War Dec System for 1.1, here's CCP SoniClover with a new blog. Oh, and in case you forget, we want your feedback as always
Having weathered a week long war dec from a small corp that sought ISK in exchange for leaving us alone to run high sec incursions I have to say I was surprised by the offers from large and small corps/alliances to help via the ally system. With the new changes I suspect there will be no market for small merc corps - who is going to pay to hire them when a larger group is happy to be your ally and camp trading systems?
The law of unintended consequences is alive and well here. I do not think these changes will be any different. Small defender corps will likely doc up or fade away (despite the marks on their resume). Small merc corps will not be sought because bigger is cheaper and maybe better.
I suspect your initial intent was not achieved the first time. I do not think you will achieve it with this update. |
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
670
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:08:00 -
[252] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
I don't see any problems with that honestly, its ~content~ generated by the players, blobbing is everywhere, in warfare, alliances, why not wardecs? Or are you saying it isn't ~fair~ that attacks bite off more then they can chew.
People want to fight a certain someone, they go ahead and join a war that is made public by someone who is looking for friends with big guns. It doesn't have to be free offcourse, but it certainly doesn't have to cost 5 trillion. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2206
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:10:00 -
[253] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly. Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY. NB. balanced does not neccessarily mean "fair". So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new. Well it would benefit me, it would benefit anyone else who gets wardecced by a large aggressor and wants to assemble a defensive coalition. It would benefit a small merc corp deccing an equal target that doesn't want to get dogpiled, it would benefit a medium corp fighting a medium corp to ensure the war doesn't get silly. It benefits pretty much everyone in eve. (if you guys are to be believed - it even benefits goons who are now telling us they wanted more targets). So I'm struggling to see ANYONE my proposal doesn't help. It doesn't help merc corps, when indie corps instead of limiting their options and choosing the "best" people for the job choose to just allow anyone into the war. The whole idea of the merc marketplace is that a small, but rich, corp attacked by a big bunch of griefers can hire mercs as allies. Under your system you're just back to free allies and a free goon forever war.
The example you mention will work exactly the same in my proposal as it will in the 1.1 change. The indy corp will have to pay for allies hence if you think it'll work in 1.1 , it'll work in my proposal just fine.
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! |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:30:00 -
[254] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:By the by, where is the effect of wardecs among null dwellers? .. sure there is no sec. hit and such out in the sticks, but declaring on an enemy is just plain old good form. Have it affect some small but essential part of a sov war for instance, such as halving anchor/online time of SBU (not that I condone the use of SBU/EHP Grind mechanics *spit*, used for example only). Y'know, that's actually not that bad an idea... A formal war dec logged in DED increases SBU effectiveness, cutting the sov grind to just a single reinforcement cycle on TCUs and IHUBs (but not outposts, which as much larger structures, can be thought of as having better self-repair mechanisms). |
None ofthe Above
207
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:44:00 -
[255] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:Kismeteer wrote:eet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort: Quote: 20 allies = 5 Trillion
PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though! Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P
Is that a cap at most a 5 trillion ISK fee (mind boggles)? Or a hard cap of 20 allies?
How can you justify such a high fee for adding an ally? I really find it incomprehensible and clearly punitive.
Like the original open ended wardec cost based on target size I really think this merc-protectionist fee needs to be capped at something semi-reasonable, if you are going to have it at all.
|
Selissa Shadoe
95
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:01:00 -
[256] - Quote
Issler Dainze wrote:So all I think we can do is continue to offer feedback and suggestions for refinement. Then hope for the best.
Issler
Just goes to show what little use the CSM actually is. So happy I voted. |
Mana Sanqua
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:05:00 -
[257] - Quote
Why does it have to scale at all is more the question. I think simply having the fee set at a sensible level (20 mill) would be a good incentive to stop ally spamming. We all want the mercs getting the contracts, not the current situation. CCP, can we ask why Allies aren't allow in the mutual war? Especially if given the two week abandon option. Personally I think this is a really good option. It also places a risk on defender and attacker for making mutual. If a defender has hundreds of allies, makes it mutual and then they all bail on them, I can see it being a great climb down for them and very embarrassing. Similarly, it's good to give the attacker a risk (but not a major one). |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1335
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:54:00 -
[258] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:...The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.... If that is the intended mechanic then surely it would make more sense to limit a corps to having ally status in two or maybe three wars at any given time .. this new fiasco will require the newt (small being griefed by big being most common due to dec costs) to not only potentially having to pay mercs for help but also fork over cash to Concord for the privilege. My favourite fix is simply to allow infinite and free allies, but allow an ally to only join one war.
This would mean mercs would need to WANT to work for the aggressed party, and that may largely come down to an ISK incentive to do so.
I'm sure plenty of people would still dogpile GSF, but I don't think that's a bad thing for any of the involved parties on either side. For the majority case, mercs will be picking their ally of the week based on what the ally has to offer, whether that's helping E-Uni pro-bono or fighting against the 0rphanage for 500mil a week is really up to them. - "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 |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Alliance Please Ignore
87
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:59:00 -
[259] - Quote
XXDadXX wrote:CCP Guard wrote:Inferno 1.1 is just around the corner bringing some new features and a bunch of iterations and defect fixes. To tell you what Team Superfriends have been doing with the War Dec System for 1.1, here's CCP SoniClover with a new blog. Oh, and in case you forget, we want your feedback as always Having weathered a week long war dec from a small corp that sought ISK in exchange for leaving us alone to run high sec incursions I have to say I was surprised by the offers from large and small corps/alliances to help via the ally system. With the new changes I suspect there will be no market for small merc corps - who is going to pay to hire them when a larger group is happy to be your ally and camp trading systems? The law of unintended consequences is alive and well here. I do not think these changes will be any different. Small defender corps will likely doc up or fade away (despite the marks on their resume). Small merc corps will not be sought because bigger is cheaper and maybe better. I suspect your initial intent was not achieved the first time. I do not think you will achieve it with this update.
This is actually something I'm a bit worried about. I know that Incursion fleets do not allow war dec'd people in them (and for good reason). I have the strong suspicion that people will start rolling alts, create a corp for their alt, and just war dec random incursion corps to blackmail them for isk to end the war. There is no recourse to this, so this could end incursion corps (the antithesis of CCP's push to get players out of the npc corps).
And, yes, I'm considering doing this. Let's be honest, it promises some rather impressive income for next to no effort (don't even have to train the alt, just keep it docked and continue cycling war decs). |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1335
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 15:59:00 -
[260] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.
Which of course the solution I proposed (and vast majority of non large bloc/non CSM) posters appear to agree with resolves perfectly. Make the defender pay for allies only when the total size of the defender + defending coalition is larger than the attacker. This means the wardec system is not balanced around the edge case you describe but is balanced for EVERYBODY. No it's not the solution you proposed, because in your very next sentence you went and spilled the same crap about equal numbers.
All your solution would mean is that every war (in the common case) would gravitate towards equal numbers all the time, which is completely silly and open to gaming in utterly broken ways.
EG:
50 industrialists want to get back at a 5man corp of people that have been greifing and so wardec them. Industrialists have about 5-10 PVP capable pilots so this seems like a good idea.
Next day, several corps containing 45 PVPers have dog-piled into the war for free and the industrialists go back to ship spinning because their plan has been defeated.
You can keep on with your idea all you want, but you will never get any traction on it because it's completely silly. The only situation in which it makes sense is if you need massive numbers of allies to make up a huge number differential, which is ALL about you and your OVER 9000 baddies and nothing to do with proper mechanics.
Everyone can see it, as well. - "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
1335
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:03:00 -
[261] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:It really isn't an exploit. I recommend you check the Inferno devblog on war. CCP intended this mechanic - they have probably been surprised at the way its been used however, and weren't expecting people to band together so effectively to fight nullsec aggression with the system.
Given you've all banded together so heroically, would you like to tell me:
- The fleet composition your allies fly together in. Do you FC the coalition forces? Who does? - Their timezones, how do you ensure full coverage? - Which voice comms you use? - When leading an attack on GSF do you feel your allies significantly help offset the weight of numbers? - The particular challenges in coordinating 40+ allies all with their own sub-command structures, because it's really a first.
Should make for an entertaining read.
By the way, how do you feel that 25 of your allies have spent much of their time fighting wars against my 15man corp of aggressors? Or the two wardecs on my alt corp? Or the other 30+ wars they signed up to? How are you splitting up your time?
Can you drop your pathetic rhetoric, please, and atleast admit none of your "allies" are doing anything other than using you as a meal ticket on a free wardec? - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2245
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:30:00 -
[262] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: My favourite fix is simply to allow infinite and free allies, but allow an ally to only join one war.
This would mean mercs would need to WANT to work for the aggressed party, and that may largely come down to an ISK incentive to do so.
I'm sure plenty of people would still dogpile GSF, but I don't think that's a bad thing for any of the involved parties on either side. For the majority case, mercs will be picking their ally of the week based on what the ally has to offer, whether that's helping E-Uni pro-bono or fighting against the 0rphanage for 500mil a week is really up to them.
See, thats not actually a bad idea.
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
2253
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:35:00 -
[263] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: No it's not the solution you proposed, because in your very next sentence you went and spilled the same crap about equal numbers.
All your solution would mean is that every war (in the common case) would gravitate towards equal numbers all the time, which is completely silly and open to gaming in utterly broken ways.
EG:
50 industrialists want to get back at a 5man corp of people that have been greifing and so wardec them. Industrialists have about 5-10 PVP capable pilots so this seems like a good idea.
Next day, several corps containing 45 PVPers have dog-piled into the war for free and the industrialists go back to ship spinning because their plan has been defeated.
That would cost the industrialists exactly the same amount in my proposed system as it would in the CCP 1.1 patch. I'm not realy seeing what your argument is.
Khanh'rhh wrote: You can keep on with your idea all you want, but you will never get any traction on it because it's completely silly. The only situation in which it makes sense is if you need massive numbers of allies to make up a huge number differential, which is ALL about you and your OVER 9000 baddies and nothing to do with proper mechanics.Everyone can see it, as well.
Well to the contrary really. The huge majority of unaffilitated posts on eve online forums, and in comments to the many blogs on the subject seem to believe the proposal I have made is more sensible than the change CCP have put onto SISI. Generally the only people on your side of the argument is well ... goons/test and various MAD CSM's who have pretty much said they are opposing my suggestion because they "hate jade/jade showed them no RESPECT" (and presumably they hope that the CFC throws them some sympathy votes next year so they can go back to the feeding trough)
I'm getting the strong impression you still don't really get what it is I am suggesting because all your examples of why "it won't work" end up with it working precisely the same as the 1.1 patch on SISI will.
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! |
Evil Incarn8
The Fiction Factory Blue Nation
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 16:37:00 -
[264] - Quote
Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?
Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).
|
Dax Malo
Elite Amarr Navy Academy
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:14:00 -
[265] - Quote
You all keep going around in circles, it makes me feel like we're never going to solve this issue of the wardec mechanic. Thing is? There never was an issue with the old wardec mechanic, all the defender had to do is either meet the terms of the aggressor, get friends to wardec the aggressor or hire mercs to wardec the aggressors.
But no, we get a system where the aggressor is hopelessly outnumbered and it's now in the favor of the defender, not equal ground as the purposed change would bring.
If this was supposed to encourage/feed the merc market, then it has diluted it. Mercs are being outclassed by free corps who swarm the aggressor of a war, and the service of the merc is no longer needed/wanted because the defender can get free mercs instead.
Make it where at least in order for allies to join a war, there has to at least be an ISK exchange between defender and ally. Because an ally was supposed to be in other words a mercenary, but now they're just Guns-For-Hire-Who-Work-For-Free, and have killed the mercenary market instead of making it grow.
Simply put, the system is broken, the old system was not. Implement a mercenary marketplace where mercs can be hired, remove the ally system as you can hire or work out a deal with the mercenaries and hire as many as you want.
TL;DR readers:
1) The new system sucks. 2) Make ally system disappear or make it where it's a 'Merc' system where there has to be an ISK exchange for the ally to join. 3) Merc marketplace, what happened to that? |
Zacharian99
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:32:00 -
[266] - Quote
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 [sic] with Goons getting a taste of their own medicine but this seems like it's gone the other way again.... Shame
^this. for years goons have done everything possible to - in their own words - ruin everyone else's game. now the largest, richest, most space-controlling, economy-rigging alliance in the game has bit off more than they can chew, and you come to their rescue? WTF?
WHY is everyone dogpiling onto a wardec a bad thing? you're saying it's ok to be the bully and attack, but not to gang up and say "fu" and defend?
yeah, i'm mad. |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 17:36:00 -
[267] - Quote
Still waiting for the proof that Goons went whining to CCP........ |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
56
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:00:00 -
[268] - Quote
Personally I hoped CCP was serious when introducing a war themed expansion and revamping the war declaration mechanic. For as long as I have been playing, the vast majority of high sec wars I have observed have resulted in one sided ganking, players in the decced corporation leaving, repeated extortion of ISK and, not uncommonly, players leaving the game altogether, disgusted. War declarations has mainly been a vehicle for griefing, usually employed by more experienced, well trained pilots against newer players and corporations into other aspects of the game than PvP.
A revamped system for high sec wars would ideally promote more fighting, better fights and that the majority of wars end up with kill reports posted on both sides, unlike today. That GÇô at least GÇô would have been my goals for such a revamp. Better fights would not only result in more explosions and thus a more healthy economy, but also increase the fun, decrease risk aversion, bond people together and increase the retainment rate of new players. Because wars against relatively new corporations is also a big part of the famous EVE learning cliff and part of the reason people opt out of EVE.
So why canGÇÖt they just HTFU like the rest of us? Well, truth to be told, attitudes changes and is also to some extent learned. I would have quit EVE back in 2008, if it wasnGÇÖt for the fact that I got involved in a corporation that was led by experienced veterans who not only thought me to fight but changed my attitudes as well. I bet those of us that have played a while share that experience. But many of those that no longer play never got the chance. They were never exposed to an environment that transformed their attitudes from mainstream games to one more appropriate for the unique EVE experience. Rather, many got griefed right out of the game before even getting a chance to adopt.
This is why the high sec war declaration mechanic is GÇô or rather should have been GÇô of such a crucial importance to EVE. However, I fear CCP Soundwave and most/all of the CSM are just too engrossed in the realities of cut throat nullsec conflict like the veteran players they are to really care all that much. Plainly spoken GÇô they have forgotten what it was like. One sided conflicts where you are outnumbered, outskilled, outgunned and outled isnGÇÖt fun and doesnGÇÖt result in bonding and a sense of achievement. ItGÇÖs an iron boot flattening the flower that is trying to break through to the surface. IGÇÖll let CCP Soundwave play the role of the Iron Boot here:
GǣWhy would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVEGǪ That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon.Gǥ
This is of course entirely true, but you donGÇÖt strap some MILES gear on a recruit and push him into a training area filled with veteran soldiers armed with machineguns and expect him to learn anything other from the experience than a sense of hopelessness. Sadly, this seems to be the attitude in CCPs game design department. Like veteran soldiers harassing the noobs instead of laying the foundation for future formidable fighting men and women. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1338
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 18:42:00 -
[269] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:I'm getting the strong impression you still don't really get what it is I am suggesting because all your examples of why "it won't work" end up with it working precisely the same as the 1.1 patch on SISI will.
Yes, I do. You know I understand it because I have explicitly said several times (and can link the posts) that the idea of a mechanic based on equalling the attacking and defending numbers is bad.
You, of course, just simply dodge this every time and then feed more rhetoric into the discussion about your "allies" and how you've all banded together to fight off a larger alliance. See also: you failing to provide any evidence for your claims against GSF despite being asked by them and neutrals.
Still waiting for you to explain how your alliance of allied corps is working based on #218 : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1475469#post1475469
The most hilarious thing here, is that in most conspiracy theories the facts are bent to fit the supposed and plausible motive, yet here there's neither motive, evidence of a motive or any sense it would benefit the people you're painting as the benefactors at all.
It's hilariously bad. - "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 |
Lee Thrace
nul-li-fy RED.OverLord
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:31:00 -
[270] - Quote
One sided conflicts where you are outnumbered, outskilled, outgunned and outled isnGÇÖt fun and doesnGÇÖt result in bonding and a sense of achievement. ItGÇÖs an iron boot flattening the flower that is trying to break through to the surface. IGÇÖll let CCP Soundwave play the role of the Iron Boot here:
GǣWhy would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVEGǪ That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon.Gǥ
This is of course entirely true, but you donGÇÖt strap some MILES gear on a recruit and push him into a training area filled with veteran soldiers armed with machineguns and expect him to learn anything other from the experience than a sense of hopelessness. Sadly, this seems to be the attitude in CCPs game design department. Like veteran soldiers harassing the noobs instead of laying the foundation for future formidable fighting men and women. ^ Best point yet made about CCP's attitude.
this link explains a bit:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-04-27-ccp-players-attempt-to-destroy-eve-online-economy-is-f-ing-brilliant
Honestly,
With the price of fuel where it is, the price of drakes where they are, Perma-Hulkageddon, OTEC, and etc... No moon nerf in site, the game itself is becoming boring. The Mittani's endgame is the end of our game. He's said so before.
The war dec nerf happened almost reflexively. The moon nerf is gonna happen on ?/?/?.
in 6 mos we'll know if the Mittani wins. He's not playing against you. He's playing against ccp. Even if they fix the damage he's about to do to the game, my faith in CCP will be permanently shaken.
All good things come to an end AND SAND WITHOUT A BOX IS JUST A PILE.
|
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2567
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:34:00 -
[271] - Quote
Evil Incarn8 wrote:Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?
Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).
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 Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
DazedOne
The Crabbit S O L A R I S
94
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:37:00 -
[272] - Quote
Dabigredboat wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: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.
I won't go that far man. The UI for our inventory is still a steaming pile of useless junk. Granted there is a patch coming soon for that abomination and from what I'm hearing it is still worthless after the new fixes. I will be checking them out shortly on SiSi, but in the meantime I don't believe anything from most of the CCP Employees as most of it is dribble to make us continue to pay for broken mechanics. Hell Soundwave himself said that that abomination would be patched every week on Tuesday until it was fixed and how long did that last????????????? Now we have to wait multiple weeks/months/years to get this horrible UI to work properly.
Now on to the war dec changes; yes the change was needed to the ally system. It was ridiculous if you got war dec'd to have unlimited allies come to the defenders aid for free. This completely broke the purpose of a lot of guys out there working as Mercs in this game. If people can't see that then they truly need to pull their heads out of their asses because they are stuck on stupid.
If you can not defend yourself then do something about it. Hmmmmmmm you could train up some combat skills to defend yourself, you could add a new security division to your corp (pvp) to fight and defend yourselves, you can hire Mercs to fight your battles for you. There are a lot of options you can do but bringing in unlimited allies waqs not only an oversight it outright broke war decs.
One last thing one of the earlier guys mentioned. A treaty system would be awesome and from Soundwaves lil snicker or whatever it was it sounds they may be looking into a system like that and if so that would be an incredible feature to implement. However!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get the inventory UI fixed before going into a ton of new code that will without a doubt have issues if thrown together like the horrible UI we are forced to deal with now. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2505
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 19:44:00 -
[273] - Quote
DazedOne wrote: One last thing one of the earlier guys mentioned. A treaty system would be awesome and from Soundwaves lil snicker or whatever it was it sounds they may be looking into a system like that and if so that would be an incredible feature to implement. However!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Get the inventory UI fixed before going into a ton of new code that will without a doubt have issues if thrown together like the horrible UI we are forced to deal with now.
CCP is indeed looking into a Treaty System, we had a great session dedicated to brainstorming ideas of the types of contracts that can built into it at our recent CSM summit. Seleene wrote a little teaser on his blog, you can get all the juicy details once the minutes are released in a few weeks!
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1338
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:05:00 -
[274] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Evil Incarn8 wrote:Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?
Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).
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
This is slightly unclear, can you not also put the date and/or the time left bracketed? Something like
Quote:Live/drops at 2012.06.15 20:12 (23hrs)
I'm not sure what it is about it that stops it being crystal clear, but it's confused me once (probably because the "next time the clock says xx:xx" isn't said anywhere) and I get asked it a lot by corpies. - "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 |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
61
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:19:00 -
[275] - Quote
Better yet, just give war declarations/endings a countdown timer and be done with it. The timer could even be client-side to reduce server load... send the actual time via server (which is what happens now), client does the math, and there you have it. |
Evil Incarn8
The Fiction Factory Blue Nation
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:29:00 -
[276] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Evil Incarn8 wrote:Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?
Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).
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
There was a column entitled "can fight" where each war recieved a yes/no responce.
Well wanting a date as well as a time ties into the can fight yes/no part, If i log in and its say 15:00 and the war states its ending at 14:30, can i assume that is in 23.5 hrs and not 0.5 hrs ago? The previous war screen kept wars on there after they had ended, so i suppose i am used to that, does the new system remove wars from the corp screen as soon as hostilities cease? if so i suppose a date is not required. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2567
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 20:47:00 -
[277] - Quote
Evil Incarn8 wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Evil Incarn8 wrote:Any chance of getting an indicator on the wars tab saying if a war is currently active? like the old one did?
Also when a war is retracted you put the time the war will end but not the day, this is not particularly helpful, could this be a full date and time label instead, (again like the old one had).
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 There was a column entitled "can fight" where each war recieved a yes/no responce. Well wanting a date as well as a time ties into the can fight yes/no part, If i log in and its say 15:00 and the war states its ending at 14:30, can i assume that is in 23.5 hrs and not 0.5 hrs ago? The previous war screen kept wars on there after they had ended, so i suppose i am used to that, does the new system remove wars from the corp screen as soon as hostilities cease? if so i suppose a date is not required.
ended wars are not in the wars list, just in the war history on your corporation/alliance info Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Liberty Trident L I B E R T Y
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:21:00 -
[278] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:[quote=Orakkus]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
Setting the 2 week limit on allies if a good idea and fixes the main whine from mercs. But the cost of such allies should be left for them to decide and not for CCP to set a new isk sink. Having CCP setting up costs for allies runs contrary to the initial arguments for the new war dec system and and runs contrary to the sandbox idea as well. |
Challu
Wishful Desires Inc. Armada Assail
34
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 21:44:00 -
[279] - Quote
Atum wrote:Still waiting for the proof that Goons went whining to CCP........
Why would Jade et. al. supply something like that? He has no reason to throw cold water on his conspiratorial fires now, does he? It would also be doubly embarrassing, since he starts something that exposes gamebreaking mechanics and then has to turn to the usual source of large-scale mayhem in the game - Goons - to bail him out. It's brilliant, in a twisted kind of way.
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus wrote:Setting the 2 week limit on allies if a good idea and fixes the main whine from mercs. But the cost of such allies should be left for them to decide and not for CCP to set a new isk sink. Having CCP setting up costs for allies runs contrary to the initial arguments for the new war dec system and and runs contrary to the sandbox idea as well.
True. In the presence of a merc marketplace, an ally system doesn't make a lot of sense anyway. If there is safety to be sought in numbers, Corps should just band together to form an alliance. If they want to fly solo, let them pay for the protection they are unable or unwilling to provide themselves.
Even the current ally system is like free lunch (5 allies for 120M - lawl..) compared to what was there before.
|
Traska Gannel
ROC Academy The ROC
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:14:00 -
[280] - Quote
Hi ... just some thoughts ...
1) What is the difference between a mercenary and an ally? There will always be folks interested in joining some wars just to get fights in empire without charging anything or having to make a war dec. They are free mercenaries essentially ... and there is no way to prevent this ... how can you encourage a "mercenary" marketplace when some folks will fight for free?
2) Why is it a broken mechanic to allow a defender to have an unlimited number of allies? Aggressors almost always choose situations in which they have a substantial advantage ... they don't usually war dec otherwise ... they then extort isk or attempt to engage the defender typically again only in situations with beneficial odds. It's the whole pvp game ... attempting maneuver your fleet/gang/ship into a situation against your opponent where you have a decided advantage before you engage. Almost every even fight I have seen has been an accident. By removing the ability to employ/acquire substantial help the situation has been returned to one in which the aggressor always has the advantage. Large groups can go back to griefing and extorting small ones in empire or elsewhere with impunity.
Keep in mind that there is no point to a war dec for combat anywhere except in empire. In null sec or 0.0 folks can engage as they like when they like. So when a large 0.0 alliance becomes the aggressor in a war dec the ONLY purpose is to allow it to engage targets in empire without concord intervention.
As far as I am concerned an aggressor gets what it deserves if a defender acquires enough allies to pose a threat to the aggressor.
What is the problem with this? Apparently there is no mechanism to end a war dec that is declared mutual without surrender terms being accepted (is that correct ... other than disbanding the aggressor alliance/corp and reforming that is ...) .If this is a problem ... perhaps this suggestion could be a solution ... if an aggressor gets in a situation where they feel they have gotten in over their heads then there should be a mechanism for a concord mediated surrender in which a surrender offer must be accepted within a specified period of time (perhaps 2 weeks?). This would allow lots of fighting to occur on a more even basis until the surrender by the aggressor is accepted.
If there is a concern that corporations can get free pvp just by being allies then there should be a 25 million isk fee - or perhaps half of a war dec cost ... to register an ally with concord. If you are hiring mercenaries then this fee would be part of the payment. However, it should not scale up as the number of allies increases ... that is just another broken mechanic trying to heavily favour the aggressor in such conflicts.
In conclusion ... I think there are issues with war decs that need to be addressed ... but I don't think the solution currently being implemented by CCP makes much sense except to swing the balance in war decs back to favouring large aggressive organizations.
|
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
192
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:29:00 -
[281] - Quote
Just to add to the conspiracy pile, do you really believe the former CSM chair would have to post in features and ideas about a change he'd like to make to something? I doubt everyone in CCP that he used to call/skype/tweet changed all their info so he couldn't still get a hold of them.
Now, who cares really if he did or didn't complain, they're going through with the changes regardless of motivation. It's a bit comical that Goons/TEST all mock the "allies" Jade has, while losing to them in overwhelming numbers. The "allies" are all dogpiling pubbies, that just happen to be kicking their ass all over high sec. But they didn't want those ships anyways, and only the dumb members of their alliances are getting caught.
Regardless, the changes being discussed have almost universally been posted as not going to work to bring about a real merc marketplace. It will force small merc corps to join large merc alliances to get any work. Instead of having 40 allies, Jade will have 3, with all of those 40 allies now in 3 large alliances instead. Next CCP will limit the amount of wars each merc can be in, so they'll have to adapt in yet another way ... and then CCP will make another change. It's just a slippery slope of even more regulations and rules governing the wars without an endgame in sight.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:52:00 -
[282] - Quote
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? |
Svalinn
SOMER Blink Cognitive Development
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:55:00 -
[283] - 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 |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
192
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 22:55:00 -
[284] - Quote
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.
|
Michael Harari
The Hatchery Team Liquid
165
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:00:00 -
[285] - Quote
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.
Eve isnt fair, but it should be impartial to both sides of an engagement. Not allowing any allies would be unfair, but also stupid.
Or how about reducing the wardec costs on entities with outgoing wardecs? |
Rythm
True Power Team Out of Sight.
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:03:00 -
[286] - Quote
So just to confirm. Old wardec shield == get a lot of alt corps to wardec you and pay the price of multiple wars. New dec shield == get a ton of people into 1 Alliance (e.g. Free Carebearing Confederation of Motsu or Goonswarm Federation).
|
Yonis Kador
Transstellar Alchemy
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 23:14:00 -
[287] - Quote
So many words.
Quick question:
Since fairness isn't a quantifiable concept as opposed to balance which is largely mathematical, aren't we really debating the balance of wardec costs between a large sov-holding entity and a patchwork, smaller one attempting to engage?
Ive seen it written that it "should be more expensive" to attack a larger corp, a statement which I'm still trying to reconcile. That can't be the only reason. Wouldn't smaller groups already incurr higher numbers of ship losses, etc. as a logistical consequence of invading an entrenched, superior foe? They should pay more for the privelege of being hopelessly outmatched?
I can get behind forever wars with unlimited allies as being out of balance (there's none) but these exponential ally costs do insulate larger entities from attack and will make it more difficult for smaller groups to finance their offensive goals.
How then is this balanced or good for player generated content?
The words, forever, unlimited, and exponential are not very conducive to balance.
Yonis Kador Hive Mining: A proposal by Yonis-áKador-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1427915&#post1427915
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2274
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:24:00 -
[288] - Quote
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"
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! |
Rythm
True Power Team Out of Sight.
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:36:00 -
[289] - Quote
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, but as opposed to privateers wardeccing every alliance in eve, here the nullsec entity had to be dumb enough to wardec someone in highsec themselves. Personally I see no reason for the nerf other than bland favoritism for the nyx pilots who gank JFs right on the bridges =)
|
Damion Rayne
Lorentz Technology Group
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:44:00 -
[290] - Quote
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.
I'm pretty sure you're just plain stupid. -DR Teamwork.. Maturity.. Tactics.. www.tacticalgamer.com |
|
Damion Rayne
Lorentz Technology Group
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 00:45:00 -
[291] - Quote
Wow, this whole forum is full of some pretty stupid people.... Teamwork.. Maturity.. Tactics.. www.tacticalgamer.com |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2279
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:33:00 -
[292] - Quote
Damion Rayne wrote:Wow, this whole forum is full of some pretty stupid people....
When it gets to the point that you think "everyone else" is dumb and stupid it might just be they are right and you are wrong.
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! |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 01:50:00 -
[293] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Damion Rayne wrote:Wow, this whole forum is full of some pretty stupid people.... When it gets to the point that you think "everyone else" is dumb and stupid it might just be they are right and you are wrong. I think the fact that a sizeable portion of the American public do not believe in evolution is a rather strong argument against public opinion being particularly reliable.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
John Dowland
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:33:00 -
[294] - Quote
I support the type of thinking that is shown in the change suggestions outlined here http://www.failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?6933-Destruction-Testing-the-New-Wardec-System-(Ganks-Included)&p=477568&viewfull=1#post477568
The main point for me is preserving access to allies for defenders declaring the war mutual.
I feel that the inferno changes were designed to create more risk for the aggressor and that mutual wars with allies are key to achieving that. |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:41:00 -
[295] - Quote
nm, f*cked up the postzilla |
Emily H
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:43:00 -
[296] - Quote
Quote:There is now a cap on how much the number of members in the defender corp/alliance can affect the war declaration cost. The cap is 500 million.
In an earlier devblog, it was stated that the wardec cost per corp/alliance is "(log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27, where N is the number of corp [or alliance] members". This simplifies to (ln(N))^2 * 575685*N^0.27.
Solving (ln(N))^2 * 575685*N^0.27 = 500000000 for N (using WolframAlpha, for instance), we get that 7210 is the minimum number of corp/alliance members required to reach the 500M wardec cost ceiling.
I wonder what particular alliance that change happens to benefit... |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:52:00 -
[297] - Quote
Oh, you edited.
Well, that was extremely amusing none the less.
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Emily H
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:56:00 -
[298] - Quote
Simi Kusoni wrote:Oh, you edited. Well, that was extremely amusing none the less.
The results were the other way around, "unfortunately". |
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
1234
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 05:57:00 -
[299] - Quote
Emily H wrote:Simi Kusoni wrote:Oh, you edited. Well, that was extremely amusing none the less. The results were the other way around, "unfortunately". Hehe, yeah, it did make me giggle when I read it though
"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"-á-á-MXZF |
Dr Shameless
Soldiers Of New Eve
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 06:09:00 -
[300] - Quote
I have a better solution. Remove the cost for allies but limit the amount of allowable allies, so that the total number players on defending side does not exceed the total number of players on the attacking side. This way big attackers will not have an easy turkeyshoot but smaller attackers will still have a chance. This is genius tbh.
|
|
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. |
|
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Transmission Lost
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:22:00 -
[331] - Quote
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. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:28:00 -
[332] - 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. |
Cassius Marcellus
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 17:52:00 -
[333] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: ... 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.
...
This was not good. This broke the wardec system completely.
...
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?
I hear what you are saying.
But the timing and technique of the fix were inauspicious -- the fix created fertile soil for rumors, soil that people like Jade are tilling to their own benefit. We gamers lurve conspiracy theories, and the whole theory that "GSF & TEST / PL / -A- / SLR.C / other huge alliances have CCP on speed dial" feeds right into that (don't ask me why -RZR- or FA don't inspire the same feel even though they're a third the size of GSF, and FA works closely with them, I don't know). The fix played into the hands of anyone looking for a reason to feel disenfranchised. And that fustrates me and makes me angry.
TBH, I do have a selfish agenda: I want to lengthen the cycle from nooblet to bittervet, and I want to lure a couple of dozen friends back to EVE. My mains' corps did flicker back to life earlier this year but now everyone's dropped away again and my friends' lists are ghost towns; my best friend just cancelled her account for the first time in her four or five years in EVE. They were pretty much mostly bittervets with past experience in NPC and sov null sec, but who no longer had time for null. None were affected by war decs lately. But all were affected by disillusionment with how they think CCP views players outside the big alliances (I even had one of them chatting my ear off last night about how he thought that CCP had forgotten that most players were outside the big alliances).
Anyhow, that's why I don't like the fix. It was done in a way that makes my favorite game and game company look bad.
|
Otin Bison
Bison Industrial Inc Thundering Herd
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:02:00 -
[334] - Quote
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 ... |
Atum
Eclipse Industrials STR8NGE BREW
62
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:08:00 -
[335] - Quote
Cassius Marcellus wrote:It was done in a way that makes my favorite game and game company look bad. QFT.... as I said earlier, CCP has a very bad habit of shooting themselves in various body parts. |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:11:00 -
[336] - 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. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1341
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:34:00 -
[337] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: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? Because it works against your rhetoric that forming a large coalition of allies is "emergent" and a "good thing in a sandbox" when the reality is your allies were allies with everyone, (including, ironically, working against some of the people who were also working for you) simply because they just want more red haulers and it has nothing to do with making it easier to create a large ally pool to take on all 50 highsec Goons.
Quote: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?
How is quoting the cost of wardecing just one, out of the thousands, of alliances in EvE relevant to how the system should work as a whole?
Counterpoint: it now costs a large alliance 10x more to declare war on another large alliance; how is this important?
Quote: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.)
Because we knew the system was broken from it's inception on Sisi, so we used the ally system to troll the guys who were deccing us, rather than bothering to go to highsec and fight them. Most people were (still are) abusing the **** out of the dogpiles to render any outgoing wardec meaningless.
Quote:In addition of course the change I have proposed Does nothing right at all since it is a proposal to make wardecs always "equal numbers vs equal numbers" which, as has been explained to you dozens of times over countless blogs and forum posts, is not what wardecs are about.
You can, if you want, equal the numbers (perhaps by getting some people who actually don't like GSF together and doing something about it), but allowing automatic and free dogpiling up-to equal numbers is STILL dogpiling and is still completely stupid.
Once more, I will agree that in the situation of Large alliance vs small entity your proposal isn't bad, but as has ALSO been said to you over and over the game shouldn't be balanced on "Jade's war" but on how war should look across all of New Eden, because your solution, not surprisingly, only benefits you.
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. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2302
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 18:46:00 -
[338] - Quote
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.
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 19:14:00 -
[339] - 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. |
None ofthe Above
218
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:52:00 -
[340] - Quote
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?
|
|
None ofthe Above
220
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 19:57:00 -
[341] - Quote
Agh, this being released on the 19th?
Wow talk about rushed. There was little time for discussion, let alone changes based on feedback, even when the changes were first announcemenced on SiSi forums.
Disappointing.
|
None ofthe Above
220
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:07:00 -
[342] - Quote
Thank you Khanh'rhh, this is one of the better contributions to this thread. Actual perspectives on other cases besides Goons V Jade.
It is a point that you (plural, your corp/alliance) could have declined the offers of Allies if you didn't want this result.
But looking at it I can see where a fee or limitations might be indicated here. I don't think 5 Trilliion ISK is called for, but perhaps something between 0 and the cost of the initial declaration of war.
20 mill per week per ally? (40 mill per two week contract?) Something on that order? Just to cut down on the "whelp, sure" factor. Possible scaling for the number of wars you are allied in?
I think the current planned changes are an overcompensation to put it mildly.
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. 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, regardless of the fact highsec being "too safe" is on the goons grudge list, and would happily have a permadec to everyone (literally, it's one of their griefing plans). 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?
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1342
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:08:00 -
[343] - 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.
That was answered by Soundwave, who pointed out that the logic of paying to shoot people means that the more you have the option to shoot, the more you need to pay. - "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
1342
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:17:00 -
[344] - 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're seeing it wrong, totally.
You annoy someone enough to come after you, so they come after you. You then push one button and let game mechanics do the rest for you. For all your repeated rhetoric about "turnabout" and "fighting back" all you really did was make it so that anyone wanting to wardec GSF could do so for free. That's literally all that happened here. As commentary on the mechanic as a whole it is a completely terrible example however you slice it.
If you want to perform a "turnabout" then you can STILL DO IT -- the difference is there's now more effort than simply pressing one buttan. You might, shock horror, have to put some effort into fighting a war against an entity 90 times your size and that's to be expected. The "how" of this has been said many times, you don't need 40 corps of less than 10 people to do it, so your strawman example is pointless.
Quote:I'm pretty convinced we were winning and would have ultimately won "There are no tanks in Baghdad, we destroyed them all landing, Iraq is not under invasion" - "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 |
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:21:00 -
[345] - 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. |
None ofthe Above
221
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 20:46:00 -
[346] - Quote
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.
|
Tithi
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:13:00 -
[347] - 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... |
None ofthe Above
221
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 21:32:00 -
[348] - Quote
Tithi wrote: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...
"Changing it", very true. Good thing you didn't use the word "fixing", because I don't think that many could agree with that. I certainly couldn't.
|
SyntaxPD
PowerDucks PowerDucks Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 22:01:00 -
[349] - Quote
Solution should not be done like this in devblog. Instead, it should leave a way to escape for agressor, with good cost.
Lets say it to be "surrender payout can not be higher than total cost of declaring war on every allied entity, who currently in mutual war with you" and "can not be lower than 1/2 of said sum". This usually called reparation, if you wish. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
497
|
Posted - 2012.06.15 23:45:00 -
[350] - Quote
Is Jade still melting down itt? Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
nomlet
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:04:00 -
[351] - Quote
It amuses me that the Goons/Test being universally hated is considered an exploit.
As for the allies isk sink.....
"Sorry Britain, In order for Russia to join you in your war, you must flush 10mil down the toilet. If you want to add the USA flush another 20 mil down the toilet...etc..."
It doesn't make any sense. |
Laashanna
University of Caille Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:05:00 -
[352] - Quote
A question shouldn't CCP allow corps out fo their current mutual wars? After they signed up for said wars under the old rules. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
666
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 01:24:00 -
[353] - Quote
nomlet wrote:It amuses me that the Goons/Test being universally hated is considered an exploit.
As for the allies isk sink.....
"Sorry Britain, In order for Russia to join you in your war, you must flush 10mil down the toilet. If you want to add the USA flush another 20 mil down the toilet...etc..."
It doesn't make any sense. Actually Britain declared war on Germany, so they wouldn't be able to bring in allies at all. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:08:00 -
[354] - Quote
CCP is trying to make being a Merc corp profitable again. These changes are completely backwards from the way it should be done. Basic economics states if you want prices to increase you either need lower the supply or increase the demand. Current war dec mechanics has infinite supply and infinite demand. The price is at zero. With inferno 1.1 the number of allies a corp can have will be limited, thus lowering demand, but the supply will remain infinite. Normally that situation would result in even lower prices. With the price already at zero, Mercs would have to start paying to be allies to get an even lower price. That is something I don't expect to happen outside of a few rare conditions.
To fix this, you need to limit the supply of merc corps available to be an ally. Instead of limiting the number of allies a corp can have, you need to limit the number of wars a Merc Corp can be an ally to and keep the number of allies a corp can bring into a war infinite. If a Merc corp only has 2 free slots with which to be an ally, they will be much more picky which wars they become a part of. Additional wars can be added at the same exponential rate that allies can be added to under inferno 1.1. The trade hub gankers would flock to war decs involving large alliances as that would offer the most targets. The smaller scale wars would be free to pick from the merc corps with slots available that offer services they need. The best Merc corps could have lots of contracts with the cost being passed on to the customers for the extra slots.
Under the Inferno 1.1 system, I fully expect one alliance to spring up with around 1,000 members that will be an ally to the vast majority of wars in Eve. The members of such an alliance will be mostly "Trade hub Gankers". That alliance will just want as many wars as possible to get as many targets as possible. When that happens, we will be in the same position we are in now. People will be scared to war dec anyone as it would mean having to take on the 1,000 member alliance and Mercs still won't be getting paid. I predict at that point, CCP will indeed place a limit on the number of wars an alliance can be an allied.
We will then have a limit on both sides of the ally system. That will further help the large null sec alliances avoid threats in high sec as there will then not be enough large "trade hub ganker " alliances to go around. The game would have come full circle and things will be almost exactly like the pre-Inferno war dec system. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2303
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 02:38:00 -
[355] - Quote
Molic Blackbird wrote:CCP is trying to make being a Merc corp profitable again. These changes are completely backwards from the way it should be done. Basic economics states if you want prices to increase you either need lower the supply or increase the demand. Current war dec mechanics has infinite supply and infinite demand. The price is at zero. With inferno 1.1 the number of allies a corp can have will be limited, thus lowering demand, but the supply will remain infinite. Normally that situation would result in even lower prices. With the price already at zero, Mercs would have to start paying to be allies to get an even lower price. That is something I don't expect to happen outside of a few rare conditions.
To fix this, you need to limit the supply of merc corps available to be an ally. Instead of limiting the number of allies a corp can have, you need to limit the number of wars a Merc Corp can be an ally to and keep the number of allies a corp can bring into a war infinite. If a Merc corp only has 2 free slots with which to be an ally, they will be much more picky which wars they become a part of. Additional wars can be added at the same exponential rate that allies can be added to under inferno 1.1. The trade hub gankers would flock to war decs involving large alliances as that would offer the most targets. The smaller scale wars would be free to pick from the merc corps with slots available that offer services they need. The best Merc corps could have lots of contracts with the cost being passed on to the customers for the extra slots.
Under the Inferno 1.1 system, I fully expect one alliance to spring up with around 1,000 members that will be an ally to the vast majority of wars in Eve. The members of such an alliance will be mostly "Trade hub Gankers". That alliance will just want as many wars as possible to get as many targets as possible. When that happens, we will be in the same position we are in now. People will be scared to war dec anyone as it would mean having to take on the 1,000 member alliance and Mercs still won't be getting paid. I predict at that point, CCP will indeed place a limit on the number of wars an alliance can be an allied.
We will then have a limit on both sides of the ally system. That will further help the large null sec alliances avoid threats in high sec as there will then not be enough large "trade hub ganker " alliances to go around. The game would have come full circle and things will be almost exactly like the pre-Inferno war dec system.
Pretty good analysis really.
And yes the real problem with CCP's thinking is that they need to intervene to make Merc Corps profitable in the current system without providing any kind of structure, win condition or overall sting to wardecs in general. Eve is pretty much a game of laissez faire capitalism - if mercs can't make a living selling their services right now its because they are not offering the services people will want to buy, and trying to make them more attractive by nerfing free ally decs is just a clumsy attempt at protectionist intervention that still won't work because nobody has a motive to pay merc corps to camp trade hubs (when there are so many corps who will like to do it for free).
I do tend to agree with you also - that when Soundwave sees this fix does nothing for the merc corps and players adapt again by forming 1000 man hisec trade hub ganker alliances to get around the ally nerf - he will be tended to kneejerk again and put more limtis on the system all the way back to pre-inferno wardecs.
All we might be left with longterm is the increased price to dec Goonswarm (500m rather than 50m) and that could well be the only lasting legacy of Inferno's wardec "boost."
End of the day I suspect this is all simply about the re-assertion that hisec is a place where nullsec aristocracy comes to hunt and grief rather than a place where people are given the chance to "fight back."
Eve is a hard game, buts its hardest of all if you aren't in a super alliance living off the milk and honey of endless moon goo and protected from the consequences of your actions in all ways possible.
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! |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
36
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 03:43:00 -
[356] - Quote
In my reading of these threads, I often saw the phrase "edge cases" in reference to large null sec alliances deccing a small high sec corp. It was stated that CCP can not design game mechanics around "edge cases". In my view, wars that require merc corps are edge cases. The vast majority of wars in Eve have no need for merc corps. The number of people affected at any one time by wars needing mercs has got to be a tiny percentage of the Eve playerbase. Yet, CCP is designing a whole system around an "edge case".
Could it be that Merc corps were being overpaid prior to Inferno? When ever a more efficient marketplace is created, prices naturally drop in price. By CCP trying to help Merc corps, they may have forever damaged them. CCP will undoubtedly create 'fix' after 'fix' to save the Merc profession. A profession that might not ever be saved. There are just too many people wanting to blow stuff up in high sec without Concord interference.
Something else I found very puzzling was the insistence that every member of a corp be counted when it came to the war dec fee because you are paying for lots of targets, yet the people making that claim would turn around and say you don't need thousands of people to fight a null sec alliance war dec because only a handful are ever in high sec. Which is it? Are there thousands of targets or a handful of targets?
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
126
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 04:53:00 -
[357] - Quote
A proper "mercenary marketplace" solves all of the issues. Anyone should be able to go to the mercenary window (call it whatever you like) and look up available mercenaries, negotiate on prices and durations, all under a contracted system. Contract is signed, isk changes hands, and war is automatically declared for the duration. Mercs that perform well in each and every one of their war decs will be in high demand and able to charge more for their pwnage services.
That's it. No limits on defenders/aggressors, no fancy "allies" system. Just a contract and a free market with a nice looking UI. The cost of the wardec itself (each merc corp is essentially declaring a new war whenever a contract is accepted) should be the base bidding price for hiring the mercs, that way they can cover the costs (unless they're willing to not only work for free, but take the hit to their own wallet to declare the war in the first place.) I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
SKARIII
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 05:34:00 -
[358] - Quote
There are a couple of fundamental changes required here:
1) Wardec cost should be based on the ratio difference between aggressor and defender's member counts. The bigger the difference the higher the cost on an exponential scale. I suggest 1M for a 1:1 ratio and 100bil for a 1:10 ratio 2) Adding allies will lessen the cost for the agressor as the ratios become smaller 3) wardec cost should be included in the war report 4) a penalty for defending corps/alliance if members leave during wardec+î specially when smaller corps dec bigger corps+î payed to the agressor
The method of forcing the defender to pay for allies is rubbish. If I ask a friendly aliance to come help for free that is my choice. If I want to pay mercs to come help, that is also my choice. If I want the entire eve to come help me free of charge, that is my choice. All I need to keep in mind is that this will lessen the cost of the agressor to the point where it will cost them virtually nothing to keep the wardec going ( provided the numbers match up).
So if you want targets+î you'll have plenty. The mercs can stop bitching and do a better sales job. This is after all a sandbox game, I want choices, not somethig CCP forces upon us |
Angel Lust
Vikinghall
58
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 09:27:00 -
[359] - Quote
Its funny to see how fast CCP came up with this wardec "fix"
Highsec carebears have to wait.... and wait... and wait.... and wait..... |
Trevor Nyx
HeaCo
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 09:32:00 -
[360] - Quote
Simply do not allow to join as an ally for a defender when he is at war with an other fellow ally! It would limit the network of wars that is seen now by the professional war dec corps/alliances like 0rphanage and their ex corps. Being allies here and at war there. It is kind a NBSI environment within the wars their are connected to. Leading to less nonsens ally -> more intentional ally > more skilled allies = mercs. |
|
Endeavour Starfleet
834
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 09:56:00 -
[361] - 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).
Tell me soundwave have you even remotely considered that small corps will be harmed by this change the most? Now the pointless wardecs will start again when the wardec corp knows that small corps feel the pain of isk to bring in more allies.
And even better if you really want to drive them out of EVE split your forces into multiple corps.
This change returns wardecs into the griefing camp. And thus utterly makes the work CCP did on them pointless. |
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 13:51:00 -
[362] - Quote
gah... deleted it cos only half got posted. I'm hating this forum system... |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
55
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:46:00 -
[363] - 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?
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.
We're talking about how it may benefits large alliances because thats where the potential issue is - the fact that the mechanic works for the vast majority of eve is good, so no complaints there. We're just discussing certain edge cases that could potentially allow abuse. The fact that we've already seen attempts to do this (and then a counter, and then CCP stepping in to remove the counter) suggests that hey, maybe the mechanic is something that needs a bit more fine tuning
All I see you doing is blithering on about how people are crying about goons, rather than anything constructive |
Niko Lorenzio
United Eve Directorate
72
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:51:00 -
[364] - Quote
The Bi-Weekly Attention Span Eh... I don't have a very clear opinion but seems wrong
Money For Nothing I can see how this can be a good change. As mentioned by Soundwave, 1000 people joining at no cost kinda defeats the whole purpose of the system.
You Can Bribe Me, But Not Too Much I like this change a lot. It only makes sense that if there's a clear cut minimum there should be a similar maximum, rather than one based on an algorithm.
Push the Button What about showing both kill/loss reports with color codes :(
About the Skill What the hell are you guys thinking? Is it your new company policy to stick one big thorn into every expansion? Allright, so the Reactive Armor Hardener is an "experimental" mod right? Which means, you don't know if you want to keep it in the game, and thus you released no blueprints for it. And yet, you're adding skills to be able to use it... A RANK 5!11!!1! Skill at that. Unless you plan on keeping that mod and thus introducing meta 0 variant, the relevant BPO and other meta versions of it, etc. etc. then it makes no sense to have to train any skills to use it. Am I missing something here?
Other than that, thanks for your time and continued hard work! |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
57
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 16:54:00 -
[365] - Quote
When you think about it, the 1.1 changes are laughably skewed in favour of the aggressor (compared to being stupidly skewed for the defender in 1.0, and stupidly skewed for the aggressor pre-inferno)
1) it costs 50m for a big alliance to dec a small corp, which is nothing. They also have a huge advantage in numbers. 2) it costs a small corp 500m to dec a big alliance. They're also at a huge disadvantage as far as numbers go. 3) the defending corp has to pay to get allies, with exponentially rising prices
1 + 3 = utterly ridiculous. A small corp decced by a huge alliance can't mount a defence by themselves, in order to try and get a reasonable counter/defence they have to pay a load of isk for allies.
If a small corp wants to dec a large alliance they have to pay a load of isk.
|
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
123
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 19:12:00 -
[366] - 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.
What precisely were you expecting from Goonwave http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
133
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 19:33:00 -
[367] - Quote
Niko Lorenzio wrote: About the Skill What the hell are you guys thinking? Is it your new company policy to stick one big thorn into every expansion? Allright, so the Reactive Armor Hardener is an "experimental" mod right? Which means, you don't know if you want to keep it in the game, and thus you released no blueprints for it. And yet, you're adding skills to be able to use it... A RANK 5!11!!1! Skill at that. Unless you plan on keeping that mod and thus introducing meta 0 variant, the relevant BPO and other meta versions of it, etc. etc. then it makes no sense to have to train any skills to use it. Am I missing something here?
Other than that, thanks for your time and continued hard work!
Deserves quoting. For emphasis. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
123
|
Posted - 2012.06.16 19:49:00 -
[368] - Quote
Actually I think this just gives a reason to stay in a NPC corp if youre gonna be in High sec. Till they make those deccable anyways http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
125
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 00:18:00 -
[369] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP? Self-appointed forums hallway monitor |
Antisocial Malkavian
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 02:03:00 -
[370] - Quote
Alia Gon'die wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP?
yea the changes in the blog. I like how ppl try to pretend they arent related lol
Bet you thought T20 was just another dev and those charges were trumped up too lol http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
|
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Liberty Trident L I B E R T Y
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 13:13:00 -
[371] - Quote
Alia Gon'die wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP?
As your leader would say: You're not a valid subscriber, you're a NPC alt. The opinions of NPC alts don't count for anything
So come back as your main, ask that again and maybe you'll get an answer. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
509
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 14:08:00 -
[372] - Quote
Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Alia Gon'die wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP? yea the changes in the blog. I like how ppl try to pretend they arent related lol Bet you thought T20 was just another dev and those charges were trumped up too lol
So you don't have any proof, or even evidence, aside from the voices in your head.
Thanks for clarifying. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Laashanna
University of Caille Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.17 18:03:00 -
[373] - Quote
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus wrote:Alia Gon'die wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP? As your leader would say: You're not a valid subscriber, you're a NPC alt. The opinions of NPC alts don't count for anything So come back as your main, ask that again and maybe you'll get an answer.
Or more likely someone will war dec your corp/alliance. Let's not forget this whole thing came about because Mittens decided to war dec his biggest critics. I'm not about to get my entire alliance war dec because I posted with my main. |
LeHarfang
Intersteller Masons Wonder Kids
28
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 01:30:00 -
[374] - Quote
Sorry CCP but that article is bullshit. I've read a lot of your aticles concerning new features and they were literral walls of texts and you said why you did this and that.
Here, all you say is "We did that." and nothing more. WHY WAS THE WAR DEC DE-BALANCED ?!?!
It was perfect before and it gave small alliances and high sec dwellers options to actually GROUP UP and defend themselves against null sec (and other big) alliances!! Now, you broke it again! I have only one thing to say: "Nice Job Breaking It, Hero". |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2335
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 02:08:00 -
[375] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Alia Gon'die wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP? yea the changes in the blog. I like how ppl try to pretend they arent related lol Bet you thought T20 was just another dev and those charges were trumped up too lol So you don't have any proof, or even evidence, aside from the voices in your head. Thanks for clarifying.
Its the very definition of a moot point at this stage. All eve players are forbidden to discuss this kind of thing by the new forum rules. Even if somebody did have some kind of evidence of something they would be extremely unwise to post it on the Eve Online forums and should instead simply contact Internal Affairs directly.
As such demanding people post "evidence" that would likely get them immediately forum-banned should probably be considered trolling itself.
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! |
Sizeof Void
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
244
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 04:58:00 -
[376] - Quote
A lot of interesting points of view in this thread, but, it does seem that CCP's goal is to bring some equivalent of the "excitement" of the null sec wars to high sec.
However, I tend to think that most of the players who currently perma-dwell in high sec aren't all that interested in that sort of "excitement" - which is why they choose to play in high sec in the first place. Miners and industrialists, for example, aren't really all that interested in being shot at, while going about their daily activities. Why do you think so much effort and argument is expended on trying to figure out ways to avoid or shed unwanted wardecs?
In this, there is some similarity to RL - during the '60s and '70s, many folks/corps preferred to live and work in the US rather than in Vietnam or Columbia. Certainly, no one has ever proposed bringing the war, or mercs, to the US, just to keep things exciting. If that were to ever happen, I suspect that many people, and corps, would pack up and leave.
So, I suppose the relative success of the new wardec mechanism - bringing war to those who don't want it - will ultimately be measured by how many players simply unsub when given the choice of "adapt or die" because "Eve is unfair".
In any case, I rather doubt that this sort of forced gameplay will do much to increase the number of new subs. The last couple of times I checked, "unfair" games, of any sort, do not tend to attract a lot of new players. |
Arvedian
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 05:49:00 -
[377] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: should instead simply contact Internal Affairs directly.
Any chance you could post your thoughts on the fact that Internal Affairs at CCP is ran by an ex-ceo of goons ? It's pretty outrageous isn't it ?
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
517
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 06:21:00 -
[378] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote:Alia Gon'die wrote:Antisocial Malkavian wrote: And come on Goons, dont pretend "come at me bro" anymore. You just run screaming to CCP when pp do.
Just like I ask everyone else who mentions this. Do you have any proof of Goons going crying to CCP? yea the changes in the blog. I like how ppl try to pretend they arent related lol Bet you thought T20 was just another dev and those charges were trumped up too lol So you don't have any proof, or even evidence, aside from the voices in your head. Thanks for clarifying. Its the very definition of a moot point at this stage. All eve players are forbidden to discuss this kind of thing by the new forum rules. Even if somebody did have some kind of evidence of something they would be extremely unwise to post it on the Eve Online forums and should instead simply contact Internal Affairs directly. As such demanding people post "evidence" that would likely get them immediately forum-banned should probably be considered trolling itself. Even if this was true, there are plenty of arenas beyond the control of CCP where a hypothetical smoking gun could be publicised. Hiding behind the 'I know the Real Secret Truth but I can't prove it because the Powers That Be are covering up the evidence and silencing the witnesses' defence is straight out of paranoid delusional conspiracy theories 101. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1346
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 08:39:00 -
[379] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Its the very definition of a moot point at this stage. All eve players are forbidden to discuss this kind of thing by the new forum rules. Even if somebody did have some kind of evidence of something they would be extremely unwise to post it on the Eve Online forums and should instead simply contact Internal Affairs directly.
As such demanding people post "evidence" that would likely get them immediately forum-banned should probably be considered trolling itself. It's a moot point, yet you're still writing walls of text on external media about it? O-KAY.
Besides, he asked for a single instance of a member of GSF complaining about the wardec changes, which so far no one has been able to turn up. There is lots of "this is actually very fun" though.
The entire thing has been completely manufactured in your head, and I laugh heartily that the forum rules got changed in the middle of this thread, that effectively make half your posts against the rules when it changes.
Fun times.
On topic, I would still suggest the solution to all this is to just leave the 1.0 pricing system in place but make it so any ally can only join one war under contract in a 2 week period.
The only "exploited" part of this would be that people who were previously paying money to wardec Goons and gank AFK haulers in Jita would be able to attach to the war and do so for free, which isn't game breaking. Everywhere else, someone is going to want to see some money to have the only war they can take part in be a "us vs. 30man corp" affair.
As for Jade, well, he might find he needs to do more to "rally a brave and united highsec to fight the Goons" than ride on the coattails of people who just want to sit in Jita and lock every undocking red, whilst claiming this is emergent gameplay. - "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 |
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 08:49:00 -
[380] - Quote
Arvedian wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: should instead simply contact Internal Affairs directly.
Any chance you could post your thoughts on the fact that Internal Affairs at CCP is ran by an ex-ceo of goons ? It's pretty outrageous isn't it ?
No. Tho I apreciate the hilarious potential to keep fueling the tinfoil asshatery... please don't.
On a more serious note, just fix it by making it a free for all. If war dec defenders being allowed to enlist unlimited corps and alliances for free was something unballenced, then work out a system where war dec agressors can do the same, or similar. After all, the purpose of this was to fuel conflict and war, wasn't it? Suddenly I'm seeing changes that will ultimately have the opposite effect.
When did CCP decided to start acting like the freaking UN? |
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
140
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 09:04:00 -
[381] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:On a more serious note, just fix it by making it a free for all. If war dec defenders being allowed to enlist unlimited corps and alliances for free was something unballanced, then work out a system where war dec agressors can do the same, or similar. After all, the purpose of this was to fuel conflict and war, wasn't it? Suddenly I'm seeing changes that will ultimately have the opposite effect.
When did CCP decided to start acting like the freaking UN?
Seriously. The allies system is such a joke. What next, arenas and battlegrounds? I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 12:11:00 -
[382] - Quote
After reading about this change I went back and looked at the original reasons to update the wardec system announced in the Fanfest talk.
My understanding from the talk is that CCP goals were to make wars have more meaning, have consequences, create a Merc market, and move away from a griefing mechanic.
The initial changes supported most of these goals, however there were some unforeseen problems and Merc market didn't florish because of the number of corps willing to fight for nothing.
I completely understand the need to makes changes, but the changes suggested do not support the initial goals, and return the wardec system to the original flawed mechanic. It's doesn't even support the goal of improving the Merc market which was the stated reason for the change in the first place.
Many people have suggested good alternative methods to achieve the original goals for improving the wardec system. My personal preference would be to remove the ally charges and limit the number corps a merc corp can ally with (thus limiting the supply of merc corps available for work).
Most worrying is that CCP seem to have not consulted with the CSM in any meaningful way. While I don't believe that there is any conspiracy, this change appears to be a knee-jerk reaction to the Goonswarm/Solar fleet scenario. Ironically, corps rallying to support Solar fleet is the sort of player driven content that CCP wish to generate.
I sincerely hope CCP will look again at this change.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2340
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 14:25:00 -
[383] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: It's a moot point, yet you're still writing walls of text on external media about it? O-KAY.
Well I stand by everything I said on the EveNews 24 article and if you take the time to read it yourself you'll see I go out of my way to provide a pretty balanced perspective on the issue. But that was kind of the thing your goon brethen in the post above yours was asking for really so :shrug:
Khanh'rhh wrote:The entire thing has been completely manufactured in your head, and I laugh heartily that the forum rules got changed in the middle of this thread, that effectively make half your posts against the rules when it changes.
And pretty much all the posts that goon senior management made accusing me of being an internet prostitute to try to smear my rep to win the argument also ... as you say "fun times."
Khanh'rhh wrote: On topic, I would still suggest the solution to all this is to just leave the 1.0 pricing system in place but make it so any ally can only join one war under contract in a 2 week period. The only "exploited" part of this would be that people who were previously paying money to wardec Goons and gank AFK haulers in Jita would be able to attach to the war and do so for free, which isn't game breaking. Everywhere else, someone is going to want to see some money to have the only war they can take part in be a "us vs. 30man corp" affair.
I would actually agree with that on the proviso that a mechanism is introduced to allow auto renewal of the 2 week contracts for both the defender and ally (if both have clicked auto renew yes - then the war continues without interruption - if either have clicked no, then the war ends for them at the 2 week mark) this would allow people who wanted to continue a war to keep going without a 24-48 hour break in the middle for no good purpose.
Khanh'rhh wrote:As for Jade, well, he might find he needs to do more to "rally a brave and united highsec to fight the Goons" than ride on the coattails of people who just want to sit in Jita and lock every undocking red, whilst claiming this is emergent gameplay.
Well you see a bit angry that the :effort: required on my half was not much more than the :effort: required on Mittani's behalf to click the button and write some angry tweets. But thats eve, if you want to truly break somebody you need to get out there and do it and I consider I was simply replying to the effort Mittani expended in kind.
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! |
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
136
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:21:00 -
[384] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Its the very definition of a moot point at this stage. All eve players are forbidden to discuss this kind of thing by the new forum rules. Even if somebody did have some kind of evidence of something they would be extremely unwise to post it on the Eve Online forums and should instead simply contact Internal Affairs directly.
As such demanding people post "evidence" that would likely get them immediately forum-banned should probably be considered trolling itself. It's a moot point, yet you're still writing walls of text on external media about it? O-KAY. Besides, he asked for a single instance of a member of GSF complaining about the wardec changes, which so far no one has been able to turn up. There is lots of "this is actually very fun" though. The entire thing has been completely manufactured in your head, and I laugh heartily that the forum rules got changed in the middle of this thread, that effectively make half your posts against the rules when it changes. Fun times. On topic, I would still suggest the solution to all this is to just leave the 1.0 pricing system in place but make it so any ally can only join one war under contract in a 2 week period. The only "exploited" part of this would be that people who were previously paying money to wardec Goons and gank AFK haulers in Jita would be able to attach to the war and do so for free, which isn't game breaking. Everywhere else, someone is going to want to see some money to have the only war they can take part in be a "us vs. 30man corp" affair. As for Jade, well, he might find he needs to do more to "rally a brave and united highsec to fight the Goons" than ride on the coattails of people who just want to sit in Jita and lock every undocking red, whilst claiming this is emergent gameplay.
Interestingly, they are able to pull a single post. Unfortunately for them, that single post was made by some nobody after the changes were announced. Self-appointed forums hallway monitor Ask me about-áLa Maison and what it means for you! http://bit.ly/LTW5gW |
Alia Gon'die
Aliastra Gallente Federation
139
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 16:24:00 -
[385] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: It's a moot point, yet you're still writing walls of text on external media about it? O-KAY.
Well I stand by everything I said on the EveNews 24 article and if you take the time to read it yourself you'll see I go out of my way to provide a pretty balanced perspective on the issue. But that was kind of the thing your goon brethen in the post above yours was asking for really so :shrug:
Why should anyone trust your "fair and balanced perspective" when it is fairly well known that you have a huge bias? Self-appointed forums hallway monitor Ask me about-áLa Maison and what it means for you! http://bit.ly/LTW5gW These wardec rules are not in place for our protection. They're in place for yours. |
Megnamon
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:39:00 -
[386] - Quote
Goon tears are sweet. I appreciate emergent game play that may be initiated by the sand-box bully, but scoff at the bully who after tables are turned runs to mommy and crys for a swing of the nerf bat... |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2341
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 17:57:00 -
[387] - Quote
Alia Gon'die wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: It's a moot point, yet you're still writing walls of text on external media about it? O-KAY.
Well I stand by everything I said on the EveNews 24 article and if you take the time to read it yourself you'll see I go out of my way to provide a pretty balanced perspective on the issue. But that was kind of the thing your goon brethen in the post above yours was asking for really so :shrug: Why should anyone trust your "fair and balanced perspective" when it is fairly well known that you have a huge bias?
Everyone in Eve has a huge bias. But some of us are capable of writing balanced posts regardless.
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! |
Zelda Wei
New Horizon Trade Exchange
164
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 18:54:00 -
[388] - Quote
Eve is a sand box, so do not smother emergent game play in infancy, give it chance to prosper.
The current situation has been a boon for Eve, it's got many interested again.
PCU falls in the summer, so ask why the usual trend has been bucked in the last couple of weeks?
People are getting to like hunting down Goons in high sec. |
Talsha Talamar
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 19:21:00 -
[389] - Quote
If i understand it correctly
Old Inferno: War Declaration on Large Alliances = Insanely Expensive War Declartaion on Small Corporations = Pocket Money Any War Declaration = Unlimited Risk of Escalation by Mutual War & Involvement of Allies
New Inferno: War Declaration on Large Alliances = Sanely Expensive War Declaration on Small Corporations = Pocket Money Any War Declaration = Limited Risk of Escalation by Mutual War & where the Inolvement of Allies is limited by the available Funds
In the "Old Inferno" scenario the risk of escalation worked as an deterrent against Unlimited Warfare by large Alliances, In the "New Inferno" scenario there is no real risk of esclation for the larger attacker anymore.
How is that balance ? |
Pron Fron
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 19:23:00 -
[390] - Quote
Dont know what else to say. The upcoming limitation on Allies is just pain disappointing and clearly puts the advantage back to the aggressor and large alliances, who already have a number and economic advantage. This was the ONLY advantage a smal corp would have - and now its gone, for no good reason.
CCP - I love you guys, but when it comes this war dec, i think it is time you hire a Military Advisor, just as you did for the economy. Could probably help with ship balancing as well.
I honestly dont know why getting this sortied is so difficult. Why cannot I leverage my political capitol and get all the friends I have involved in my cause - why place some arbitrary cost on it. WAR is it OWN COST, you keep saying you want people to PVP, but then this.
Ill give you a small anecdote currently going on. A small 10 man noob training corp steps on the toes of a Large 200 man alliance. Small corp excuses itself and offeres to bow out, but large corp, (admittedly bored) PROMISES to burn everything down and wardec the small corp indefinitely asking for a VERY large sum to end it. They deliberately go after the noobs.
Small corp begins to receive assistance. 5 man corp here, some 10 man there. Within 5 allies, we now have a force that makes the clearly griefing aggressor think twice about camping noobs. they start to back down.
No fee means I dont have to wait to find a better option and that I am not open to alt corp scams. (Yes, some guys use this system and them offer assistance with an alt corp). This could lead to even more bleeding of the receiver assistance or them filling the rans with people who do nothing. Yes we have a history, but lets face it, it has not been around long enough to give a good assessment and still has a long way to go in functionality and auditing.
If we had to pay an aggrigated fee for everyone who WANTED to help us for free or thier own fee, it would have been prohibitave to match the might of the 200 man alliance. Noobs were happy and did not leave the game.
The merc system is a beautiful thing - dont screw it up with this alliance fee. Let the market decide the cost of war, and let PVP corps get the money that would normally go to a NPC sink. If a smaller guy can out match a larger guy by adding 20 5 man corps - then why should he be penalized for that.
Adversely, why are you going to block out smaller corps. It is inevitable this only benefits larger merc corps ans people will be holding out for larger numbers with the limited space.
Some Ideas:
- Honestly I would even remove war costs, again, the price of war is its own thing. I have been a part of three real wars and we never had to pay anyone some 3rd party fee for the privilege. But if there is to be a fee, just make it the wardec. And even that should be more expensive for the LARGER corp/aggressor to simulate logistics cost and bribery considering they are a larger source of potential damage.
- Maybe instead of fees based on member count, could be of total player SP.
- Remove ally costs. Let the players determine fees.
- Assistance fees only kick in based on size of corp/alliance assisting NOT number of total corps.
- "Invite to war" option - Right click on cor/alliance and invite to war. Sometimes you find an enemy of your enemy on a kB, would be great to directly invite them as opposed to tell them, make them find it.
More to come, but kill the alliance fee as it is... its bad... just bad. If I find a bully on the field, and I recruit friends to kick his @SS, I dont need to pay the school $10 for the first friend, $20 for the second... etc.. |
|
Amarrius Ibn Pontificus
Liberty Trident L I B E R T Y
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 20:32:00 -
[391] - Quote
Alia Gon'die wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: It's a moot point, yet you're still writing walls of text on external media about it? O-KAY.
Well I stand by everything I said on the EveNews 24 article and if you take the time to read it yourself you'll see I go out of my way to provide a pretty balanced perspective on the issue. But that was kind of the thing your goon brethen in the post above yours was asking for really so :shrug: Why should anyone trust your "fair and balanced perspective" when it is fairly well known that you have a huge bias?
Why would anyone give a f**k what an NPC alt says? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2542
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 21:00:00 -
[392] - Quote
Pron Fron wrote: Small corp begins to receive assistance. 5 man corp here, some 10 man there. Within 5 allies, we now have a force that makes the clearly griefing aggressor think twice about camping noobs. they start to back down.
Why would any aggressor ever declare war against a completely unknown entity, especially one that lock them into permanent war and than balloon to infinite size?
You suggest CCP hire a military advisor, but a military advisor would never produce the "fair and balanced" set of mechanics many are striving here for. They would certainly know better than to declare war where an unlimited risk potential existed. They would understand that aggressor corps are only ever going to declare wars they think they can win.
Lastly, we can't just argue under the assumption that every wardec is a big bad griefer out to get noobs. Sure, it happens occasionally. And sure, we want to minimize this. But as I've said earlier, changing the entire set of mechanics to fit with this mentality must require that griefing be a persistent underlying motivation behind the majority of wardecs.
Regardless of whether any of us are happy with the 1.1 changes, the fact remains that CCP was aiming for a compromise in the final rules, a plan that would fit the *majority* of war decs - it isn't the hard cap requested by some, and it isn't the free-for-all advocated by those on the other end of the spectrum. It's something in between. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2354
|
Posted - 2012.06.18 22:32:00 -
[393] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Why would any aggressor ever declare war against a completely unknown entity, especially one that lock them into permanent war and than balloon to infinite size?
Well you are reading too much into the propaganda of one side I think Hans. Even in 1.0 nobody was "locked" forever - they could always have surrendered. I know its becoming customary for the CFC guys to rule out the option as "unthinkable" but it was still an option.
That said I think pretty much everyone (myself included) agreed that the permanent lock-in of allies was a mistake - and its a mistake that can easily be corrected by allowing 2 week contracts with option for autorenewal on both the defender and alliy sceens (both need to click yes for it to be auto renewed).
Beyond that nobody has really given a satisfactory answer as to why having allied contracts concord-fee-free (as long as the total size of the allied coalition does not exceed the attacking force) will not work.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: you suggest CCP hire a military advisor, but a military advisor would never produce the "fair and balanced" set of mechanics many are striving here for. They would certainly know better than to declare war where an unlimited risk potential existed. They would understand that aggressor corps are only ever going to declare wars they think they can win.
At the moment nobody can win a war in Eve Hans - thats the problem. Hence trying to balance things in favour of the attacker so they declare wars is just avoiding the bigger issue which is the need to produce a wardec system that has structure and objectives and a way to objectively measure winning and losing - right up to win bonus and loss penalty. Until this exists there will never be a purpose for mercenaries in random wardecs either. The hypothetical "military adviser" we're talking about would tell CCP there won't be any war if one side massively outnumbers the other - what will happen is an asymetric insurgency where the outnumbered side avoids the regular army and simply tries to gank loners. Well just like actually happened! What 1.1 is trying to achieve is to protect the regular army from the insurgency on the grounds that big should = win on most occassions. Its interfering with the integrity of the sandbox and meddling with emergent gameplay and thats why most eve players responding to these threads instinctively dislike what is being done.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Lastly, we can't just argue under the assumption that every wardec is a big bad griefer out to get noobs. Sure, it happens occasionally. And sure, we want to minimize this. But as I've said earlier, changing the entire set of mechanics to fit with this mentality must require that griefing be a persistent underlying motivation behind the majority of wardecs.
Well you'd have a point if there wasn't a perfectly good solution that works in all cases (both the edge case and the ordinary wardec) but there is - its been widely publicised and most players appear in favour of it.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Regardless of whether any of us are happy with the 1.1 changes, the fact remains that CCP was aiming for a compromise in the final rules, a plan that would fit the *majority* of war decs - it isn't the hard cap requested by some, and it isn't the free-for-all advocated by those on the other end of the spectrum. It's something in between.
Its a bad compromise then, the kind that pleases nobody. And the shame of it is that there is a perfectly good solution that would please pretty much everyone. In an ideal world the CSM would take up the voice of the common players on the forum and argue for this better solution.
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1348
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 01:00:00 -
[394] - Quote
Jade, I can't be ****** to reply properly anymore.
You're just flat out lying that your solution has any support at all. You claim there's no logical opposition, yet it has been posted probably near to 100 times, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again, and you just ignore it and leave the thread, to come back later when people are talking about something else and then claim there's no logical opposition and everyone likes it, only for it to be posted again.
So all this is now, is you trying to make out your solution is widely loved, despite no documentable support, nor any logic for it that isn't self serving, and basically just being a lying shitheel in countless threads all over the boards.
Your behaviour is abhorrent and everyone sees it for what it is. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2357
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 01:24:00 -
[395] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:block of text
Holy no line break wall of text batman!
Seriously I'm not going to read that unless you format it properly.
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! |
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 03:02:00 -
[396] - Quote
ROFL @ Khanh'rhh
My corpmates and I all agree, that though Jade Constantines solution could use a little tweaking, it is by far a better solution than what is about to be patched in by CCP. |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
143
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 03:08:00 -
[397] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:ROFL @ Khanh'rhh
My corpmates and I all agree, that though Jade Constantines solution could use a little tweaking, it is by far a better solution than what is about to be patched in by CCP.
Yep. Jade is actually making some sense here. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 03:15:00 -
[398] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:ROFL @ Khanh'rhh
My corpmates and I all agree, that though Jade Constantines solution could use a little tweaking, it is by far a better solution than what is about to be patched in by CCP. Yep. Jade is actually making some sense here.
Yeah, I'm not a Jade alt, but I am an alt of someone who knows better than to badmouth goonswarm using my main. Posting with my main would only get me griefdecced |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 03:41:00 -
[399] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:Mechael wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:ROFL @ Khanh'rhh
My corpmates and I all agree, that though Jade Constantines solution could use a little tweaking, it is by far a better solution than what is about to be patched in by CCP. Yep. Jade is actually making some sense here. Yeah, I'm not a Jade alt, but I am an alt of someone who knows better than to badmouth goonswarm using my main. Posting with my main would only get me griefdecced
lol Oh noez! Not griefdecced! Heaven forbid that Goons might actually foot the war bill for me. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 03:53:00 -
[400] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:Mechael wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:ROFL @ Khanh'rhh
My corpmates and I all agree, that though Jade Constantines solution could use a little tweaking, it is by far a better solution than what is about to be patched in by CCP. Yep. Jade is actually making some sense here. Yeah, I'm not a Jade alt, but I am an alt of someone who knows better than to badmouth goonswarm using my main. Posting with my main would only get me griefdecced lol Oh noez! Not griefdecced! Heaven forbid that Goons might actually foot the war bill for me. you see, the difference between being wardecced (what you want) and being griefdecced (what would happen to my main) is that you want to fight and I do not. |
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
67
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 06:15:00 -
[401] - Quote
Megnamon wrote:Goon tears are sweet. I appreciate emergent game play that may be initiated by the sand-box bully, but scoff at the bully who after tables are turned runs to mommy and crys for a swing of the nerf bat...
Zelda Wei wrote:Eve is a sand box, so do not smother emergent game play in infancy, give it chance to prosper.
The current situation has been a boon for Eve, it's got many interested again.
PCU falls in the summer, so ask why the usual trend has been bucked in the last couple of weeks?
People are getting to like hunting down Goons in high sec.
The only valid "emergent gameplay" is that started by goons, it would seem. The little guy starting a dogpile to protect himself from - or to even try and punch back at - a gigantic alliance (whose leader has made it clear he is out to harass certain individuals and push them out of the game entirely because they disagree with him) is a great thing I think. But nope, gotta "fix" it and push the mechanics straight back into the old territory of war decs being squarely in favour of the aggressor/bigger group
|
Ziranda Hakuli
Relativity Holding Corp AAA Citizens
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 06:58:00 -
[402] - 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).
War is HELL! War is UGLY!
Have you not said something along the lines of you wanted to see a lot of ships burning and floating wrecks in space. well you got it now your taking away what the little guys can do to help defend themselves. This is the only thing that currently puts fear into the bigger Corps/Alliances. By slapping on the Fee to have allies join is just wrong showing that your support the griefers like GOONs and their pets.
When are you going to stop giving in to the GOON/Pets? This is what many Folks see. |
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 07:16:00 -
[403] - Quote
Maybe all the highsec carebears need to arrange a little uprising like we did for the whole incarna thing. How do you think ccp would respond if several thousand carebear accounts suddenly just stopped subscribing. Maybe then we would get some carebear love |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 09:13:00 -
[404] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Pron Fron wrote: Small corp begins to receive assistance. 5 man corp here, some 10 man there. Within 5 allies, we now have a force that makes the clearly griefing aggressor think twice about camping noobs. they start to back down.
Why would any aggressor ever declare war against a completely unknown entity, especially one that lock them into permanent war and than balloon to infinite size?
So you're saying the only scenario in which an aggressor will declare war is one in which they know there is little risk of retalliation to themselves, and which they can back out of the second things go **** up? The mechanics should favour that?
You're a CSM member, you must realise that EVE is a game of risks. Declaring war on a corporation - even one with 8990 members less than your own alliance - shouldn't be a sure thing, mechanics should allow for surprises and counters. Exponentially rising costs for defenders simply means that the bigger your corp/alliance, the safer you are - and NOT as a result of having more pilots able to fight, but as a result of stupid mechanics that inherently make it much harder for your victim to do anything.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:You suggest CCP hire a military advisor, but a military advisor would never produce the "fair and balanced" set of mechanics many are striving here for. They would certainly know better than to declare war where an unlimited risk potential existed. They would understand that aggressor corps are only ever going to declare wars they think they can win.
I'm a bit tired of people trotting out the "it shouldn't be fair and balanced" crap. By stating that you don't want any fairness or balance you are by definition saying it should be biased against one side - but it's odd how certain people are so insistent on it being biased against the the defender in a war, especially when - as we've seen - the defender can be outnumbered 100 to 1, and can have a bill far, far in excess of that of the aggressor. The dogpiling and mutual wars were arguably "unfair" against the aggressors - but at the same time it's an avoidable unfairness since the aggressors started it. It seems everyone wins - you get all the unfairness you desire AND there's a little safeguard in there too. Any potential abuse could be removed by simply making mutual wars disallow allies - additional costs and limitations are bs though.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Lastly, we can't just argue under the assumption that every wardec is a big bad griefer out to get noobs. Sure, it happens occasionally. And sure, we want to minimize this. But as I've said earlier, changing the entire set of mechanics to fit with this mentality must require that griefing be a persistent underlying motivation behind the majority of wardecs.
Of course not, but the 1.1 changes do NOTHING to minimise this, all they serve to do is exacerbate it by placing more roadblocks in the way of smaller/defending corps. I also don't think anyone is suggesting designing the entire mechanic around that one edge case - but people want such cases to be taken into consideration. The fact that the mechanics have been changed again in a way that make that one specific case even more problematic is whats causing all the drama.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Regardless of whether any of us are happy with the 1.1 changes, the fact remains that CCP was aiming for a compromise in the final rules, a plan that would fit the *majority* of war decs - it isn't the hard cap requested by some, and it isn't the free-for-all advocated by those on the other end of the spectrum. It's something in between.
Except there have been plenty other suggestions across the boards that seem to equally fit the majority of 'normal' wars, while also better suiting the extreme cases. I think the knee-jerk reaction has resulted in potentially better alternatives being overlooked, or if I had slightly more tinfoil I'd say they were deliberately overlooked |
j Haginen
Baria Frontiers dev.
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 11:36:00 -
[405] - Quote
Well im gona say this short ; ccp good job!!!!!!! with your war decking system,youjust fd up pvp again go on f*** it up more , the only thing whats happening is your gona lose more eve players. the only ones gona stays in this game are your goonpets |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1350
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 11:52:00 -
[406] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:I'm a bit tired of people trotting out the "it shouldn't be fair and balanced" crap It shouldn't be fair and balanced.
History has shown us that wars don't happen when there's a very serious chance of you losing your **** (the Cold war) and definitely do happen, en masse, when there is a weaker enemy to be conquered (see: pretty much every war ever).
Jade's solution fails because it ensures that for the majority case, all wars will be fought with equal numbers. Under 1.1 a consequence of declaring war is that the defender gets to hire a free ally, and even 2-4 allies is very cheap. How is this not sufficient for a genuine defense?
It's not, of course, when you're looking at Goonswarm declaring war, which requires a "Jade's plan" which would still allow hundreds of small corporations to attach to a war for free.
So, ultimately, it's whether you think the highsec wardec system should be balanced around highsec entities declaring war on one another, or whether it should be balanced around nullsec alliances declaring war such that a 10man fleet can go have fun when bored.
Jade has made up his mind, and a lot of people seem to be parroting it without thinking how it's going to screw them over. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2368
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:08:00 -
[407] - Quote
Well given the pretty significant opposition to this particular change expressed in this and *many* other threads on the forums at the moment would it be possible for team BFF to go and have a conference with The Senior Producer CCP Unifex (Jon Lander) - and discuss the issue? Perhaps it needs a fresh set of eyes and maybe look at shuffling the teams around a bit?
How exactly would it hurt to leave 1.0 in place for the summer to see how it works in the wild? Maybe spend a couple of months coming up with a properly-worked solution to the problems that have been seen.
The rushed 1.1 changes really do feel incomplete and badly thought out.
Example.
1. Sure the lock-in rules for allies need changing, but reverting it to a fixed 2 week contract with no possibility of auto-renew is just clumsy and a bit lazy programming (epecially considering the 24/48 hour cooldown it will force into the middle of hot wars)
2. Exponentional costs for allies regardless of the size of the attacker ... this has been comprehensively criticized and debunked as a gameplay concept now. Its just silly. If the Attacker's wardec costs are being decided by counting pilots in the defending organization then the defenders wardec costs (if any) should also be decided by counting pilots in the attacking organization. Making one linear and capped, while the other is exponential and uncapped - is just poor design.
3. Mutual wars excluding allies. Since mutuals are the ONLY way that an affect can be forced to commit seriously to a war and since for a small defender to seriously threaten a large attacker THEY NEED ALLIES - the impact of removing allies from a mutual war is simply to remove commitment and consequence to attackers in wars. This surely wasn't the point of Inferno?
4 Inbalance in wardec costs between large and small organizations. Soundwave justified this on the grounds you pay more for more targets - but the reality is that most very large organizations DO NOT actually present more targets because they are not present in HISEC to be targets. If you pay 500m to wardec a 9000 man alliance you'll be lucky to see 1% of that number yet you are still billed for deccing the full 9000 (even capped). Reality is that a 200 man empire corporation is going to present as many targets as a 9000 man 0.0 organization (probably more) so its pretty ridiculolus that smaller one with more numerous targets costs 100m to dec while the larger one that is mostly in 0.0 costs 500m isk. This kind of situation is why people are believing the wardec system is horribly unbalanced in favour of 0.0.
Seriously.
Please use the opportunity of the minor delay in 1.1 to have a serious discussion between Team BFF and their managers at CCP and see if this whole thing needs to be sent back to the discussion stage for reengineering.
It would be a great shame for the centrepiece of the Inferno summer expansion to be turned into a fiasco where only huge attacker on small defender "grief" wardecs have a purpose and the notion of "emergent gameplay" flows only one way.
Perhaps taking a few weeks break and then looking at shifting the teams around is the way to go. Wardecs and all things mercenary, war-fighting and hisec conflict deserve a fresh set of eyes and shouldn't be passed over with such an evidently rushed set of changes.
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! |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
70
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 12:50:00 -
[408] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:I'm a bit tired of people trotting out the "it shouldn't be fair and balanced" crap It shouldn't be fair and balanced. History has shown us that wars don't happen when there's a very serious chance of you losing your **** (the Cold war) and definitely do happen, en masse, when there is a weaker enemy to be conquered (see: pretty much every war ever). Jade's solution fails because it ensures that for the majority case, all wars will be fought with equal numbers. Under 1.1 a consequence of declaring war is that the defender gets to hire a free ally, and even 2-4 allies is very cheap. How is this not sufficient for a genuine defense? It's not, of course, when you're looking at Goonswarm declaring war, which requires a "Jade's plan" which would still allow hundreds of small corporations to attach to a war for free. So, ultimately, it's whether you think the highsec wardec system should be balanced around highsec entities declaring war on one another, or whether it should be balanced around nullsec alliances declaring war such that a 10man fleet can go have fun when bored. Jade has made up his mind, and a lot of people seem to be parroting it without thinking how it's going to screw them over.
Jade's plan is by no means perfect, but I think it's a better stepping stone to a reasonable system than the rushed 1.1 mechanics. Hell, even making the 1.1 ally costs be geometric rather than exponential would have been a far better idea. |
Pron Fron
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 13:35:00 -
[409] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Pron Fron wrote: Small corp begins to receive assistance. 5 man corp here, some 10 man there. Within 5 allies, we now have a force that makes the clearly griefing aggressor think twice about camping noobs. they start to back down.
Why would any aggressor ever declare war against a completely unknown entity, especially one that lock them into permanent war and than balloon to infinite size? You suggest CCP hire a military advisor, but a military advisor would never produce the "fair and balanced" set of mechanics many are striving here for. They would certainly know better than to declare war where an unlimited risk potential existed. They would understand that aggressor corps are only ever going to declare wars they think they can win. Lastly, we can't just argue under the assumption that every wardec is a big bad griefer out to get noobs. Sure, it happens occasionally. And sure, we want to minimize this. But as I've said earlier, changing the entire set of mechanics to fit with this mentality must require that griefing be a persistent underlying motivation behind the majority of wardecs. Regardless of whether any of us are happy with the 1.1 changes, the fact remains that CCP was aiming for a compromise in the final rules, a plan that would fit the *majority* of war decs - it isn't the hard cap requested by some, and it isn't the free-for-all advocated by those on the other end of the spectrum. It's something in between.
Come on - I think you are making A LOT of assumptions here.
- Agressors often declare war against smaller (unknown) entities for the stupidest of reasons. Sometimes out of boredom or a random comment misinterpreted in local. The example I posted above is one such real example going on right now. No good reason for the war, nothing will be gained other than a few noob unsubbing. They are admitedly doing it out of boredom (how a 200 man alliance is bored I dont know, thats another EVE issue). You know how many armchair admirals we have here who like to declare war on a 4 man corp because of some miscommunication or perceived disrespect. The very fact you even question this gives your credibility suspicion. I never said that it happens all the time, but it DEFINITELY happens more than occasionally. And enough to warrant a safety valve for smaller corps.
- As to the military advisor. Im not looking for a FAIR & Balanced solution to the wars, only to the wardec/aliance fee system. Of course most war is about fighting what you can win (thought not always) But I am looking for someone who understands the nature, logistics and psychology of warfare better than CCP and even its players to advise them in the same capacity that our good Dr. does in economice matters. And considering Combat is arguably as large a part of EVE as economics is, I dont see why this is a bad idea. Of course CCP can always modify it to work with the game. Getting a professional opinion never hurts and many military experts WILL understand how to fight a war from a underdog perspective as well. I also think he could help with the state of ship role and balancing, soverignty... the list goes on.
- In either case, CPP stated the changes are based on the Merc Industry request, which is an automatic fail for me. My alt is in one such war right now. We have had free assistance and we have paid for good mercs, the argument is invalid and the alliance fees should be put on hold until we have better data. Honestly, If I need to pay 80mil for an ally fee, its less money I have to pay a good merc corp. It makes little sense. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
71
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 13:45:00 -
[410] - Quote
And lets face it, the only merc corps that would be in ruins over the allies thing are the useless trade-hub humping types, if they were actually capable, skilled mercs who could accomplish goals other than "sit outside jita 4-4" they'd still find work. A dogpile of allies act as little more than scattered, uncoordinated interference, whereas skilled mercs could actually be more serious weapons against an aggressor. |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
611
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 13:52:00 -
[411] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well given the pretty significant opposition to this particular change expressed in this and *many* other threads on the forums at the moment would it be possible for team BFF to go and have a conference with The Senior Producer CCP Unifex (Jon Lander) - and discuss the issue? Perhaps it needs a fresh set of eyes and maybe look at shuffling the teams around a bit?
How exactly would it hurt to leave 1.0 in place for the summer to see how it works in the wild? Maybe spend a couple of months coming up with a properly-worked solution to the problems that have been seen.
The rushed 1.1 changes really do feel incomplete and badly thought out.
Example.
1. Sure the lock-in rules for allies need changing, but reverting it to a fixed 2 week contract with no possibility of auto-renew is just clumsy and a bit lazy programming (epecially considering the 24/48 hour cooldown it will force into the middle of hot wars)
2. Exponentional costs for allies regardless of the size of the attacker ... this has been comprehensively criticized and debunked as a gameplay concept now. Its just silly. If the Attacker's wardec costs are being decided by counting pilots in the defending organization then the defenders wardec costs (if any) should also be decided by counting pilots in the attacking organization. Making one linear and capped, while the other is exponential and uncapped - is just poor design.
3. Mutual wars excluding allies. Since mutuals are the ONLY way that an attacker can be forced to commit seriously to a war and since for a small defender (especially an industrial only defender) to seriously threaten a large attacker THEY NEED ALLIES - the impact of removing allies from a mutual war is simply to remove commitment and consequence to attackers in wars. This surely wasn't the point of Inferno? Its essentially a full reversion to pay-to-grief only wardecs with a free pass to the attacker.
4 Inbalance in wardec costs between large and small organizations. Soundwave justified this on the grounds you pay more for more targets - but the reality is that most very large organizations DO NOT actually present more targets because they are not present in HISEC to be targets. If you pay 500m to wardec a 9000 man alliance you'll be lucky to see 1% of that number yet you are still billed for deccing the full 9000 (even capped). Reality is that a 200 man empire corporation is going to present as many targets as a 9000 man 0.0 organization (probably more) so its pretty ridiculolus that smaller one with more numerous targets costs 100m to dec while the larger one that is mostly in 0.0 costs 500m isk. This kind of situation is why people are believing the wardec system is horribly unbalanced in favour of 0.0.
Seriously.
Please use the opportunity of the minor delay in 1.1 to have a serious discussion between Team BFF and their managers at CCP and see if this whole thing needs to be sent back to the discussion stage for reengineering.
It would be a great shame for the centrepiece of the Inferno summer expansion to be turned into a fiasco where only huge attacker on small defender "grief" wardecs have a purpose and the notion of "emergent gameplay" flows only one way.
Perhaps taking a few weeks break and then looking at shifting the teams around is the way to go. Wardecs and all things mercenary, war-fighting and hisec conflict deserve a fresh set of eyes and shouldn't be passed over with such an evidently rushed set of changes.
While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Megnamon
The Generic Pirate Corporation Fusion.
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:15:00 -
[412] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:Maybe all the highsec carebears need to arrange a little uprising like we did for the whole incarna thing. How do you think ccp would respond if several thousand carebear accounts suddenly just stopped subscribing. Maybe then we would get some carebear love
I think several thousand care bears should pony up and invade goon/test space to grief them. Now that would be a good time! No need to take sov or anything. Consider it a "Burn CFC" event After all, high sec should really give back for all the joy they have been given... |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2370
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:23:00 -
[413] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams.
Certainly team BFF managed quite a lot of good things in other areas of the game ... my apologies for mispeaking the team name responsible for Wardecs - I'll read your article and see if I can find the right team name for the guys doing wardec revision to edit my post!
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! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
611
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:26:00 -
[414] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams. Certainly team BFF managed quite a lot of good things in other areas of the game ... my apologies for mispeaking the team name responsible for Wardecs - I'll read your article and see if I can find the right team name for the guys doing wardec revision to edit my post!
Just read my post that you replied to initially about the war decs. It's in there https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=120106
Please note that in my links above, all words linked in "would accomplish a lot" were achieved by teams formed in the reorganisation, not BFF. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2370
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:31:00 -
[415] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams. Certainly team BFF managed quite a lot of good things in other areas of the game ... my apologies for mispeaking the team name responsible for Wardecs - I'll read your article and see if I can find the right team name for the guys doing wardec revision to edit my post! Just read my post that you replied to initially about the war decs. It's in there https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=120106Please note that in my links above, all words linked in "would accomplish a lot" were achieved by teams formed in the reorganisation, not BFF.
Done, thanks, and I updated my large post above with the correct team name. The friends/superfriends/best friend forever theme kinda got confused in my mind around Soundwave's larger than life personality.
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! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
612
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 14:59:00 -
[416] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams. Certainly team BFF managed quite a lot of good things in other areas of the game ... my apologies for mispeaking the team name responsible for Wardecs - I'll read your article and see if I can find the right team name for the guys doing wardec revision to edit my post! Just read my post that you replied to initially about the war decs. It's in there https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=120106Please note that in my links above, all words linked in "would accomplish a lot" were achieved by teams formed in the reorganisation, not BFF. Done, thanks, and I updated my large post above with the correct team name. The friends/superfriends/best friend forever theme kinda got confused in my mind around Soundwave's larger than life personality. Anyway, do you have any thoughts on what I was suggesting? Basically delaying implementation of the 1.1 wardec changes and going back to have a wider discussion with other developers and the senior producer perhaps? I think you can see from the feedback on this thread and many other threads that quite a few Eve players are unconvinced by the changes planned for 1.1 and feel they don't meet the needs of the Inferno war system. I think its fair to say feedback is generally negative to this change.
I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2621
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:10:00 -
[417] - Quote
as a former member of Team Best Friends Forever and a current member of Team Super Friends I just want to point out that I'll always your friend! Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2371
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:12:00 -
[418] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed.
There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given.
So please try it.
Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts.
Read what everyone else is saying.
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! |
Bulaba Jones
Lowsec Static
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:13:00 -
[419] - Quote
Yet again, CCP gives us space poop ( http://www.eve-wiki.net/images/thumb/0/07/Revenant.png/270px-Revenant.png ) in addition to useful changes. But every time they release a patch, they really do **** up some pretty important aspects of the game. Last year it was the pay-to-play proposal ideas, and that only ended because thousands of players literally worked together to lag up Eve just to get CCP to listen to the players. Then it's been little things here and there, and then the ****** changes to station/ship inventory/cargo setup. And now, they're changing the wardec system to favor wealthy aggressors. War isn't fair, we all know this. It just seems incredibly stupid to make the wardec system even more unbalanced than it already might be.
It took an Eve-wide protest to stop pay-to-play from potentially becoming a reality on Eve. When the players complained about the inventory setup on Singularity, CCP clearly didn't listen. Will they listen now when people are pointing out that CCP is ******* up the wardec system? Nah.
Maybe some CCP employee who doesn't play Eve thinks it makes sense to change the wardec system and think that small corporations can simply hire mercs... but that's the problem: when bigger alliances/corporations wardec smaller ones, it's not like small corporations and small alliances have the same network of mercenary contacts as major alliances do.
With all of these annoying **** ups that accompany every expansion and major update... who is the person not doing their quality control job??? |
Mana Sanqua
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
12
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:15:00 -
[420] - Quote
Perhaps it would be fairer to state how this is an improvement on the original war dec mechanics? Most the features that were hailed as an improvement have been nerfed to hell and back. Like the first blog, we're not seeing a CCP that is listening to suggestions, simply one that is digging it's heels in and not listening. The flaws in the mercenary system were pointed out the first time. How does this system actually improve upon the original ward dec system now? |
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
612
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:16:00 -
[421] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying.
That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback.
CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2371
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:21:00 -
[422] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying. That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback.
Well you could simply temp forum block "me" and any poster in this friend from "goonswarm/test/obvious nullsec" and look at whats left. But seriously, I understand you are frustrated that we (myself and practically everyone else) kept on debating, arguing, restating our points etc etc - but really, doesn't that just show we're passionate abouty your game end of the day? Its not a bad thing really.
Imagine how disappointed you'd be if you posted a devblog and everyone just :shrugged: and said "meh".
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! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
612
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:27:00 -
[423] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying. That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback. Well you could simply temp forum block "me" and any poster in this friend from "goonswarm/test/obvious nullsec" and look at whats left. But seriously, I understand you are frustrated that we (myself and practically everyone else) kept on debating, arguing, restating our points etc etc - but really, doesn't that just show we're passionate abouty your game end of the day? Its not a bad thing really. Imagine how disappointed you'd be if you posted a devblog and everyone just :shrugged: and said "meh".
I do enjoy the commitment that players show to EVE, it's the lifeblood of the game. I don't enjoy people tearing strips off each other (or us) and taking an "I'm right, you are wrong (usually accompanied by an insult)" approach to debate, which is what invariably occurs on these forums. Seems that it's about converting people to one's viewpoint, or about silencing or rubbishing them altogether, rather than stating one's case, maybe answering one rebuttal and leaving it be. The latter is far more informative and useful to read than the former. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1351
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:36:00 -
[424] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well given the pretty significant opposition to this particular change expressed in this and *many* other threads on the forums at the moment
The common theme to these, is that they're all your posts. You get a few NPC alts chiming in here and there, but no, there is no "significant" weight of numbers in any way. Though, if we were voting on gameplay changes like this suggests would make sense, we'd have highsec immunity already and hulkageddon and burn jita would have been banned.
Quote:How exactly would it hurt to leave 1.0 in place It is demonstrably completely broken. This has been pointed out many, many times. We can agree that the specific 1.1 change won't be the last word on wardecs, but 1.0 needs to die now.
Quote:Exponentional costs for allies regardless of the size of the attacker ... this has been comprehensively criticized and debunked as a gameplay concept now By who? You? You're saying that by agreeing with yourself there is actually a wide consensus on this issue?
You've still failed to explain how outside of YOUR war there would be a gain in being able to hire 40 allies.
Quote:---snip--- This kind of situation is why people are believing the wardec system is horribly unbalanced in favour of 0.0 You could equally argue it's unbalanced in favour of large highsec wardeccing entities, or organisations that want to avoid war (E-Uni) ... or highsec alliances that are small corps bunching up for protection (BEEP) .. but instead you're talking Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons, Goons ..
... which is nothing more or less than a hilarious display of your own bias and shouldn't affect changes for the other 350k registered members of the game.
Quote:It would be a great shame for the centrepiece of the Inferno summer expansion to be turned into a fiasco Yet it's already a fiasco, with forum loud-mouths turning the ally system into a farce to offer "free wardecs" with no sense of the legitimacy for which the system was offered. "only huge attacker on small defender "grief" wardecs have a purpose and the notion of "emergent gameplay" flows only one way" As said, now, literally dozens of times, for all the relevant wars <5 allies is going to be enough. The sole example where you would need 40 or 50 corps to achieve this same result is when we're talking about JUST TWO alliances. You don't balance a game around two alliances. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2371
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 15:45:00 -
[425] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: I do enjoy the commitment that players show to EVE, it's the lifeblood of the game. I don't enjoy people tearing strips off each other (or us) and taking an "I'm right, you are wrong (usually accompanied by an insult)" approach to debate, which is what invariably occurs on these forums.
Well its not always like that from everyone you know. I mean looking at things from the other perspective: I feel I raised a number of points against a specific set of patch changes and proposed an alternative. I invited people to critique that alternative and actually welcomed being proven wrong if that could be done. There has been some constructive dialogue.
Now sure, I do agree the insults and trolling and nonsense got way too heavy from some quarters - but that itself is part of eve too (people get partizan about their alliance interests) and as in space people try to dogpile a victim on a stargate with 100 ships if they can, a big alliance posting on these forums uses just the same tactics against an enemy player if they feel their alliance interests are threatened.
CCP Goliath wrote: Seems that it's about converting people to one's viewpoint, or about silencing or rubbishing them altogether, rather than stating one's case, maybe answering one rebuttal and leaving it be. The latter is far more informative and useful to read than the former.
Well problem is one's simple rebuttal (or indeed opening premise) can be quite easily drowned out by a dozen identikit personal attack or trolling posts and sometimes you have to raise your voice a bit to heard over the masses. But I mean ultimately one has to look at the outcomes to decide how satisfying the feedback process is.
In this case well, you guys (devs) have responded to my posts, you've said you've read them but are largely unconvinced by the things I've said. While I'm happy they didn't just get ignored, I'm not really that convinced they been considered or seriously responded too. The impression I've gotten is that "the plan" was kinda set in stone and that causes a frustration all of its own.
The only real answer to the specific criticisms of the the exponential wardec ally fee is that "war in eve is not meant to be fair." (which is a double-edged sword of a statement that the community has taken up joyfully to rip up the premise for these changes in the first place)
There hasn't been an answer to the issue of the mandatory 24/48 hour break in wardecs even if both defender and ally wanted to continue without a break. (granted this issue may well have been drowned out in all the noise)
There hasn't really been any comment on the issue with removing allies from mutual wars allowing large attackers to use wardecs as consequence-free griefing tools (since a smaller industrial corp could never gain an advantage on a large pvp corp without the use of allies.) - (and this one is pretty damn key because it hits at the heart of the problem with the wardec system as a whole)
These are pretty fundamental points of principle around the wardec system. Its discussion of these elements that has made the eve forums and the eve blogging community explode over the last few days. War is a vital part of Eve and if the message gets out that war is now something just for the big to oppress the small and gameplay in war only really goes one way down the sandbox its a significant disappointment.
Quite honestly Goliath. If I'd made one comment and then just walked away without having my questions answered and proposals considered it would mean I just didn't care. When that moment comes I probably wouldn't care enough to subscribe either. War is the lifeblood of Eve. And Inferno was supposed to be the expansion about war. Its no real surprise people are getting hot under the collar about 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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1351
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 16:02:00 -
[426] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:My day job is in business writing You know, this is weirdly illuminating. - "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
1351
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 16:07:00 -
[427] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc
If we also skip people who have swallowed the false premise that this is a change to "aid large alliances" then there are very few posters other than the CSM (who agree it needs to change) and me.
Quote: I invited people to critique that alternative and actually welcomed being proven wrong if that could be done
You did, this is true.
You ALSO got schooled on your argument countless times yet still claim there has been no logical rebuttal of it. As soon as someone shoots down your proposal you just up and stop posting until it falls a couple of pages back, and then come back and say no-one has offered alternatives or reasons why it is wrong. You've not even denied this, either.
Frankly, if you were doing anything other than acting as a wholly self interested party you'd have backed down from the discussion by now. A low estimate of your posts so far on the subject would put it near 100,000 words. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2371
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 16:21:00 -
[428] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: If we also skip people who have swallowed the false premise that this is a change to "aid large alliances" then there are very few posters other than the CSM (who agree it needs to change) and me.
Well what the CSM "believe" is quite well documented in various podcasts. I advise anyone wishing to discover for themselves to listen to Noir guy on the Crossing Zebra's ep six podcast
http://www.evenews24.com/2012/06/18/crossing-zebras-war-on-goons-dust-514-micropayments-alekseyev-karrde-episode-6/
And listening to Two Step and Seleene on the tactical entertainment tv podcast will reveal a lot about the motives for this change (hint it had a lot more to do with helping 0.0 alliances than is now recognized)
http://tacticalentertainment.tv/archives/2022 (from 45mins in)
People are free to go and listen to these things and hear for themselves.
As for you Khanh'rhh, you've posted more than I have really, but generally your points are easily countered. Ultimately unless you've got an alt involved with hisec wars I'm not really sure where your knowledge comes from. Your eve-kills history shows a bit of involvement with red vs blue (consentual hisec pvp) and since then a bit of wormhole ganking that doesn't even need wardecs to fight.) Your personal example of what goes wrong when somebody wardecced your alliance was illustrative of the need to count pilots on both sides and introduce a wardec ally fee when the defender dogpiles the attack in numbers (not corps/alliances). You've admitted previously your alliance did this to make a mockery of the wardec system - fine, but you wouldn't do it again with the system I've proposed :)
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! |
None ofthe Above
232
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 17:55:00 -
[429] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: In reply to Jade The common theme to these, is that they're all your posts. You get a few NPC alts chiming in here and there, but no, there is no "significant" weight of numbers in any way. Though, if we were voting on gameplay changes like this suggests would make sense, we'd have highsec immunity already and hulkageddon and burn jita would have been banned.
Jade: How exactly would it hurt to leave 1.0 in place It is demonstrably completely broken. This has been pointed out many, many times. We can agree that the specific 1.1 change won't be the last word on wardecs, but 1.0 needs to die now.
Jade: Exponentional costs for allies regardless of the size of the attacker ... this has been comprehensively criticized and debunked as a gameplay concept now By who? You? You're saying that by agreeing with yourself there is actually a wide consensus on this issue?
If you discount the several folks posting in these threads, try this:
http://crossingzebras.com/post/25111790082/episodesix
Listen to Aleks explain how the CSM pretty much universally panned this solution and how Aleks was shocked and disappointed to see it rolled out to SiSi. Granted his preferred solution is probably more restrictive. But it still points to the currently planned 1.1 change as being rushed and not well thought out.
I agree that the "forever allied" feature was broken and needed fixing. The two week duration is a decent quick fix, but also think that their should not be a requirement for 24-48 timers before rejoining the war. That seems a bit silly.
This part should probably go out with 1.1. Being able to renew without a break should probably be worked on ASAP.
Khanh'rhh wrote: You've still failed to explain how outside of YOUR war there would be a gain in being able to hire 40 allies.
Somebody in your corp thought it was a good idea, even if you lament on it.
Many other situations come to mind. Indeed its already happened in several ways.
As an obvious example: If you just scale down the conflicts even say 50 man corp attacking a Vanity corp. He could rope in some of his friends and still be able to hire mercs without the bother of an Alliance (always troublesome since people may have to dissolve existing alliances to join, and its an added layer of politics). With this system he'd likely have to exclude at least some of his friends or just hire one corp instead of a couple of friends. It amuses (bemuses?) me that Jade is probably right. In many situations so-called "Mercs" (really PVP corps looking for targets of opportunity) will likely end up paying for the privilege of allying.
Khanh'rhh wrote: As said, now, literally dozens of times, for all the relevant wars <5 allies is going to be enough. The sole example where you would need 40 or 50 corps to achieve this same result is when we're talking about JUST TWO alliances. You don't balance a game around two alliances.
Two comments on this:
There are plenty more unbalanced conflicts and potential conflicts around. I do actually wish this wasn't just so focused on the Goon v Jade issue, because that's not the only place where the 1.0 and 1.1 wardec systems are broken.
Re goons and like-minded groups. Their MO is whenever they find a broken mechanic is to drive a Titan through it and extract as many pubbie tears as possible. Even while sometimes crying out for it to be fixed, to their credit. So if you don't include how something could be abused by the large alliances into design and game balance, you are opening yourself up to game breaking consequences. Shouldn't be the only consideration for sure, but it has to be evaluated.
In short:
I think, based on the negative reaction, analysis and counterproposals, CCP really ought to consider holding back on at least the Ally Fee structure, until something more palatable can be worked up. Two week duration is probably a good idea, but auto-renew should be added ASAP. I have mixed opinions on the mutual war excluding allies. I was never a fan of locking people into a forever war (unless a surrender is accepted) anyways.
PS - Ah well, Jade posted much of what I said. I'll leave this up here to reinforce that Jade is not alone here. I don't really want to agree with Jade, as I know that's not "cool". But unlike some folk, I believe that ideas should stand on their merits no matter where they come from.
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2017
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 18:06:00 -
[430] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: If we also skip people who have swallowed the false premise that this is a change to "aid large alliances" then there are very few posters other than the CSM (who agree it needs to change) and me. Well what the CSM "believe" is quite well documented in various podcasts. I advise anyone wishing to discover for themselves to listen to Noir guy on the Crossing Zebra's ep six podcast (57 mins in) http://www.evenews24.com/2012/06/18/crossing-zebras-war-on-goons-dust-514-micropayments-alekseyev-karrde-episode-6/And listening to Two Step and Seleene on the tactical entertainment tv podcast will reveal a lot about the motives for this change (hint it had a lot more to do with helping 0.0 alliances than is now recognized) http://tacticalentertainment.tv/archives/2022 (from 45mins in) People are free to go and listen to these things and hear for themselves. As for you Khanh'rhh, you've posted more than I have really, but generally your points are easily countered. Ultimately unless you've got an alt involved with hisec wars I'm not really sure where your knowledge comes from. Your eve-kills history shows a bit of involvement with red vs blue (consentual hisec pvp) and since then a bit of wormhole ganking that doesn't even need wardecs to fight.) Your personal example of what goes wrong when somebody wardecced your alliance was illustrative of the need to count pilots on both sides and introduce a wardec ally fee when the defender dogpiles the attack in numbers (not corps/alliances). You've admitted previously your alliance did this to make a mockery of the wardec system - fine, but you wouldn't do it again with the system I've proposed :)
So because I used "a large nullsec alliance" as an example of why unlimited allies are bad, the only reason to fix unlimited allies is because CCP is secretly beholden to Goons?
I didn't hear *anything* at all in the podcast Seleene and I did that talks at all about the *motives* for this change.
Let me repeat it again, because you seem to only understand things that are repeated many many times:
*I* (Two step, not the whole CSM, not CCP) think that unlimited allies was a bad idea. I'm not sure that the cost stuff that will be happening in Inferno 1.1 is the best solution, but it is certainly better than what we have right now. I, as a member of a 262 person alliance, would not be willing to wardec *anyone* right now, because I would face hundreds or thousands of "allies". This is dumb, and something that needs to be done about it. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
|
Tore Vest
300
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 18:28:00 -
[431] - Quote
I can understand that larger alliances want more risk free war decs No troll. |
Nevigrofnu Mrots
Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 18:35:00 -
[432] - Quote
* popcorn *
Jade,
only if you could pause, get back and position yourself from a neutral point of view and see how you are making a fool of yourself, its just so sad...
but please continue, don't let my post stop you.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2372
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 18:56:00 -
[433] - Quote
Two step wrote: So because I used "a large nullsec alliance" as an example of why unlimited allies are bad, the only reason to fix unlimited allies is because CCP is secretly beholden to Goons?
Don't try to put words in my mouth Twostep, its conduct unbecoming really. I have advised people to listen to what you had to say and make up their own minds as to what the motive for the exponential multiplier on defensive allies was. CCP soundwave said it was the boost the mercenary profession, I am merely pointing out that you certainly had another motive.
Two step wrote:*I* (Two step, not the whole CSM, not CCP) think that unlimited allies was a bad idea. I'm not sure that the cost stuff that will be happening in Inferno 1.1 is the best solution, but it is certainly better than what we have right now. I, as a member of a 262 person alliance, would not be willing to wardec *anyone* right now, because I would face hundreds or thousands of "allies". This is dumb, and something that needs to be done about it.
An equitable solution to the precise problem you point out has been offered, thus far you haven't provided any specific objection to that solution.
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! |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2017
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:21:00 -
[434] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Two step wrote: So because I used "a large nullsec alliance" as an example of why unlimited allies are bad, the only reason to fix unlimited allies is because CCP is secretly beholden to Goons?
Don't try to put words in my mouth Twostep, its conduct unbecoming really. I have advised people to listen to what you had to say and make up their own minds as to what the motive for the exponential multiplier on defensive allies was. CCP soundwave said it was the boost the mercenary profession, I am merely pointing out that you certainly had another motive.
So you don't want me to put words in your mouth, even when you said them?
Jade Constantine wrote: This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response.
(from http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1457113#post1457113)
Also, please don't put words in *my* mouth. I presented one example of why I think unlimited allies was a bad idea, *not* CCP's motive for the changes. Clearly I need to lay this out in simpler terms for you, since you seem to be having trouble: 1) Unlimited allies bad 2) CCP is changing unlimited allies for several reasons which Soundwave kindly laid out for you.
The CSM doesn't get to decide CCP's motive for why they change things, we are limited to pointing out thing number 1 above. Our role is not to play "Junior Game Designer" which is why I am not saying anything at all about your idea. I don't care what solution CCP decides on as long as it achieves the desired results, which in my view is: 1) Corps/Alliances of all sizes should be able to declare war with a mostly known set of enemies. 2) Declaring war on a single corp/alliance should not expose an attacker to a potentially unlimited number of low/no cost allies 3) The mercenary profession should be viable in EVE. Ideally, a revised wardec system should make their life easier, not harder.
Jade Constantine wrote:Two step wrote:*I* (Two step, not the whole CSM, not CCP) think that unlimited allies was a bad idea. I'm not sure that the cost stuff that will be happening in Inferno 1.1 is the best solution, but it is certainly better than what we have right now. I, as a member of a 262 person alliance, would not be willing to wardec *anyone* right now, because I would face hundreds or thousands of "allies". This is dumb, and something that needs to be done about it. An equitable solution to the precise problem you point out has been offered, thus far you haven't provided any specific objection to that solution.
Again, as I said above, and said many, many times in the *other* dumb thread you spammed about this, it isn't my job to comment on your "solution". You are not a special snowflake that is entitled to have ever member of the CSM and every person at CCP look over your ideas. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2372
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:28:00 -
[435] - Quote
Two step wrote: Again, as I said above, and said many, many times in the *other* dumb thread you spammed about this, it isn't my job to comment on your "solution". You are not a special snowflake that is entitled to have ever member of the CSM and every person at CCP look over your ideas.
Even if the solution offered is evidently better than the changes we're currently looking at? I think you are letting your personal prejudices get in the way of doing the job you were elected to do. At this point you are not really achieving anything in your CSM role except painting the whole process in a rather unflattering light.
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! |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2018
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:37:00 -
[436] - Quote
Nice dodge, ignoring 3/4 of my post where I completely refute what you had been saying.
I think I'll ignore all of your post except this part:
Jade Constantine wrote: I think you are doing the job you were elected to do.
Thanks Jade! CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2373
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:49:00 -
[437] - Quote
Two step wrote:Nice dodge, ignoring 3/4 of my post where I completely refute what you had been saying.
Given you have thus far "dodged" ANY substantive discussion on this issue I'm not sure you have the slightest cause for complaint.
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! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2624
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 19:57:00 -
[438] - Quote
Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:* popcorn *
can you get some for me too? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Shobon Welp
Band of Brothers
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:18:00 -
[439] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: At this point you are not really achieving anything in your CSM role except painting the whole process in a rather unflattering light.
You literally just summed up your time as CSM1 chair in a single sentence. |
None ofthe Above
235
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:19:00 -
[440] - Quote
Two step wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Two step wrote: So because I used "a large nullsec alliance" as an example of why unlimited allies are bad, the only reason to fix unlimited allies is because CCP is secretly beholden to Goons?
Don't try to put words in my mouth Twostep, its conduct unbecoming really. I have advised people to listen to what you had to say and make up their own minds as to what the motive for the exponential multiplier on defensive allies was. CCP soundwave said it was the boost the mercenary profession, I am merely pointing out that you certainly had another motive. So you don't want me to put words in your mouth, even when you said them? (from http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1457113#post1457113)
If I could grab you two by the collar and knock both your heads together, I would.
This is now devolving into a hissy-fit clash of personalities.
Jade this is the problem when you insist and talking about the "goons done it". It distracts from whether or not these changes are a good idea, and whether or not there are better alternatives.
Two step, it is actually interesting to note that Jade has also proposed a solution that eliminates unlimited free allies. Cheap or free until numerical parity would be a good description.
Drawback being that it would certainly take time and effort to implement. Not terribly feasible for 1.1.
What I and a few others have been saying is that the proposed 1.1 changes are an overeaction that may do more harm than good. Grave concern that paying Concord will actually hurt the merc trade rather than help.
Two step wrote: The CSM doesn't get to decide CCP's motive for why they change things, we are limited to pointing out thing number 1 above. Our role is not to play "Junior Game Designer" which is why I am not saying anything at all about your idea. I don't care what solution CCP decides on as long as it achieves the desired results, which in my view is: 1) Corps/Alliances of all sizes should be able to declare war with a mostly known set of enemies. 2) Declaring war on a single corp/alliance should not expose an attacker to a potentially unlimited number of low/no cost allies 3) The mercenary profession should be viable in EVE. Ideally, a revised wardec system should make their life easier, not harder.
Not sure if I entirely agree with points 1&2. Its a complex thing. Declaring war should be at least somewhat risky, and in the real world those principles certainly don't hold true. On the other hand the incentives need to be balanced enough to not discourage the occurrence of war declarations outright.
Agreed on 3. I don't think there is much disagreement that the wardec system should not be a barrier to the Mercenary Trade. I think there maybe some disagreement on whether or not it should be a barrier to others in protection of the mercenaries.
|
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2019
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:39:00 -
[441] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Two step wrote: The CSM doesn't get to decide CCP's motive for why they change things, we are limited to pointing out thing number 1 above. Our role is not to play "Junior Game Designer" which is why I am not saying anything at all about your idea. I don't care what solution CCP decides on as long as it achieves the desired results, which in my view is: 1) Corps/Alliances of all sizes should be able to declare war with a mostly known set of enemies. 2) Declaring war on a single corp/alliance should not expose an attacker to a potentially unlimited number of low/no cost allies 3) The mercenary profession should be viable in EVE. Ideally, a revised wardec system should make their life easier, not harder.
Not sure if I entirely agree with points 1&2. Its a complex thing. Declaring war should be at least somewhat risky, and in the real world those principles certainly don't hold true. On the other hand the incentives need to be balanced enough to not discourage the occurrence of war declarations outright. Agreed on 3. I don't think there is much disagreement that the wardec system should not be a barrier to the Mercenary Trade. I think there maybe some disagreement on whether or not it should be a barrier to others in protection of the mercenaries.
I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2375
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 20:53:00 -
[442] - Quote
Two step wrote: I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in.
By the same measure shouldn't the attacker have to expend some time and effort not just clicking dec and paying 50m isk? (ie actually making an effort to fight the war)
Two step wrote:Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended.
Well seeing as how this option only opens when a large (expensive to dec) alliance declares war on something who is prepared to make the war available to allies then the option is self-policing. To be blunt, large alliances are protected from incoming decs (by the 10x increase in cost from pre inferno) unless they feel the need to make wardecs themselves - and if they are happy to make wardecs themselves then they really shouldn't be complaining about escalation in hostilities.
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! |
None ofthe Above
237
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:03:00 -
[443] - Quote
Two step wrote: I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended.
I thought we weren't supposed to decide what the motivations and intentions were? Pretty unclear anyway considering the Merc Marketplace was changed to the Ally system at the last minute, and its primary function seemed to be to allow free allies almost to the exclusion of paid mercs. The logical inconsistencies around paying for targets vs restricting allies (aka targets) don't help.
Moot point anyway, since the people you arguing with have proposed various alternatives to free allies, and no one seems to be in favor of it. Question is what's a reasonable response, and what's going to make it better?
It occurs that if a corp/alliance spends a lot of time making enemies and declares a war on someone, widespread volunteers for defending allies is a pretty reasonable response. Consequences to one's actions and all. Isn't that pretty consistent with the EVE way?
Honestly I think the "we aren't junior game designers" is over used and a bit of a cop out. It annoyed me during the campaign season as well. While true on the face of it, your function is to advise CCP. Ignoring alternative proposals to much criticized proposed changes doesn't seem like the best way to go about that, IMHO.
|
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:37:00 -
[444] - Quote
As someone who actually knows the "Goon position" on this. I would say that this change ruins the next grand evil plan we had. Mittens even had a draft post made when we saw this nerf. However, I really enjoy watching the OMG GOONS DID IT meltdown so I don't want to completely dispel that myth.
However, Jade. Wait until you see what we actually did do with regards to another game mechanic. It's a doozy. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3527
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:43:00 -
[445] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: Well what the CSM "believe" is quite well documented in various podcasts. I advise anyone wishing to discover for themselves to listen to Noir guy on the Crossing Zebra's ep six podcast (57 mins in)
I'd just like to alert anyone who is not familiar with the depths of Jade's insanity that almost each and every member of the CSM has posted explicitly what they believe about this change in response to Jade, yet Jade consistently lies about what they've said and always links things like hour-long podcasts nobody will actually listen to instead of linking the many posts they've made on these forums. Because, you see, the things they've posted don't work well for Jade's argument and he thinks you're all idiots. |
Polly Oxford
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:45:00 -
[446] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:At this point you are not really achieving anything in your CSM role except painting the whole process in a rather unflattering light.
Jade criticizing someone for being a useless CSM member...
Now I've seen it all. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3527
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:48:00 -
[447] - Quote
as to why jade's solution is dumb: that's actually been explained ad nauseum as well but jade feels if he keeps asking it until everyone gets tired of answering and just ignores him, he will seem like he is right
again, this is because he thinks you, the readers, are idiots |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3527
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 21:50:00 -
[448] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well given the pretty significant opposition to this particular change expressed in this and *many* other threads on the forums "entirely though the posts of one Jade Constantine and virtually nobody else" |
Enaris Kerle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
60
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 22:02:00 -
[449] - Quote
oh look another GOON who's just scared about TSF now that you can't easily dodge the war by not paying the bill Gallente born and raised, and tutored as a pleasure slave and courtesan to the exotic tastes of the Amarri court. Jade's career veered violently off course when a diplomatic envoy's transport was blown to pieces in mysterious circumstances and she was rescued from the escape pods by the enigmatic genetic mastermind Athule Snanm. |
Talsha Talamar
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 22:04:00 -
[450] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[quote=Pron Fron] You suggest CCP hire a military advisor, but a military advisor would never produce the "fair and balanced" set of mechanics many are striving here for. They would certainly know better than to declare war where an unlimited risk potential existed. They would understand that aggressor corps are only ever going to declare wars they think they can win.
1) The very same military advisor would continue to explain that in contemporary history no nation ever went to wage an external war that it was not certain to win. Yet still since the end of the world wars, there have been wars all around the globe.
Eve is a game of consequences and irrational war declarations should have major consequences on the aggressor.
If an alliance manages to get hated or feared so universally, that a declaration of war against a small corporation would put them in danger to become the target of an universal alliance, then that would be a just consequence of their policies and actions.
If they evaluated the INTEL properly the would abstain from such a war declaration or suffer.
The fact that such a situation contributed to an world war twice, was one factor that brought about the age of wars that are either limited or executed by proxies.
2) Eve strives on conflict contrary to the real world. Making war having as much consequence as in reality would therefore be counterproductive. Still the balance should not be skewed all in favor of the attacker:
1. Allow Allies to stay in Mutual Wars 2. Introduce additional Upkeep Costs for the individual War-Alliances based on a) The member-size of each War-Alliances b) The member-size- relation between the War-Parties.
So a small War-Alliance would have a small upkeep cost and upkeep costs would rise for a side, if it starts to outnumber the other.
|
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
147
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 22:20:00 -
[451] - Quote
Talsha Talamar wrote:If an alliance manages to get hated or feared so universally, that a declaration of war against a small corporation would put them in danger to become the target of an universal alliance, then that would be a just consequence of their policies and actions.
So form an alliance. You know. Alliance. Allies.
This new "allies" system that's attached to wardecs is totally redundant. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
338
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 22:42:00 -
[452] - Quote
Talsha Talamar wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:[quote=Pron Fron] You suggest CCP hire a military advisor, but a military advisor would never produce the "fair and balanced" set of mechanics many are striving here for. They would certainly know better than to declare war where an unlimited risk potential existed. They would understand that aggressor corps are only ever going to declare wars they think they can win. 1) The very same military advisor would continue to explain that in contemporary history no nation ever went to wage an external war that it was not certain to win. Yet still since the end of the world wars, there have been wars all around the globe. Eve is a game of consequences and irrational war declarations should have major consequences on the aggressor. If an alliance manages to get hated or feared so universally, that a declaration of war against a small corporation would put them in danger to become the target of an universal alliance, then that would be a just consequence of their policies and actions. If they evaluated the INTEL properly the would abstain from such a war declaration or suffer. The fact that such a situation contributed to an world war twice, was one factor that brought about the age of wars that are either limited or executed by proxies. 2) Eve strives on conflict contrary to the real world. Making war having as much consequence as in reality would therefore be counterproductive. Still the balance should not be skewed all in favor of the attacker: 1. Allow Allies to stay in Mutual Wars 2. Introduce additional Upkeep Costs for the individual War-Alliances based on a) The member-size of each War-Alliances b) The member-size- relation between the War-Parties. So a small War-Alliance would have a small upkeep cost and upkeep costs would rise for a side, if it starts to outnumber the other. many short dumb lines hope of thought? none, no hope, none many words, say nil |
Talsha Talamar
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 23:09:00 -
[453] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Talsha Talamar wrote:If an alliance manages to get hated or feared so universally, that a declaration of war against a small corporation would put them in danger to become the target of an universal alliance, then that would be a just consequence of their policies and actions.
So form an alliance. You know. Alliance. Allies. This new "allies" system that's attached to wardecs is totally redundant.
There is a "minor" difference between political regimes or political alliances and sovereign entities. The Allies of the USA in the last Iraq War did not give up their sovereignty and became new member states of the USA.
|
None ofthe Above
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 23:32:00 -
[454] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Well given the pretty significant opposition to this particular change expressed in this and *many* other threads on the forums "entirely though the posts of one Jade Constantine and virtually nobody else" edit: they were also many threads because they kept getting locked due to jade melting down into a puddle of tin
I would be the "virtually nobody else"?
Somewhat appropriate I suppose, given my chosen moniker.
I would point out that we are not alone.
My impression is there is more dissenting voices about this change than there was about the Unified Inventory, before it went live anyway. We all know how well that turned out.
|
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 23:35:00 -
[455] - Quote
I honestly think the goons are scared, scared that their highsec logistic alts will get shut into a station, scared of their moon goo shipments getting repeatedly ambushed, scared that all the carebears, they have spent the last several year terrorizing, have finally said enough is enough. I'm sure when this started they had no idea that we carebears actually had some teeth, that we would band together and fight back. This war stopped being about Goonswarm v Jade a while ago, now it is Goonswarm v Highsec and they don't like it.
What happened to the post above where the goon admitted that they were scared? Kind of convenient how any post made by a goon, that supports jades proposal or admits that goons are shaking in their boots, gets taken down as "Trolling". |
None ofthe Above
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 23:36:00 -
[456] - Quote
Talsha Talamar wrote:Mechael wrote:Talsha Talamar wrote:If an alliance manages to get hated or feared so universally, that a declaration of war against a small corporation would put them in danger to become the target of an universal alliance, then that would be a just consequence of their policies and actions.
So form an alliance. You know. Alliance. Allies. This new "allies" system that's attached to wardecs is totally redundant. There is a "minor" difference between political regimes or political alliances and sovereign entities. The Allies of the USA in the last Iraq War did not give up their sovereignty and became new member states of the USA.
I get Mechael's point, the terms certainly do seem to overlap and be redundant.
But you are right, there is a big difference.
And there is something very interesting, emergent and perhaps even "effing brilliant" about loose coalitions being allowed to form around the defender of a wardec.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.19 23:56:00 -
[457] - Quote
where is that popcorn I asked for???? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Talsha Talamar
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:01:00 -
[458] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for????
Throws a handful of corn into the air and fires wildly with her Laspistol.
Popcorn Shower :) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2375
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:03:00 -
[459] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for????
On sale in the mercenary marketplace
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! |
None ofthe Above
239
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:03:00 -
[460] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for????
Right here, but we are applying the same fee per popped kernel that you use for allies.
Don't worry, the first one is free.
|
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:07:00 -
[461] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? On sale in the mercenary marketplace
I thought I'd get as many free as you had? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:10:00 -
[462] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for????
in the mail, jiffy pop, enjoy |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2375
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:25:00 -
[463] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? On sale in the mercenary marketplace I thought I'd get as many free as you had?
well 50 takes quite a lot of work you know - its not easy driving the largest alliance in the game to a foot-stamping apoplexy of impotent rage - and you need to be able to offer interesting ganks to attract the "popcorn"
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! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:26:00 -
[464] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? in the mail, jiffy pop, enjoy
thanks space friend! Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:35:00 -
[465] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? On sale in the mercenary marketplace I thought I'd get as many free as you had? well 50 takes quite a lot of work you know - its not easy driving the largest alliance in the game to a foot-stamping apoplexy of impotent rage - and you need to be able to offer interesting ganks to attract the "popcorn"
And interesting ganks have been provided, ty Jade and your forever war. I have had the time of my life blowing up goons, something that was very difficult for me before without literally emptying my corporate coffers. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2375
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:42:00 -
[466] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? On sale in the mercenary marketplace I thought I'd get as many free as you had? well 50 takes quite a lot of work you know - its not easy driving the largest alliance in the game to a foot-stamping apoplexy of impotent rage - and you need to be able to offer interesting ganks to attract the "popcorn" And interesting ganks have been provided, ty Jade and your forever war. I have had the time of my life blowing up goons, something that was very difficult for me before without literally emptying my corporate coffers.
You are quite welcome! Its been a fun experiment. Sadly the "forever" part of the description going to fall off with the 1.1 patch and we'll have about 2 weeks left to punish the goons before war is over and the bad guys can go back to their missioning in peace.
That said, I must confess I'm curious to see what the dialogue box is going to look like when my 51st ally offers to join the war post 1.1 patch (looks sideways at Punkturis) by current calculations it *should* ask for an addition 10 Sextillion ISK as a concord bribe ... thats quite a number and I'm wondering if the user inferface is going to handle it so I can screenshot for historical record!
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
2375
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:43:00 -
[467] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Two step wrote:I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended. Wardecs should be risky, but all the risk should be on the defender's side? WTF? You want to be a flaccid-phallus and wardec corps in hisec, then you want the poor fools you're wardeccing to stump the costs for defending a war they didn't want? If wars are supposed to be risky, the defender should at the very least be allowed free allies up to the point that the defending team outnumbers the attacking team. Making a war mutual should not preclude the defenders having allies. You started the war, you wear the cost. The defender goes mutual, you're stuck in the war that you started. That's your risk.
Please listen to this player CCP ... she gets 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! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:54:00 -
[468] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:where is that popcorn I asked for???? On sale in the mercenary marketplace I thought I'd get as many free as you had? well 50 takes quite a lot of work you know - its not easy driving the largest alliance in the game to a foot-stamping apoplexy of impotent rage - and you need to be able to offer interesting ganks to attract the "popcorn" And interesting ganks have been provided, ty Jade and your forever war. I have had the time of my life blowing up goons, something that was very difficult for me before without literally emptying my corporate coffers. You are quite welcome! Its been a fun experiment. Sadly the "forever" part of the description going to fall off with the 1.1 patch and we'll have about 2 weeks left to punish the goons before war is over and the bad guys can go back to their missioning in peace. That said, I must confess I'm curious to see what the dialogue box is going to look like when my 51st ally offers to join the war post 1.1 patch (looks sideways at Punkturis) by current calculations it *should* ask for an addition 10 Sextillion ISK as a concord bribe ... thats quite a number and I'm wondering if the user inferface is going to handle it so I can screenshot for historical record!
Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount) Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 00:55:00 -
[469] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Two step wrote:I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended. Wardecs should be risky, but all the risk should be on the defender's side? WTF? You want to be a flaccid-phallus and wardec corps in hisec, then you want the poor fools you're wardeccing to stump the costs for defending a war they didn't want? If wars are supposed to be risky, the defender should at the very least be allowed free allies up to the point that the defending team outnumbers the attacking team. Making a war mutual should not preclude the defenders having allies. You started the war, you wear the cost. The defender goes mutual, you're stuck in the war that you started. That's your risk.
Which is exactly what has happened, only the Goons thought we would just bend over and take the abuse. Oh how wrong they were. After the 1.1 crap patch hits, what we're really gonna need to do is keep supporting each other. If this means forming 1 large alliance (or a few smaller ones) and declaring war on goons then so be it. I for one am tired of being the highsec target that goons think we are.
As a side note, I find it laughable that the null people cry carebear/htfu/etc to us, while at the same time they have their alt corps/alts sitting in a highsec system reaping the same benefits we enjoy. I say, stfu and leave us be or gtfo of highsec. For too lang have nullers dictated my choice of playstyle, I say no more. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2376
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 01:12:00 -
[470] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote: Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)
Does that mean its going to trim the number of allies down to the cap when 1.1 comes out? Or will it just refuse to let me add new allies up until the renewal 2 weeks? (+ if it does auto trim how is it going to decide which allies to lose?)
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! |
|
None ofthe Above
241
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 01:12:00 -
[471] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote: Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)
20 for 5 Trillion ISK.
(I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?)
|
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 01:17:00 -
[472] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote: Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)
20 for 5 Trillion ISK. (I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?)
I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have. I've been a high sec carebear now for a few years and know most of the tricks for making money, but that does not mean I have a lot of isk. Even just the fee to wardec goons for my corp is prohibitively expensive, not including merc price and now the cost of having alies. Basically, we're gonna go back to just letting our accounts expire when we get wardecced and then come back after a few months. |
None ofthe Above
241
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 01:20:00 -
[473] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote: Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)
20 for 5 Trillion ISK. (I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?) I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have. I've been a high sec carebear now for a few years and know most of the tricks for making money, but that does not mean I have a lot of isk. Even just the fee to wardec goons for my corp is prohibitively expensive, not including merc price and now the cost of having alies. Basically, we're gonna go back to just letting our accounts expire when we get wardecced and then come back after a few months.
Oh they don't seriously expect you to pay that. The intent is a somewhat soft cap and an ISK sink. I think they want you to stop somewhere around 5 allies, smaller for poorer corps.
|
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
8
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 01:29:00 -
[474] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote: Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)
20 for 5 Trillion ISK. (I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?) I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have. I've been a high sec carebear now for a few years and know most of the tricks for making money, but that does not mean I have a lot of isk. Even just the fee to wardec goons for my corp is prohibitively expensive, not including merc price and now the cost of having alies. Basically, we're gonna go back to just letting our accounts expire when we get wardecced and then come back after a few months. Oh they don't seriously expect you to pay that. The intent is a somewhat soft cap and an ISK sink. I think they want you to stop somewhere around 5 allies, smaller for poorer corps.
If they want a fraking isk sink, why not an isk sink for those who actually have the damned isk.....I.E. nullers and not the carebears who they have nerfed into the damned ground for the last few years. What they need to do is get a few developers who are carebears instead of the nullers they have now. AND, reliaze that a good portion of their subscribers dwell in highsec. |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
45
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 02:42:00 -
[475] - Quote
Two step wrote: 3) The mercenary profession should be viable in EVE. Ideally, a revised wardec system should make their life easier, not harder.
Without changes to make wars have something meaningful to fight over, I don't expect any change to make the Mercenary profession viable. Just because a corp gets war decced, doesn't mean that corp has an incentive to hire a mercenary corp. Since the war dec system has never provided any incentive to fight, I don't think the merc profession in Eve was ever all that viable. Prior to Inferno 1.0, there were lots of corps willing to issue war decs for merely the cost they incur to issue the war dec. Basically, Mercs have been free for a very long time.
The only time hiring a Merc corp would cost something is when there are objectives laid out for the merc corp . Such as POS defense, or pushing another corp out of a system. That doesn't change with Inferno 1.1. Just because a corp can get 1 million free allies doesn't mean they would be willing to pay for even 1. If it cost them something, most defenders will choose zero allies over paying for one. If you want a viable mercenary profession, a lot more needs to change then the number of allies that can be brought into a war. Infact, the number of Allies that can be brought in is independent of making a viable mercenary profession. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1539
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 06:58:00 -
[476] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have.
They're not. The explicit design decision was to "enable" mercenary corps. Thus a mercenary corp knows that any price under 2 Trillion ISK per week is a fair price to ask, assuming you have something in hisec worth 2 Trillion ISK per week to defend. But I think that's where CCP has painted themselves into a corner on this: what hisec care bearing alliance has "stuff" that is at risk in a wardec that is worth paying 2T ISK/week to defend? None.
The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners, and they shuttle stuff up to hisec using NPC corp alts flying orcas or low-value hauls in freighters.
There is some serious do-the-design-after-the-implementation retro-thinking going on with this wardec situation. It wasn't designed so much as vomited up after a drinking binge at the wrong bar.
Perhaps Mr Kardde can come to the table and detail some of the mercenary contracts he's personally been responsible for, involving defence of hisec care bearing corps.
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
77
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 07:52:00 -
[477] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying. That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback.
I guess on our part it's an exercise in futility then. You state you haven't noticed peoples complaints or suggestions amongst the goon/jade spam/drama/whatever and then flat out state you won't bother looking and instead are going to just blindly push forward with flawed mechanics just because you've already got momentum.
As for people reposting the same arguments ... shouldn't that give a bit more weight to them - it's one thing if a single character makes some random statements, but if it's echoed by a lot of people maybe it should be given a bit more consideration?
Honestly, the kind of responses I've seen from CCP over this crap is very disheartening, as it seems as though you're all very reluctant to reconsider the 1.1 decisions (which feel as though they were rushed to begin with)
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2627
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 09:45:00 -
[478] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote: Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)
Does that mean its going to trim the number of allies down to the cap when 1.1 comes out? Or will it just refuse to let me add new allies up until the renewal 2 weeks? (+ if it does auto trim how is it going to decide which allies to lose?)
you get to keep your gazillion allies (for 2 weeks) but the next one is going to cost you whatever the cap is
unless your war is mutual, then all your allies will be removed Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1068
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:10:00 -
[479] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners
you need 700 tech moons to have that much income in a week and I'm pretty sure there are far less than 700 tech moons eh |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:37:00 -
[480] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners you need 700 tech moons to have that much income in a week and I'm pretty sure there are far less than 700 tech moons
Approximately 350-400 afaik, of which goons are the largest holders with 76. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3527
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:38:00 -
[481] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners you need 700 tech moons to have that much income in a week and I'm pretty sure there are far less than 700 tech moons there's 350-400.
edit: argh |
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:39:00 -
[482] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying. That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback. I guess on our part it's an exercise in futility then. You state you haven't noticed peoples complaints or suggestions amongst the goon/jade spam/drama/whatever and then flat out state you won't bother looking and instead are going to just blindly push forward with flawed mechanics just because you've already got momentum. As for people reposting the same arguments ... shouldn't that give a bit more weight to them - it's one thing if a single character makes some random statements, but if it's echoed by a lot of people maybe it should be given a bit more consideration? Honestly, the kind of responses I've seen from CCP over this crap is very disheartening, as it seems as though you're all very reluctant to reconsider the 1.1 decisions (which feel as though they were rushed to begin with)
Or you could actually read what screegs wrote and realise theyre ignoring people whos attempts at persuasion involve spamming the same **** over and over and over. Give them some feedback thats actually worth reading and they'll take it on board. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3527
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 10:39:00 -
[483] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote: Which is exactly what has happened, only the Goons thought we would just bend over and take the abuse. Oh how wrong they were.
you are, and will continue to do so
meanwhile our unwardeccable npc alt freighters will continue to supply us and bring our tech to jita
have fun! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1352
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:07:00 -
[484] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:I honestly think the goons are scared, scared that their highsec logistic alts will get shut into a station, scared of their moon goo shipments getting repeatedly ambushed, scared that all the carebears, they have spent the last several year terrorizing, have finally said enough is enough. I'm sure when this started they had no idea that we carebears actually had some teeth, that we would band together and fight back. This war stopped being about Goonswarm v Jade a while ago, now it is Goonswarm v Highsec and they don't like it. Can you show a) Any such mention of this, ever? b) Any of these "ambushes"? (hint: neutral alts hurr hurr) c) Highsec "standing together" Hint: corps who declared war on everyone don't count - "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
1352
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:09:00 -
[485] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Two step wrote:I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended. Wardecs should be risky, but all the risk should be on the defender's side? WTF? You want to be a flaccid-phallus and wardec corps in hisec, then you want the poor fools you're wardeccing to stump the costs for defending a war they didn't want? If wars are supposed to be risky, the defender should at the very least be allowed free allies up to the point that the defending team outnumbers the attacking team. Making a war mutual should not preclude the defenders having allies. You started the war, you wear the cost. The defender goes mutual, you're stuck in the war that you started. That's your risk. Please listen to this player CCP ... she gets it! Giant self-confessed carebear is on your side, and this is evidence your change is balanced and reasonable?
Heh.
Jade, your proposal has been shot down in countless threads already. Why do you insist that this hasn't happened? Do you enjoy having these posts linked and then leaving the thread until it's off the first page? - "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 |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1543
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:11:00 -
[486] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners you need 700 tech moons to have that much income in a week and I'm pretty sure there are far less than 700 tech moons
Thank you for showing that not even technetium miners can afford to have as many allies as the new wardec system provides for (yes, I'm aware that they are large alliances which wouldn't need allies if some hisec immensely space-rich person wanted to burn 500M ISK/week wardeccing people who don't care about wardecs). The design has not been thought through. The consequences of these design decisions have not been considered.
I would like to see a statement of the goals for the system, beyond just "enabling the mercenary market". I don't give a damn about the mercenary market: they've done well enough for themselves so far, and there's no reason for CCP to stick their fingers in that pie. If the wardec system happens to be useful to them, well and good. But the wardec system should not be designed with only the goal of enabling mercenaries in mind.
I have posted elsewhere about sensible ideas for the future of wardecs, beyond simply being a licence to grief smaller groups of players out of the game: make wardecs objective based (the main one I can think of is "remove this POS", another could be, "cause X ISK damage while taking less than Y ISK damage", or "prevent this corp mining in this constellation"). Then put some money as a wager on the outcome of this wardec.
So rather than simply paying a bribe to CONCORD, the aggressor is also making a challenge to the victim: defend your POS, win 1B ISK. If you want fights, you'll pay for them.
Wardecs will still be viable as a griefing mechanism: you can even motivate your targets to log in and get blown up by challenging them to blow up more than Y ISK worth of your ships with a nice kitty on the table.
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1352
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 11:37:00 -
[487] - Quote
So, if I want to wardec Jade and his band of buddies for making up endless conspiracy theories about me, I'm not allowed to?
Your proposal is very silly, because trying to artificially give conditions for war in a sandbox is the complete antithesis of what fighting in a sandbox actually is.
It's nothing more than a thinly veiled request for protection, which we know is your MO.
Your proposal would be *perfectly good gameplay* in something like Star Trek online, or World of Tanks, or anything else which sets up the battles and scenarios for you, but not EvE.
If I want to take a meta 0 fit Rifter and wardec you forever I should be able to do this. If your corp/alliance can't find a way to defend against it then that's really your problem. - "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 |
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 12:07:00 -
[488] - Quote
I read most posts on this thread and I still don't understand CCPs logic of charging by the ally.
If I've understood correctly, the reasons for the changes are to boost the Merc profession and cap the number of corps that can sign up to ally with a decced corp.
How does charging corps extra to add allies help the Merc profession? Don't you need to limit the supply of allies to adjust the value of an ally (economics 101)?
There is a huge diversity of Alliances, Corps, and play styles in Eve, and this change seems to focus protecting a narrow (yet powerful) section of the player base. This change doesn't do anything to improve the game of Eve. I would have thought it would be better to boost the smaller alliances and corps to create more variety in the Eve Universe.
1) There should be risks and consequences to declaring war on someone. 2) Defenders should be able to call for allies from across New Eden. Make the market determine the availability of suitable allies 3) Allying yourself with a defender should confer it's own risk and reward, thereby limiting the number of potential allies.
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3529
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 12:23:00 -
[489] - Quote
Lady Boon wrote: How does charging corps extra to add allies help the Merc profession? Don't you need to limit the supply of allies to adjust the value of an ally (economics 101)?
You failed economics 101.
If you only have a limited number of ally slots, you must pick the most effective allies for those slots. 5 random trash alliances is a poor use of your scarce resources (ally slots): instead you will want the actually effective corporations. |
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 12:42:00 -
[490] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Lady Boon wrote: How does charging corps extra to add allies help the Merc profession? Don't you need to limit the supply of allies to adjust the value of an ally (economics 101)?
You failed economics 101. If you only have a limited number of ally slots, you must pick the most effective allies for those slots. 5 random trash alliances is a poor use of your scarce resources (ally slots): instead you will want the actually effective corporations.
Actually I passed.
Limiting the number of ally slots reduces the elasticity of demand, this stifles the Merc market. |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2629
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:08:00 -
[491] - Quote
Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
264
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:09:00 -
[492] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay
take all my likes, this makes up for a lot of avocado spoiled burgers |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3537
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:27:00 -
[493] - Quote
Lady Boon wrote:Actually I passed.
Limiting the number of ally slots reduces the elasticity of demand, this stifles the Merc market. that might be a legitimate criticism if the "merc market" was any sort of market currently, however it is not |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2377
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:31:00 -
[494] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay
Not even Eve online balancing discussions are worth skipping a nights sleep and a nice breakfast for.
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! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2637
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:32:00 -
[495] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay Not even Eve online balancing discussions are worth skipping a nights sleep and a nice breakfast for.
phew! welcome back Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2377
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:35:00 -
[496] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay Not even Eve online balancing discussions are worth skipping a nights sleep and a nice breakfast for. phew! welcome back
Well I couldn't leave a nice lady alone with all those shocking goons now could I?
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
3537
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:35:00 -
[497] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Lady Boon wrote:Actually I passed.
Limiting the number of ally slots reduces the elasticity of demand, this stifles the Merc market. that might be a legitimate criticism if the "merc market" was any sort of market currently, however it is not to elaborate by creating scarcity you create economic behavior with regard to that scarcity and create the seeds of a market
currently, as there is no scarcity of any resource there is no economic activity of any kind |
Marak Noir
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:55:00 -
[498] - Quote
It's sad to see the Dev posts reduced to facetious comments. As a player, I always expect a forum thread with Dev posts to contain something interesting or useful.
As far as I can gather, Inferno is all about 'war' and making Mercenaries a valid profession in Eve. Why? It's a sandbox. If the game needs them, they will be available.
From a personal point of view it would be better to make the mechanics of Mercenary/Employer easier to use. Mercenaries need prospective Employers to post objectives and durations of contract on a suitable War Board. Employers need to be able to pick and choose Mercenary groups by looking at their accomplishments on the same board. Then just let them get on with it.
The 'dogpiling' of Allies sounded wonderful fun - just what the game needed to spice up highsec and make anyone declaring war think twice before pressing the button. Not everything Jade says is rubbish! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2640
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 13:59:00 -
[499] - Quote
Marak Noir wrote:It's sad to see the Dev posts reduced to facetious comments. As a player, I always expect a forum thread with Dev posts to contain something interesting or useful.
I'm not a game designer so I have no real say in the mechanics but yesterday I was replying to Jade about his UI concerns (ally cost and what would happen to them when he has so many allies in his war) - so I'm being helpful too even though I don't have anything to say about what concerns you Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
47
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 14:01:00 -
[500] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Lady Boon wrote: How does charging corps extra to add allies help the Merc profession? Don't you need to limit the supply of allies to adjust the value of an ally (economics 101)?
You failed economics 101. If you only have a limited number of ally slots, you must pick the most effective allies for those slots. 5 random trash alliances is a poor use of your scarce resources (ally slots): instead you will want the actually effective corporations.
I good merc corp is better then 100 random free corps. If defending corps wanted a good merc corp, they will pay for it. People will only pay for a merc corp if they have something to defend that they themselves would be unable to. That doesn't change because they are limited to a small handful of ally slots.
|
|
Arrgthepirate
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 14:09:00 -
[501] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay Not even Eve online balancing discussions are worth skipping a nights sleep and a nice breakfast for. phew! welcome back Well I couldn't leave a nice lady alone with all those shocking goons now could I?
What? You think we don't treat our wimmins right or something?! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2378
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 14:29:00 -
[502] - Quote
Marak Noir wrote:It's sad to see the Dev posts reduced to facetious comments. As a player, I always expect a forum thread with Dev posts to contain something interesting or useful.
As far as I can gather, Inferno is all about 'war' and making Mercenaries a valid profession in Eve. Why? It's a sandbox. If the game needs them, they will be available.
From a personal point of view it would be better to make the mechanics of Mercenary/Employer easier to use. Mercenaries need prospective Employers to post objectives and durations of contract on a suitable War Board. Employers need to be able to pick and choose Mercenary groups by looking at their accomplishments on the same board. Then just let them get on with it.
The 'dogpiling' of Allies sounded wonderful fun - just what the game needed to spice up highsec and make anyone declaring war think twice before pressing the button. Not everything Jade says is rubbish!
The real issue with the mercenary profession is that there is no gameplay reason to include them in defensive wars in the current state of the game and wardec mechanic - there is literally nothing that a merc can do to help you end an incoming war that cannot be accomplished without paying a penny (and this is even before Inferno 1.0).
If you get wardecced you move your logistics out of corp/alliance (as the goon posters here have boasted they do) - you limit your exposure, and you wait for the attacker to run out of money/patience or just prep for the occassional gank.
Prior to inferno my own alliance went through an intensely frustrating 15 month period of seeking a "good" hisec war but the same happened time after time, - logistics disappear, people move-away - use blueball tactics and general bore the attacker senseless.
What Inferno 1.0 delivered was not a "merc marketplace" (basically the wardec team delivered nothing in terms of adding value and consequence to wars) it was simply a "mayhem marketplace" where defenders could invite dogpiling onto attackers as a quid pro quo balancing to the closing of wardec evasion loopholes and increased large alliance wardec defense through size escalation.
So now the issue we have is trying ostensibly to "boost" a merc profession by removing the mayhem marketplace which destroys the balance reached on attack vs defense with Incarna 1.0/.
It doesn't help mercenary corporations in the slightest because nobody has a motivation to hire them. Why pay more than zero for a defensive ally when no defensive ally in the game is capable of bringing a war to a conclusion. The "scarcity" argument conjured up by some is just complete hogwash - an entity might wardec X small target and that target add the 5 largest alliances in the game to their defensive war for a total of 20,000 players and a total cost of 150m isk per 2 weeks. All they achieve is giving the attacker more free targets and ensuring they lose the baseline isk transaction war (50m vs 75m) while doing absolutely nothing to bring the war to a conclusion.
Until CCP is able to engineer a wardec system with stakes and consequences then there will be no purpose to mercs joining defensive wars except to scam/skim ISK payments from the credulous while doing precisely nothing to help "win" unwinnable wars.
If on the other hand Team Superfriends had delivered a stakes system for war (here's something I made up on the back of a beermat last night for example):
Wardec declared ... (Alliance X 5000) people (aliiance Y 1000 people.) Alliance X pays 200m per week (alliance Y to X would be 500m)
Default stake (defeat penality) = cost to wardec X vs Y + cost to wardec Y vs X x 10 = 7billion isk.
This stake would be paid out if one alliance gets a 75% isk killed efficiency on the other alliance while scoring at least 7b isk damage done (taken directly from the executor corp wallet or fixed as an automaticly collected "debt" if wallet insufficient. (entities in debt would no longer be able to declare war).
So in one move you'd have wars that risked something for both sides. Whichever alliance first scored 7b isk damage while being at least 75% ahead of the other would be judged to have "won" the war and has the option to take the victory boon,
Alternatively a victorious defender could "double down" perhaps and take over as the attacker for the next sequence while increasing the stake 2x to 14b isk (and skip the war fee thereafter) (rinse and repeat.)
It turns wars into hi stakes gambling and contests where both risk on the outcome.
Now.
Introduce this system and you can bet your ass that mercenary corps will have a role again because hiring them directly increases your chance of winning a hi-stakes empire war and collecting the victory boon. Allow mercs to be paid in hiring fee + futures (split of the victory take) and you suddenly make this an interesting game feature with genuine market.
In my example above I can see Alliance Y definitely wanting the service of a decent merc corp to help it win and collect the pot or reverse and double down as the new attacker.
***
Like I said, this is back of a beer mat proposal for how to make merc corps viable. But it involves actually producing a war system where victory and defeat matters and the participants are actually interested in winning.
But its what you need to make people care about merc corps in defensive wars.
The 1.1 patch just tries to promote mercs by nerfing mayhem and the outcome will just be less war involvement by everyone.
If Team Superfriends have decent metrics they can check in six months time we can revisit this prediction and see who is right and who is wrong on this. If warfare has exploded all over new eden and mercs are the new superstar professionals of eve I'll doubless eat some humble pie on the 1.1 change come christmas.
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! |
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 14:30:00 -
[503] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Weaselior wrote:Lady Boon wrote:Actually I passed.
Limiting the number of ally slots reduces the elasticity of demand, this stifles the Merc market. that might be a legitimate criticism if the "merc market" was any sort of market currently, however it is not to elaborate by creating scarcity you create economic behavior with regard to that scarcity and create the seeds of a market currently, as there is no scarcity of any resource there is no economic activity of any kind
We're in agreement there, since potential allies a not in limited supply, there is little reason to hire Mercs, hence no market.
Where we disagree is in the mechanism that CCP have chosen to limit the supply of allies. |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
79
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:40:00 -
[504] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.
Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed. There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given. So please try it. Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts. Read what everyone else is saying. That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback. I guess on our part it's an exercise in futility then. You state you haven't noticed peoples complaints or suggestions amongst the goon/jade spam/drama/whatever and then flat out state you won't bother looking and instead are going to just blindly push forward with flawed mechanics just because you've already got momentum. As for people reposting the same arguments ... shouldn't that give a bit more weight to them - it's one thing if a single character makes some random statements, but if it's echoed by a lot of people maybe it should be given a bit more consideration? Honestly, the kind of responses I've seen from CCP over this crap is very disheartening, as it seems as though you're all very reluctant to reconsider the 1.1 decisions (which feel as though they were rushed to begin with) Or you could actually read what screegs wrote and realise theyre ignoring people whos attempts at persuasion involve spamming the same **** over and over and over. Give them some feedback thats actually worth reading and they'll take it on board.
The way you describe it makes it sound quite a lot like "if we don't like it, then it was worthless feedback to begin with!". I hope your post isn't an accurate portrayel of any sentiments CCP/the csm have.
|
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
35
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:45:00 -
[505] - Quote
Frankly, this last change to the wardec system SUCKS. Between this and the unified inventory system, I'm ready to move to Star Trek Online.
Just because someone cried about all the allies their enemy brought on. too bad huh. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago? |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
83
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 15:55:00 -
[506] - Quote
Anyway, on the subject of mercs, bouncing the mechanics between being skewed in favour of aggressors or defenders doesn't stimulate merc gameplay. If you skew it in favour of defenders they don't need mercs, if you skew it in favour of aggressors then the majority of poor/small defending corps will do what they always have: dock up, use out of corp alts and wait it out.
Mercs shine when it comes to specific tasks like defending a tower thats coming out of reinforced, knocking over an enemies tower, etc. Certain 'goals' or mechanics that mercs specifically would excell at (more than just being extra bodies, or camping hubs) should be the focus. I don't think limiting or otherwise messing with "normal" allies will successfully steer people towards using mercs. |
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:15:00 -
[507] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Nikon Nip wrote: Which is exactly what has happened, only the Goons thought we would just bend over and take the abuse. Oh how wrong they were.
you are, and will continue to do so meanwhile our unwardeccable npc alt freighters will continue to supply us and bring our tech to jita have fun!
So, if I understand this correctly, you ARE afraid of wardecs and do care about them, otherwise you wouldn't need to hide in the npc corps. Interesting, another admission of fear direct from a goon. |
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 17:20:00 -
[508] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: You know the hilarious thing in all of this is the ONLY entities that *can* fight a war (if they chose to do so) with unlimited and free allies IS ******* Goonswarm/TEST. .
So your saying that the game HAS been rigged to give the advantage to Test/Goons? |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3544
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 18:09:00 -
[509] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote: So, if I understand this correctly, you ARE afraid of wardecs and do care about them, otherwise you wouldn't need to hide in the npc corps. Interesting, another admission of fear direct from a goon.
this is one of those things that's so stupid it's actually difficult to respond to because to focus on just one of the stupid things lets the other ones slip through
you cannot threaten us with wardecs, because like anyone with brains larger than a snail, we do our shipping in npc corps. a freighter is not a combat ship: it cannot do damage and so its only recourse is to avoid combat, so naturally we do so. given the choice of screening a freighter with a fleet or simply dropping it into an npc corp naturally we'll take the easy road because who wants to put in effort moving a space truck
we have nothing to actually fear from a collection of highseccers with little more brains than a turnip because we know how to play this game and therefore know that the method they're trying to threaten us with simply doesn't work
so we laugh about the idea that we're actually threatened by having everyone in empire wardecced with goonswarm to the extent we'd batphone devs is so laughable that its almost suprising even jade believes it |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1352
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:43:00 -
[510] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: You know the hilarious thing in all of this is the ONLY entities that *can* fight a war (if they chose to do so) with unlimited and free allies IS ******* Goonswarm/TEST. .
So your saying that the game HAS been rigged to give the advantage to Test/Goons? Wow this is special.
So it's rigged if the current system favours them and it's rigged if the change favours them, and you just decide to flip a coin as to which that is? Surely the vector of change is the important thing, no? (whether it is moving to support them or hinder)
That's the worst logic I've seen in a thread in a long time, and that is really saying something. - "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
1352
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:46:00 -
[511] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:If on the other hand Team Superfriends had delivered a stakes system for war (here's something I made up on the back of a beermat last night for example):
Wardec declared ... (Alliance X 5000) people (aliiance Y 1000 people.) Alliance X pays 200m per week (alliance Y to X would be 500m)
Default stake (defeat penality) = cost to wardec X vs Y + cost to wardec Y vs X x 10 = 7billion isk.
This stake would be paid out if one alliance gets a 75% isk killed efficiency on the other alliance while scoring at least 7b isk damage done (taken directly from the executor corp wallet or fixed as an automaticly collected "debt" if wallet insufficient. (entities in debt would no longer be able to declare war).
I'll say the same thing I said to Mara, this is a perfectly good gameplay mechanic, and I will not argue against it.
It is not, however, a gameplay mechanic that you try to force into a game designed to be a sandbox and CERTAINLY not one you do so with some inane notion of "fairness."
Contrary to what you might think everyone starts the game with the same skills and ISK. To say your situation is "unfair" is basically saying you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which you have a disadvantage.
In your case, it was mouthing off constantly without the military backing to do anything about it.
That's your fault, a sandbox game shouldn't be re-balanced around you.
(your other gameplay ideas seem centred around letting very small groups cause disparaging harm against larger groups in nullsec, so the your MO of "every change should make it easier for me to harm Goons" is long established.) - "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
1352
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:49:00 -
[512] - Quote
We're also on post #447 and still talking about how this is about Goonswarm, when it's really all about small entities in highsec being able to declare war and not getting run over after the defender pressed one button. - "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
1352
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 19:54:00 -
[513] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:so we laugh about the idea that we're actually threatened by having everyone in empire wardecced with goonswarm to the extent we'd batphone devs is so laughable that its almost suprising even jade believes it Jade doesn't believe it, he's using tabloid style assuagions and strawmanning to try to make his argument have some weight, and hopes the mass of NPC corp alts who will rage about anything with the word "Goons" in it will make it seem like he has support. He also makes proposals hoping people will swallow the assumptions within, and argue on his terms, and not look beyond them.
I at least give him credit for playing a clever game, even if it has bounced straight off his targets (CSM and CCP). - "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 |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2644
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 20:19:00 -
[514] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:We're also on post #447 and still talking
really? I hadn't noticed..... Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2380
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:13:00 -
[515] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:We're also on post #447 and still talking really? I hadn't noticed.....
Anyone would think that eve players didn't like the 1.1 patch nerf to wardec mayhem!
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! |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
521
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:20:00 -
[516] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Anyone would think that eve players didn't like the 1.1 patch nerf to wardec mayhem! If it wasn't for the fact that this thread has only been kept alive by a handful of characters, yes.
Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1547
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 21:55:00 -
[517] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:So, if I want to wardec Jade and his band of buddies for making up endless conspiracy theories about me, I'm not allowed to?
Where did my proposal prohibit that kind of wardec? You can still wardec for griefing: just sign up for a "inflict damage" wardec with very modest goals and put a tiny kitty on the table (tiny, like 0).
Khanh'rhh wrote:Your proposal is very silly, because trying to artificially give conditions for war in a sandbox is the complete antithesis of what fighting in a sandbox actually is.
You can already grief people using suicide ganking and other mechanisms. The design goal in my system is to provide some incentive for the wardecced party to fight. Do you want more fights, or are you only interested in driving people from the game?
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1547
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:04:00 -
[518] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Contrary to what you might think everyone starts the game with the same skills and ISK. To say your situation is "unfair" is basically saying you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which you have a disadvantage.
i.e.: "You must play EVE my way, or you are wrong".
Some people don't care to be a mindless henchman. Some people don't want to dedicate their game time to someone else's objectives. Why should all play style be "join a huge alliance, move to null sec, shoot structures for hours"? That's what you're saying, by implying that people who resent a wardec system that favours larger aggressors are manoeuvring themselves into a position of disadvantage.
My play style has huge advantages for me: I pick what I want to do when I play the game I subscribed to. If I want to spend an evening mining, I don't have to put up with someone else telling me, "you can't do that, we're supposed to be invading that system over there". If I want to spend an evening in my astrometrics frigate, I don't have to cop abuse from my corp mates for doing care bear activities when everyone else is busy chasing down reds.
The new wardec system makes it much more expensive for a small pirate corp to inflict damage on large industrial corps. It's cheaper to suicide gank them than to wardec them. My argument isn't about "fairness," it's about encouraging warring parties to actually fight. With defined objectives for a war and a potential reward for winning, the care bear corp will have some incentive to prevent the aggressor achieving their goal.
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:19:00 -
[519] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: Wow this is special.
So it's rigged if the current system favours them and it's rigged if the change favours them, and you just decide to flip a coin as to which that is? Surely the vector of change is the important thing, no? (whether it is moving to support them or hinder)
That's the worst logic I've seen in a thread in a long time, and that is really saying something.
It's not a coin flip I'm using, it's common sense. I'm goingto spell it out for you rrrreeeeeeeaaaallll sssssslllloooooowwwww for you, you are a goon after all...
Pre-inferno - the system favored large alliances/the aggressor Inferno - (pay real close attention to this part) the system favors the defendor because of unlimited allies, we AGREE that this needs to go as it's unbalanced Inferno 1.1 - system moves ALL the power back to the large alliance/aggressor <--this is the part we do NOT AGREE on. You see, where all you goons keep twisting things around is, we agree that the current system needs some changes, we DO NOT think that those changes should be those announced for 1.1. Hell, we have all even said that jades may not even be the right/best solution, but we do know that the 1.1 changes are only going to make wardecs a grief only mechanic instead of the awesome pvp tool it should be.
Weaselior wrote: this is one of those things that's so stupid it's actually difficult to respond to because to focus on just one of the stupid things lets the other ones slip through
you cannot threaten us with wardecs, because like anyone with brains larger than a snail, we do our shipping in npc corps. a freighter is not a combat ship: it cannot do damage and so its only recourse is to avoid combat, so naturally we do so. given the choice of screening a freighter with a fleet or simply dropping it into an npc corp naturally we'll take the easy road because who wants to put in effort moving a space truck
we have nothing to actually fear from a collection of highseccers -----Edit----- because we know how to play this game and therefore know that the method they're trying to threaten us with simply doesn't work
so we laugh about the idea that we're actually threatened by having everyone in empire wardecced with goonswarm to the extent we'd batphone devs is so laughable that its almost suprising even jade believes it
ROFL ROFL ROFL, your so enraged that you had to start using names? Look everyone a goon who's been trolled. Run back to your npc alt already, and hide behind ccps skirt while they dig you out of the situation you've gotten yourselves into. If you guys had any BALLS you wouldn't be exploiting the system by using npc corps, hell, I'm a huge carebear and even I don't use the npc corps to hide from wardecs in. Run little boys run from the big bad carebears, cause we'll eat your face and quench our thirst with your delicious salty tears.
Unfortunetly, I must say that I know you do not have a devphone or control what ccp does and does not do..............I DO however, think that ccp caters to a few alliances/playstyles at the expense of others. Seriously CCP....carebears are paying customers too and we demand some love. (The upcoming barge changes are a good start, but we NEED more)
Weaselior wrote: you also shouldn't use racist character names
OMFG, really? Look everyone, I found a way to offend a goon, and I wasn't even trying. After all the things that goons/mittens have said/done you suddenly decide that my name is racist? Where was your consience/line in the sand when mittens called for the suicide of *** ***? Or when mittens threw his temper tantrum and called for the harassment of certain people in game?
Khanh'rhh wrote: I'll say the same thing I said to Mara, this is a perfectly good gameplay mechanic, and I will not argue against it.
It is not, however, a gameplay mechanic that you try to force into a game designed to be a sandbox and CERTAINLY not one you do so with some inane notion of "fairness."
Contrary to what you might think everyone starts the game with the same skills and ISK. To say your situation is "unfair" is basically saying you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which you have a disadvantage.
In your case, it was mouthing off constantly without the military backing to do anything about it.
That's your fault, a sandbox game shouldn't be re-balanced around you.
(your other gameplay ideas seem centred around letting very small groups cause disparaging harm against larger groups in nullsec, so your MO of "every change should make it easier for me to harm Goons" is long established.)
So its ok if the game is balanced around goons and their gameplay, but no one elses. That's basically what your saying, and that is a load of horseshit. Again, we're not advocating making wars fair, we want them balanced, there is a difference. All you want is the ability to grief with immunity, and what we want is the ability to fight back and not be griefed into quitting (which is all that wardecs are good for at this point).
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium
1549
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:54:00 -
[520] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:It's not a coin flip I'm using, it's common sense. I'm going to spell it out for you rrrreeeeeeeaaaallll sssssslllloooooowwwww for you; you are a goon after all...
Sadly, as much as he worships the ground that they walk on, Khanh'rhh is not a Goon. He's part of Sudden Buggery which appears to be a low sec roaming corp. Why he's so opinionated about hisec wardecs, I don't know. He has claimed in the past to have pursued single-man wardecs against larger corporations and perhaps believes that this means he understands the design goals of wardecs and what wardecs mean to hisec corps.
Day 0 advice for new players: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=77176 |
|
Nikon Nip
Node Alpha Defense Research
13
|
Posted - 2012.06.20 22:57:00 -
[521] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Nikon Nip wrote:It's not a coin flip I'm using, it's common sense. I'm going to spell it out for you rrrreeeeeeeaaaallll sssssslllloooooowwwww for you; you are a goon after all... Sadly, as much as he worships the ground that they walk on, Khanh'rhh is not a Goon. He's part of Sudden Buggery which appears to be a low sec roaming corp. Why he's so opinionated about hisec wardecs, I don't know. He has claimed in the past to have pursued single-man wardecs against larger corporations and perhaps believes that this means he understands the design goals of wardecs and what wardecs mean to hisec corps.
If he's not a goons alt then I'm mittens. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2380
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 00:27:00 -
[522] - Quote
I don't think he's a goon, he's a member of a wormhole roaming corp of some kind. He is pretty close to Mittani on twitter though so who knows.
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! |
MotherMoon
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
892
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 02:36:00 -
[523] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay
I think you just became my favorite poster <3 amazing forum post, I lol'd I cried Why dust 514 is on Console and not PCBattle field 3 sales Xbox 360: 2.2 million PlayStation 3: 1.5 million PC: 500,000http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
129
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 04:49:00 -
[524] - Quote
j Haginen wrote:Well im gona say this short ; ccp good job!!!!!!! with your war decking system,youjust fd up pvp again go on f*** it up more , the only thing whats happening is your gona lose more eve players. the only ones gona stays in this game are your goonpets
It does appear that while its not supposed to be fair, as Soundwave said, its only supposed to be unfair for the defenders. If it becomes unfair for the attacker, the rules will be changed.
Nikon Nip wrote:Maybe all the highsec carebears need to arrange a little uprising like we did for the whole incarna thing. How do you think ccp would respond if several thousand carebear accounts suddenly just stopped subscribing. Maybe then we would get some carebear love
You do that, Goons unsub, yer back at square one.
Gl with that O.o http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
89
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 08:25:00 -
[525] - Quote
Nikon Nip wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: Wow this is special.
So it's rigged if the current system favours them and it's rigged if the change favours them, and you just decide to flip a coin as to which that is? Surely the vector of change is the important thing, no? (Whether it is moving to support them or hinder)
That's the worst logic I've seen in a thread in a long time, and that is really saying something.
It's not a coin flip I'm using, it's common sense. I'm going to spell it out for you rrrreeeeeeeaaaallll sssssslllloooooowwwww for you; you are a goon after all... Pre-inferno - the system favoured large alliances/the aggressor Inferno - (pay real close attention to this part) the system favours the defender because of unlimited allies, we AGREE that this needs to go as it's unbalanced Inferno 1.1 - system moves ALL the power back to the large alliance/aggressor <--this is the part we do NOT AGREE on. You see, where all you goons keep twisting things around is, we agree that the current system needs some changes, we DO NOT think that those changes should be those announced for 1.1. Hell, we have all even said that jades may not even be the right/best solution, but we do know that the 1.1 changes are only going to make wardecs a grief only mechanic instead of the awesome pvp tool it should be. Weaselior wrote: this is one of those things that's so stupid it's actually difficult to respond to because to focus on just one of the stupid things lets the other ones slip through
you cannot threaten us with wardecs, because like anyone with brains larger than a snail, we do our shipping in npc corps. a freighter is not a combat ship: it cannot do damage and so its only recourse is to avoid combat, so naturally we do so. given the choice of screening a freighter with a fleet or simply dropping it into an npc corp naturally we'll take the easy road because who wants to put in effort moving a space truck
we have nothing to actually fear from a collection of highseccers -----Edit----- because we know how to play this game and therefore know that the method they're trying to threaten us with simply doesn't work
so we laugh about the idea that we're actually threatened by having everyone in empire wardecced with goonswarm to the extent we'd batphone devs is so laughable that its almost suprising even jade believes it
ROFL ROFL ROFL, youGÇÖre so enraged that you had to start using names? Look everyone a goon who's been trolled. Run back to your npc alt already, and hide behind ccps skirt while they dig you out of the situation you've gotten yourselves into. If you guys had any BALLS you wouldn't be exploiting the system by using npc corps, hell, I'm a huge carebear and even I don't use the npc corps to hide from wardecs in. Run little boys run from the big bad carebears, because we'll eat your face and quench our thirst with your delicious salty tears. Unfortunately, I must say that I know you do not have a devphone or control what ccp does and does not do..............I DO however; think that ccp caters to a few alliances/play styles at the expense of others. Seriously CCP....carebears are paying customers too and we demand some love. (The upcoming barge changes are a good start, but we NEED more) Weaselior wrote: you also shouldn't use racist character names
OMFG, really? Look everyone, I found a way to offend a goon, and I wasn't even trying. After all the things that goons/mittens have said/done, where was your conscience/line in the sand when mittens called for the suicide of *** ***? Or when mittens threw his temper tantrum and called for the harassment of certain people in game? Khanh'rhh wrote: I'll say the same thing I said to Mara, this is a perfectly good gameplay mechanic, and I will not argue against it.
It is not, however, a gameplay mechanic that you try to force into a game designed to be a sandbox and CERTAINLY not one you do so with some inane notion of "fairness."
Contrary to what you might think everyone starts the game with the same skills and ISK. To say your situation is "unfair" is basically saying you have maneuvered yourself into a position in which you have a disadvantage.
In your case, it was mouthing off constantly without the military backing to do anything about it.
That's your fault, a sandbox game shouldn't be re-balanced around you.
(your other gameplay ideas seem centred around letting very small groups cause disparaging harm against larger groups in nullsec, so your MO of "every change should make it easier for me to harm Goons" is long established.)
So its ok if the game is balanced around goons and their game play, but no one elseGÇÖs. That's basically what youGÇÖre saying, and that is a load of horseshit. Again, we're not advocating making wars fair, we want them balanced, and there is a difference. All you want is the ability to grief with immunity, and what we want is the ability to fight back and not be griefed into quitting (which is all that wardecs are good for at this point).
That seems to be the general sentiments - wars should be unfair... so long as the unfairness is in favour of big nullsec alliances. If it's unfair AGAINST them then that's unfair and we need to make the unfairness unfair to be unfair for other people because thats only fair.
|
Bel Amar
Sudden Buggery Dead On Arrival Alliance
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 09:53:00 -
[526] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:I don't think he's a goon, he's a member of a wormhole roaming corp of some kind. He is pretty close to Mittani on twitter though so who knows.
Khanh'rhh, this whole time I never knew you had Mittens ear! Can you introduce me? |
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 11:37:00 -
[527] - Quote
As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...
Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.
On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because. |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1353
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:20:00 -
[528] - Quote
Bel Amar wrote:Khanh'rhh, this whole time I never knew you had Mittens ear! Can you introduce me? Mittens is my alt.
There's more evidence for that statement than most of those made in this thread about the reasoning for the changes. Sad, no?
If you're going to make (seemingly) ad hominem attacks such as "you would say that, as you're a Goon alt!" then at least look at the logic behind that, since I have spent the majority of this thread repeatedly saying "this isn't about Goonswarm."
Mara Rinn wrote:He's part of Sudden Buggery which appears to be a low sec roaming corp. Why he's so opinionated about hisec wardecs, I don't know. He has claimed in the past to have pursued single-man wardecs against larger corporations and perhaps believes that this means he understands the design goals of wardecs and what wardecs mean to hisec corps. As quite the opposite of the norm, not every change needs to affect the majority of my gameplay for me to express an opinion on it. Having said that, I both dabble in wardecs with BUGRY and on alts (who do it for ransoms). Indeed, BUGRY was the first corporation to sign an ally under 1.0 and we were using the system until a week ago; we know about as much about it as anyone. Not that direct experience is actually needed to infer logical reason from changes. Most of my objection is demonstrably level critism at the heart of the changes, I haven't talked about me and mine at all. If you want to look at a self interested party, as it happens, check out some Mara and Jade posts!
Quote:i.e.: "You must play EVE my way, or you are wrong" No, not at all. Do whatever you want. Do you see me in a large 0.0 alliance? No. You live with your own choices in EvE, however, so if I decided to mount a 1 man verbal crusade against large alliances I quite expect the consequences would be rather bad. I won't, however, decide to make up reasons why a game needs to change to make this more viable for myself.
Quote:My argument isn't about "fairness," it's about encouraging warring parties to actually fight. With defined objectives for a war and a potential reward for winning, the care bear corp will have some incentive to prevent the aggressor achieving their goal. You're still talking about setting objectives (in sense a framework construct) in a sandbox which is meant to be anything BUT that. We once went to war with the objective of taking down a POS and it turned into a 3-month long sprawling and quite random campaign, which got other entities involved across highsec, lowsec and WH space and formed new friends and enemies ... the sandbox lets this emergent conflict happen. Your system, stops it in the bud because waaaaaaaaaaaa it's just not right if there's no direction.
Quote:You can already grief people using suicide ganking and other mechanisms. The design goal in my system is to provide some incentive for the wardecced party to fight. Do you want more fights, or are you only interested in driving people from the game? I find it ironic and counter-intuitive that you would see open conflict as bad but targeted anger and rage (the kind that leads to repeat ganking) as OK. Which would be more likely to remove someone from the game? Your change is self invested, since you know people won't throw more than a handful of tornadoes at achieving grief when they're losing more than they're gaining. It's silly to support suicide ganking as a means of settling disputes, utterly. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2385
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:25:00 -
[529] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...
Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.
On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because.
Well its a good point you raise really as to "what is the actual problem?" with Inferno wardecs escalating in size of participants and leading to more mayhem in empire exactly? One of the problems Eve has faced recently is in the slowing of conflict and loss in 0.0 (not enough people dying and too few wars) leading to people getting super fat and bloated and driving up prices everywhere. Whilst I can't see wardecs actually making up for the terrible balance and poor game design in 0.0 currently - it might help a bit to have actual expansion of war participation (rather than the contraction and imposed barrier to entry in 1.1)
And yep, for a War-themed expansion to end up stifling war and choking off participation is pretty sad.
For what its worth I'm not sure we've seen the worst of the nerfs yet.
What 1.1 will achieve will be the crippling of defender participation in wars. It won't do anything for paid mercs and the only actual winners (aside from 0.0 alliances who will be safer) will be the largest trade hub raider entity who will get invited into ALL wars as the free ally. This means Orphange will have a renaissance of popularity and as long as they can manage not to be inflitrated and disbanded they'll have a field day - and frankly good on them!
Of course the "mercenary profession" will keep complaining and whining that they haven't got an income stream from Inferno and the next nerf we'll see to the war system will be restricting any organization from allying in more than one war.
And so on really.
This is the problem with Team Superfriends (in my opinion) not really understanding the problem with Eve Online wardecs and trying to legislate with the stick rather than the carrot and being badly advised by various "merc professionals" on the CSM.
One thing is sure though, no mercs are getting rich on these changes and for that alone we can draw some small crumb of satisfaction.
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! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
616
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:30:00 -
[530] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...
Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.
On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because.
It got deleted because you quoted a post that got deleted. Also I'm not sure that "tinfoil asshattery" is an entirely constructive statement
We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3588
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:47:00 -
[531] - Quote
goliath please allow me to wardec jade on the forums tia |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2390
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:51:00 -
[532] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game.
You guys haven't really explained why:
a) the 2 week ally contract now comes with a mandatory 24/48 hour cooldown even if the defender + ally wants to continue with the relationship (rather than programming an auto renewal for same terms if defender + ally click "auto renew")
b) the "unlimited allies" issue cannot be dealt with by having the cost escalator begin when the defender + defending allies outnumber the attacking entity. (soundwave's eve isn't fair post has been pretty thoroughly debunked)
c) why allies should be barred from mutual wars (given that mutual wars are THE ONLY way its possible to bind an attack to consequence in the inferno wardec system.
d) how exactly barring free allies from a defender in a wardec is going to lead to anything other than picking the largest trade hub raider alliance for free and then just ignoring it.
I mean, I'm not going to accuse you guys of ignoring this thread Goliath because you clearly haven't, you've tried at times to have a conversation, Punkaris has tried to entertain people etc etc, but I think we're a long way from getting some actual answers or debate on the perceived flaws of the 1.1 wardec changes.
Sure you can say that I've made a lot of the running on crticism so far (and I have) but I'm not the only one who sees a problem with this system hence the many posts here from interested neutrals, the many blogs on the subject out there in the community, the wide discussion on podcasts and radio and the general interest for this issue in the universe of eve online.
I said earlier in this thread that I got the impression these changes were set in stone and the developers were justifying a decision already made rather than engaged in a collaborative dialogue and I guess thats the underlying tension here.
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
2390
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 12:52:00 -
[533] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:goliath please allow me to wardec jade on the forums tia
You know perfectly well that would lead to one of your alts losing a thread full of moon minerals on the first day and once I got 50 allies you'd have to whine to Goliath to turn off the forum ally system again
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! |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:02:00 -
[534] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:You guys haven't really explained why: a) the 2 week ally contract now comes with a mandatory 24/48 hour cooldown even if the defender + ally wants to continue with the relationship (rather than programming an auto renewal for same terms if defender + ally click "auto renew") b) the "unlimited allies" issue cannot be dealt with by having the cost escalator begin when the defender + defending allies outnumber the attacking entity. (soundwave's eve isn't fair post has been pretty thoroughly debunked) c) why allies should be barred from mutual wars (given that mutual wars are THE ONLY way its possible to bind an attack to consequence in the inferno wardec system. d) how exactly barring free allies from a defender in a wardec is going to lead to anything other than picking the largest trade hub raider alliance for free and then just ignoring it.
a) I agree with you here
b) actually, allowing for unlimited free defenders makes it more of a "fair fight" for the defender
c) that would make the wardec system fair.
d) see my answer to c.
To be brutally honest, I don't believe the wardec system should exist at all. Here's my reasoning: 1) less BMCs (b**ches, moans, and complaints) everywhere. Let's be honest with ourselves here, it's pretty stupid at this point. (note: I'm trying to be as nice as possible here) 2) it would bring more of a meaning back to lo-sec as alliances and corporations could duke it out there for *free* (excluding sec-status drops) 3) it would eliminate this problem of "war decs not being fair" and "unlimited allies" because let's face it, you go to lo-sec or 0.0 and your wardec doesn't mean crap. You're fair game for everybody.
To me, wardecs take the risk out of the conflicts in EVE because it allows the warring corps/alliances to be in relative safety* in hi-sec fighting one another instead of being forced to watch their own backs for some third party to come and wipe both of them out.
PS: in lo-sec and 0.0, you can have your unlimited allies for free; just think on that.
* I use the term relative safety because pilots can still suicide gank you Pew Pew Pew! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1353
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:09:00 -
[535] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Weaselior wrote:goliath please allow me to wardec jade on the forums tia You know perfectly well that would lead to one of your alts losing a thread full of moon minerals on the first day and once I got 50 allies you'd have to whine to Goliath to turn off the forum ally system again [citation needed]
You're STILL making assuagions that this is the result of GSF whining about it.
Really.
Wow. - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2393
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:12:00 -
[536] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Weaselior wrote:goliath please allow me to wardec jade on the forums tia You know perfectly well that would lead to one of your alts losing a thread full of moon minerals on the first day and once I got 50 allies you'd have to whine to Goliath to turn off the forum ally system again [citation needed]
get one of these
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! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1353
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:14:00 -
[537] - Quote
It's a bit early to be joking about being a rabid conspirator, when you're still posting such. - "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
1354
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:18:00 -
[538] - Quote
I'll quote the guy who you said is debunking Soundwave saying it "shouldn't be fair" because this is really funny....
Mabrick wrote:Now, before you get yourself all worked up because CCP is favoring Goonswarm again, think it through. They NEED to make these changes. That little mutual war-dec dog-pile loop-hole isn't just usable to exact revenge on Goonswarm (or Test.) It can be used against every mercenary corporation that ever wanted to make a living from being mercenaries. And though you may find it odd for a carebear to say, they deserve the right to earn a living too. Frankly, mercenaries are some of the hardest working people I know. Dog-piling them because you don't like their chosen profession is no better than The Mittani sending out Death Squads because he doesn't like bad press from a high-sec carebear.
So CCP has to draw a line and the system has to be the same for everyone. There cannot be two separate war declaration systems - one for Goon size "aggressors" and one for everyone else. As much as I'd like to see Goons and anyone else with visions of a PvP Utopia driven out of high-sec, I can't condone ruining legitimate game-play for someone else. That would be selfish of me and it would be of you too. .... as exactly what he said in the post that "thoroughly debunks" the fairness argument is that "it isn't fair or should change." - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2393
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:28:00 -
[539] - Quote
You could try quoting all of it. The whole point of me linking a balanced article was that its well "balanced" if you are going to selective quote only the parts that suit your bias then you kinda defeat the object - let people go an read the whole article and make their own minds up.
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! |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
316
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:29:00 -
[540] - Quote
Well I think the new changes, make the New war dec mechanics more broken than the old ones.
As to whether or not this has anything to do with a large alliance. Frankly it doesn't matter.
Members of Goonswarm are always going on about how Hi-sec war decs don't affect them anyway. To prove their point, they should just be classed as Terrorists as made shoot on site by everyone including concord. They sponsor and commit terrorist actions in front of Concord. Follow the example of the United states and declare war on Terror.
But seriously. The allies system will be broken beyond the point of why bother in Inferno 1.1 and besides members of Goonswarm and some CSM's it seems to have little favor in the forums or on the majority of Blogs.
Just shoot it in the head and put it out of its misery. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
|
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:33:00 -
[541] - Quote
Using internet (fallacy) logic, since no one argued my point, I must be correct.
Seriously though, I'd like to hear someone counter my points by saying how important/good the wardec system is for hi-sec because I simply don't see the benefits. Pew Pew Pew! |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3588
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:49:00 -
[542] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Weaselior wrote:goliath please allow me to wardec jade on the forums tia You know perfectly well that would lead to one of your alts losing a thread full of moon minerals on the first day and once I got 50 allies you'd have to whine to Goliath to turn off the forum ally system again come now that guy wasn't even in my corp, you think i can be bothered to react 65 moons worth of tech?
for the record that would require a minimum of 195 towers |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2395
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:51:00 -
[543] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:Using internet (fallacy) logic, since no one argued my point, I must be correct. Seriously though, I'd like to hear someone counter my points by saying how important/good the wardec system is for hi-sec because I simply don't see the benefits.
The sad thing is that in its current state (the wardec system) you actually have a point. And I hate that you have a point. I mean, I used to love the wardec system. I really enjoyed the notion of corporate warfare, alliance showdowns - roleplaying wars, wars for resource and area denial and all that jazz. I've probably a longer wardec history in this game than anybody outside privateers/orphanage and I've been using the system since the servers turned on.
But little by little wardecs did become increasingly irrelevant.
NPC corps are partially to blame, its an obscenity that large alliances can use NPC corp alts to move their wealth to market in perfect safety while using the wardec system to dec smaller targets for vanity griefing purposes with no consequence. Given my way I'd force ALL characters over a month old to leave the NPC corp for a wardeccable corp.
Faction Warefare is partially to blame (for my playstyle, all roleplay alliances basically got eaten up by FW so it became pointless to pursue decs for roleplay ideology and pay for it when you could just join the opposite faction and have it for free).
0.0 stasis and ultimate boredom doesn't help, it used to the case that 0.0 alliances died and lost space and got busted back to the empire where they floated around in confusion and wardecs would blow them to bits. Last few years all 0.0 is napped and static and nobody really loses space any more.
Add to that the increasing risk-averse cynicism of the player base and perception of "us and them" mentality between pvp'ers and pve'ers / nullsec/hisec etc etc and you get a situaiton where rather than getting a wardec and thinking "great lets fight!" it turns into getting a wardec and groaning and making plans to move 30 jumps away, form a shell corp and go play in that till the attackers get bored.
All these things add up to wars being a bit rubbish currently, and I guess part of the disappointment with the Inferno 1.1 nerf is the dawning understanding that they will keep being a bit rubbish because CCP doesn't appear to have the knowledge and interest to design a truly good wardec system. Instead we get this half-assed stumbling thing that lurches between idiot (but enthusiastic) mayhem one week and dullsville crushing stasis the week after.
So yeah. I hate your argument Makari, but frankly I'm not sure I have much to fight it with.
The saddest thing is that I think CCP *could* genuinely have renewed and regenerated the wardec system this summer if they'd had the courage of the initial convictions expressed in the early devblogs - but a cavalcade of whinging from the big alliances and their CSM appointees have led to the neutering of creativity to short-sighted narrow-minded lobbying that doesn't even benefit half the lobbyists at the end of the day (ie big alliance protection boosted, merc profession completely thrown under the bus).
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! |
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 13:59:00 -
[544] - Quote
I think I have the perfect solution to the wardec problem. We can all just close our corps and alliances and return to the NPC corps, sit there, do our mining, mission running and griefing and whatever else we do. No player corps/alliances, no problem.
Naah, that's too easy. Although, if you ask me, it's heading that way. Fast. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago? |
Kale Freeman
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:03:00 -
[545] - Quote
Another suggestion...
What about separating mercs from allies
Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!
Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2395
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:07:00 -
[546] - Quote
Kale Freeman wrote:Another suggestion...
What about separating mercs from allies
Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!
Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.
EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end!
Works for me.
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! |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:11:00 -
[547] - Quote
Jade, I see your point with the Roleplay side of things. I simply did not consider it as I don't RP in EVE; I build stuff, I destroy stuff, nothing more.
I've noticed the 0.0 stagnation as well, being in a 0.0 alliance myself for the last few years. The last sov change that happened in my area was Test kicking Chribba out of his system and that was over 6 months ago. I both love (easier to make money) and hate (no really fun PvP) the peace I currently have in my area. But back on topic....
Personally, if you've been wardec'd you or your corp shouldn't be able to leave the alliance or have your crop join a non-wardec'd alliance. That would eliminate the majority of the risk-averse cynicism excluding hiding in stations all day or going to lo-sec/0.0.
As for the war-dec system being half-assed, I feel that the majority of the new expansions since I joined EVE a little over 3 years ago (right after Dominion) have been either half-assed or in an alpha state (the "new" SOV system, CQ, UI to name a few). So nothing new there.
It's a shame a long time EVE and wardec player like yourself can't counter my points as I still don't see, and have never seen, the benefits to wardecs excluding the RP side which you just brought to my attention. I suppose I can blame this lack of understanding on my two year, near continuous stint in 0.0 where wardecs are moot and everyone is fair game. Pew Pew Pew! |
Kale Freeman
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:20:00 -
[548] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kale Freeman wrote:Another suggestion...
What about separating mercs from allies
Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!
Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.
EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end! Works for me.
Although after reading this a few times it suddenly dawned on me that the right way to do this would be to have treaties. Manage your friends a mutual defence treaty, and hire your mercs through this expensive wardec ally mechanic. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2395
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 14:46:00 -
[549] - Quote
Kale Freeman wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Kale Freeman wrote:Another suggestion...
What about separating mercs from allies
Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!
Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.
EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end! Works for me. Although after reading this a few times it suddenly dawned on me that the right way to do this would be to have treaties. Manage your friends a mutual defence treaty, and hire your mercs through this expensive wardec ally mechanic.
Perhaps so, but I suspect the same people whining about the defensive ally "dogpile" consequence would still moan about treaty-dogpiling if it turned out that wardecs turned sour when too many people alligned with the defender. End of the day its diffcult to divorce people's in-game interest and bias from this discussion on any level - thats kinda what we need the devs for.
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
3588
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:16:00 -
[550] - Quote
I too agree we should listen to the devs and not countless pages of self-interested screeds.
They've weighed in, you say? |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3588
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:17:00 -
[551] - Quote
oh my, it seems they've decided against your self-interested screeds, i suppose now you will admit you have lost and cease posting
best of luck! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1354
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:44:00 -
[552] - Quote
Are you, actually, on crack?
He goes off on a theoretical about how it *could* look like the change is an anti-Goon change and then concludes (in the part I quoted) that it is in fact NOT.
The only way it says anything different is if you selectively quote it to the OPPOSITE of the conclusions present in the very thing you're linking.
Seriously, what the actual **** now?
You've also (again) selectively quoted yourself out of the parts where I demonstrate why your proposal is flawed logic.
You're like the forum version of a cartoon villain by now.
(also, in the comments, you will see me discussing it with him) - "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
1354
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 15:48:00 -
[553] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Perhaps so, but I suspect the same people whining about the defensive ally "dogpile" consequence would still moan about treaty-dogpiling if it turned out that wardecs turned sour when too many people alligned with the defender Not at all. If done right, it is a fair and balanced change. To state more clearly:
Corp a) I am a vehement enemy of GSF. I will stop at nothing to destroy them. Jade, I am your sworn ally!!
Corp b) Eh, I basically just camp 4-4 and want people to shoot. Thanks for letting me declare GSF for free, not that I'm not just applying for every war going, as I am.
These are two very different scenarios. If highsec wants to rise up in a huge entity and fight GSF then THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO. But, they need to be able to do this without making any and all wars pointless because everyone just wants free wardecs and cares not about the allegiances.
i.e. let a) happen but stop all the ******* nonsense with b)
Your change does *not* do this, neither was 1.0 the solution and neither is 1.1
My personal preference is that 1.0 stays as it is, with the changes:
- Corps can declare war as normal - Corps can only bind to one ally - Allies auto-renew if the war is renewed, but can leave the war on a 7 day cooldown if they wish - "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 |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2400
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:00:00 -
[554] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: My personal preference is that 1.0 stays as it is, with the changes: - Corps can declare war as normal - Corps can only bind to one ally - Allies auto-renew if the war is renewed, but can leave the war on a 7 day cooldown if they wish - Leaving an ally should (probably) have you pay the bill you would have paid to wardec, to discourage farming free wardecs with no consequences.
See, when you avoid all the personal attack nonsense you are capable of coming up with something thats worth discussing after all.
That isn't a bad compromise.
And light-years ahead of the kneejerk 1.1 "fix".
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
3588
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:02:00 -
[555] - Quote
jade i'm sorry i thought we agreed you'd cease posting self-interested screeds now that the devs had weighed in |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
21
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:32:00 -
[556] - Quote
Leave the devs alone.
Here are my thoughts on the Wardec System
- I agree the idea of aggregated costs for Alliances needs to be re-thought before implemented. Especially if the source of change is from the merc community. It's too early to claim ints killing the market and good mercs will always have a job. Not to mention people will pay for others to focus on a war. There needs to be a system that lets smaller corps leverage the political capitol they have and if friends want to help for free, they should be able to and the defender should not have to pay an absurd cost for this if the opposing force is vastly superior. Fee should go to the mercs, not the NPC system
Maybe the fee only activates once there is a huge discrepancy in the size of the corps fighting. A 10 man corp against a 1000 man corp will not get fees until their allies number equally to the opposing force. THEN the fees aggregate depending on the additional numbers of pilots the new ally brings. The 1000 man corp will need to pay a serious fee to bring new people in against a force 1/100 their size, This seem fair.
- I Do like the idea of a military consultant. The combat PVP part of this game IS just as important as the Economy. An outside perspective on the matter with someone who is not involved in the day to day team and gets warfare may be a good idea on many levels.
- While I agree with Pron Fron that war is its own cost, I do remember the Privateer Alliance fiasco, and the aggregated war cost system seemed to help with that tremendously. That is a good thing, but I dont think we should just use the same line of thought on the alliance system.
MORE Thoughts on the process
- Let us directly invite people to the war via link, as opposed to submitting a general request that can get lost (considering how many wars are going on.)
- War channel - Similar to channels that open up for Interdiction and normal alliances.
- Timer for joining allies needs to be reduced. A lot can happen in 24hrs. Maybe 6 or 12hrs. For war dec its great, again, dont apply the same solution across the board.
- More direct merc market. Should be able to brows for them in some location like I do with anything in the market.
- War history - I see lots of 0v0, possibly because we still need to build history int the new system.
The whole combat / aggro / war side of eve definitely needs careful though and much better tools in game to manage it. But I have faith in CCP, stop pestering them, stop trying to give them advice on management scenarios you are not privy to. Just give them thoughtful logical ideas and discussions. Dont wate their time by trolling them and getting them off topic.
BoBo Out Primary Test Subject |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2402
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:36:00 -
[557] - Quote
BoBoZoBo wrote:Leave the devs alone.
Here are my thoughts on the Wardec System
- I agree the idea of aggregated costs for Alliances needs to be re-thought before implemented. Especially if the source of change is from the merc community. It's too early to claim ints killing the market and good mercs will always have a job. Not to mention people will pay for others to focus on a war. There needs to be a system that lets smaller corps leverage the political capitol they have and if friends want to help for free, they should be able to and the defender should not have to pay an absurd cost for this if the opposing force is vastly superior. Fee should go to the mercs, not the NPC system
Maybe the fee only activates once there is a huge discrepancy in the size of the corps fighting. A 10 man corp against a 1000 man corp will not get fees until their allies number equally to the opposing force. THEN the fees aggregate depending on the additional numbers of pilots the new ally brings. The 1000 man corp will need to pay a serious fee to bring new people in against a force 1/100 their size, This seem fair.
- I Do like the idea of a military consultant. The combat PVP part of this game IS just as important as the Economy. An outside perspective on the matter with someone who is not involved in the day to day team and gets warfare may be a good idea on many levels.
- While I agree with Pron Fron that war is its own cost, I do remember the Privateer Alliance fiasco, and the aggregated war cost system seemed to help with that tremendously. That is a good thing, but I dont think we should just use the same line of thought on the alliance system.
MORE Thoughts on the process
- Let us directly invite people to the war via link, as opposed to submitting a general request that can get lost (considering how many wars are going on.)
- War channel - Similar to channels that open up for Interdiction and normal alliances.
- Timer for joining allies needs to be reduced. A lot can happen in 24hrs. Maybe 6 or 12hrs. For war dec its great, again, dont apply the same solution across the board.
- More direct merc market. Should be able to brows for them in some location like I do with anything in the market.
- War history - I see lots of 0v0, possibly because we still need to build history int the new system.
The whole combat / aggro / war side of eve definitely needs careful though and much better tools in game to manage it. But I have faith in CCP, stop pestering them, stop trying to give them advice on management scenarios you are not privy to. Just give them thoughtful logical ideas and discussions. Dont wate their time by trolling them and getting them off topic.
BoBo Out
good post.
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! |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
22
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 16:43:00 -
[558] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:good post.
Why thank you Primary Test Subject |
olan2005
Homicidal Tendencees Ethereal Dawn
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:17:00 -
[559] - Quote
This is just futher proof that devs are siding with goons . The only change that should be made is if you delcare the war mutual you loose youre allies. P.S when is the tech nerf comin |
None ofthe Above
242
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:28:00 -
[560] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: My personal preference is that 1.0 stays as it is, with the changes: - Corps can declare war as normal - Corps can only bind to one ally - Allies auto-renew if the war is renewed, but can leave the war on a 7 day cooldown if they wish - Leaving an ally should (probably) have you pay the bill you would have paid to wardec, to discourage farming free wardecs with no consequences.
See, when you avoid all the personal attack nonsense you are capable of coming up with something thats worth discussing after all. That isn't a bad compromise. And light-years ahead of the kneejerk 1.1 "fix".
I agree that Khanh'rhh can write some pretty good stuff when he decides to.
But you did notice "- Corps can only bind to one ally" right?
I like the rest of it, but that seems a bit restrictive. Although I am not entirely sure it means the defender can have one ally, or a corp/alliance can only be an ally to one defender. I read it as the former. Jade may be reading it as the latter.
Accepting this definition for the purpose of discussion:
Khanh'rhh wrote: Corp a) I am a vehement enemy of GSF. I will stop at nothing to destroy them. Jade, I am your sworn ally!!
Corp b) Eh, I basically just camp 4-4 and want people to shoot. Thanks for letting me declare GSF for free, not that I'm not just applying for every war going, as I am.
It does appear by testimonial evidence by both players and devs that case b might be out of hand. I am not sure that shouldn't be allowed, but it certainly shouldn't overwhelm everything else.
Perhaps rewording things to: "a corp/alliance can only be an ally to one defender" or two or three, or maybe that's where the logarithmic fee kicks in. Aleks might have some good feedback on how many contracts a Merc group can legitimately handle at once. I am pretty sure it is greater than one most of the time for Noir.
Ally-whoring, to coin a phrase, seems to be Khanh'rhh's issue. This goes a long way to solving that without killing off legitimate class-a allies.
The renewal structure looks light years ahead of the clumsy "two week then have to redo the ally agreement" currently proposed.
Khanh'rhh wrote: - Leaving an ally should (probably) have you pay the bill you would have paid to wardec, to discourage farming free wardecs with no consequences
That sure is an interesting proposal, I think that would have to have some considerations about the ramifications for true "a" class allies needing to bail for unforeseen circumstances. Wardec fees can be pretty expensive could negwallet a corp or alliance and I am not sure that's warranted.
|
|
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
49
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:48:00 -
[561] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game.
When was it given a chance to be proven not to work? Based on what I've read happened at the CSM summit, the inferno 1.1 change was proposed at that time. The summit was only a week after Inferno 1.0 was released. It would seem clear that it was decided to change the 1.0 system within a few days after release or even before 1.0 was released. Even the 4 weeks we've had to use the 1.0 system doesn't seem like enough time to prove if works or not.
The stated reason for the changes by CCP has been to help the mercenary profession. I think that the 1.1 changes have been proven several times in this thread not to achieve that. What I fear is that despite the rush to make changes to 1.0, the 1.1 changes will be allowed months and months of time fester on Tranquility before any acknowledgement that those changes do not work. Then it will be month and months more before any fix is deployed.
|
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 17:50:00 -
[562] - Quote
Molic Blackbird wrote: When was it given a chance to be proven not to work?
Check out Jade's signature. Perfect proof, also there was another one with an alliance that sounded like a car (The Honda Accord?). When you allow unlimited free allies, you discourage anyone from attacking anyone else.
Basically, the test run for the unlimited allies was between the 1.0 patch and about a week and a half ago. I think 1.0.9 or 1.0.10 Pew Pew Pew! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1356
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:09:00 -
[563] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:But you did notice "- Corps can only bind to one ally" right?
I like the rest of it, but that seems a bit restrictive
That's really the heart of my proposed solution. I have no issue with 10, 100 or 1000 corps deciding they want to join Jade in killing GSF, but I do have an issue with 10, 100 or 1000 corps simply joining every war available to them, which if you look, is what is happening now.
It's increasing demand by decreasing supply; if Jade wants to keep people in a forever war with Goons and only goons, then he will need to start paying them to do it or they're going to be allying with people who are paying money, even if that's just against some 50 man corp of meanies.
Basically, if you're a merc wanting to join a war, are you going with the guy paying 250mil a week or the guy saying "Shoot goons for free!" ?
The concept of the "you back out, then you pay" is to encourage actual "do or die" allies and less "meh, we'll just take the free targets and drop it if it's hot." - "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
1356
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:10:00 -
[564] - Quote
olan2005 wrote:This is just futher proof that devs are siding with goons . The only change that should be made is if you delcare the war mutual you loose youre allies. P.S when is the tech nerf comin So your sense of impartiality says "this isn't fair it helps goons" but you want to nerf tech because, hey, they help goons?
Where do I go to learn this logic - "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 |
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:11:00 -
[565] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:But you did notice "- Corps can only bind to one ally" right?
I like the rest of it, but that seems a bit restrictive That's really the heart of my proposed solution. I have no issue with 10, 100 or 1000 corps deciding they want to join Jade in killing GSF, but I do have an issue with 10, 100 or 1000 corps simply joining every war available to them, which if you look, is what is happening now. It's increasing demand by decreasing supply; if Jade wants to keep people in a forever war with Goons and only goons, then he will need to start paying them to do it or they're going to be allying with people who are paying money, even if that's just against some 50 man corp of meanies. Basically, if you're a merc wanting to join a war, are you going with the guy paying 250mil a week or the guy saying "Shoot goons for free!" ? The concept of the "you back out, then you pay" is to encourage actual "do or die" allies and less "meh, we'll just take the free targets and drop it if it's hot."
My sentiments almost exactly since I'm enough of a realist to realize that the wardec system is here to stay (sadly). Pew Pew Pew! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2410
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:28:00 -
[566] - Quote
Makari Aeron wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote:None ofthe Above wrote:But you did notice "- Corps can only bind to one ally" right?
I like the rest of it, but that seems a bit restrictive That's really the heart of my proposed solution. I have no issue with 10, 100 or 1000 corps deciding they want to join Jade in killing GSF, but I do have an issue with 10, 100 or 1000 corps simply joining every war available to them, which if you look, is what is happening now. It's increasing demand by decreasing supply; if Jade wants to keep people in a forever war with Goons and only goons, then he will need to start paying them to do it or they're going to be allying with people who are paying money, even if that's just against some 50 man corp of meanies. Basically, if you're a merc wanting to join a war, are you going with the guy paying 250mil a week or the guy saying "Shoot goons for free!" ? The concept of the "you back out, then you pay" is to encourage actual "do or die" allies and less "meh, we'll just take the free targets and drop it if it's hot." My sentiments almost exactly since I'm enough of a realist to realize that the wardec system is here to stay (sadly).
I don't actually mind allies needing to choose to commit to only one war. If thats the way of creating scarcity then so be it. Certainly from a mercenary perspective it makes sense they would be concentrating entirely on the war they are paid to fight no?
And I quite like the autorenewal free forever but pay if you back out before the end of the war thing as a neat mechanic to stop risk free farming of war offers.
In general Khanh'rhh's revised solution is not the one I'd go with instinctively but its NOT a bad solution - and its a lot better than the 1.1 solution the devs have offered us.
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! |
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 18:50:00 -
[567] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...
Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.
On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because. It got deleted because you quoted a post that got deleted. Also I'm not sure that "tinfoil asshattery" is an entirely constructive statement We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game.
Ah!
Well here's an odd ball idea. When you delete a post, instead of deleting everyone else who quotes it, just delete the quotes and perhaps add a little notation to it so other posters and readers know something was removed and why.
And "tinfoil asshattery" was indeed part of a very constructive statement. It doesn't seem like it was because you only quoted those 2 words with no context at all.
As for the war dec system, if it's so important to CCP that this inferno is reduced just to a slow burn, then set a hard limit for the number of allies based on pilots rather than number of corps and/or alliances. And make it scalable based on the dec'ing alliance as well. As it stands now, the 1.1 system only comes in to benefit the large and the rich.
For quite some time there's been calls for high sec and smaller low sec groups to rise and unite and start making something in this game. But it gets pretty freaking hard to do so when that requires hefty isk payments to CCP in the form of sinks. And the main flaw imho about all this system is that it fails to ackownledge and cope with the very fundamental different organizational doctrines of null and high sec.
Barring RvB and E-Uni you have no big fat ass alliances in high or low sec. And the current system only benefits the big entities which are the excepcion in high sec while being predominant in null. No one expects a war to be fair, but the mechanics and inner workings of it should be ballanced, leaving the fairness or unfairness to the players' own actions. We don't have that yet and we'll part farther away with the I1.1
Again, war dec costs are already indexed to the targeted corp or alliance. At the very least, the ally costs and/or limits should in turn be indexed in some fashion to the size of the dec'ing alliance rather this this current model of one system fits no-one. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
617
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 19:18:00 -
[568] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...
Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.
On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because. It got deleted because you quoted a post that got deleted. Also I'm not sure that "tinfoil asshattery" is an entirely constructive statement We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game. Ah! Well here's an odd ball idea. When you delete a post, instead of deleting everyone else who quotes it, just delete the quotes and perhaps add a little notation to it so other posters and readers know something was removed and why. And "tinfoil asshattery" was indeed part of a very constructive statement. It doesn't seem like it was because you only quoted those 2 words with no context at all. As for the war dec system, if it's so important to CCP that this inferno is reduced just to a slow burn, then set a hard limit for the number of allies based on pilots rather than number of corps and/or alliances. And make it scalable based on the dec'ing alliance as well. As it stands now, the 1.1 system only comes in to benefit the large and the rich. For quite some time there's been calls for high sec and smaller low sec groups to rise and unite and start making something in this game. But it gets pretty freaking hard to do so when that requires hefty isk payments to CCP in the form of sinks. And the main flaw imho about all this system is that it fails to ackownledge and cope with the very fundamental different organizational doctrines of null and high sec. Barring RvB and E-Uni you have no big fat ass alliances in high or low sec. And the current system only benefits the big entities which are the excepcion in high sec while being predominant in null. No one expects a war to be fair, but the mechanics and inner workings of it should be ballanced, leaving the fairness or unfairness to the players' own actions. We don't have that yet and we'll part farther away with the I1.1 Again, war dec costs are already indexed to the targeted corp or alliance. At the very least, the ally costs and/or limits should in turn be indexed in some fashion to the size of the dec'ing alliance rather this this current model of one system fits no-one.
Doing that would take a lot of our moderators' time, whereas deleting everyones post who quoted the offending post is simply the touch of a button. I have absolutely no qualms about doing this as it's obvious when someone makes a post that's over the line and therefore logical to not reply to that post. My point about your statement was a joke, lighten up.
On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
ISD Stensson
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
17
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 20:42:00 -
[569] - Quote
I have cleaned this thread a little by deleting few troll posts. ISD Stensson Ensign Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
None ofthe Above
244
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 21:06:00 -
[570] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
I don't actually mind allies needing to choose to commit to only one war. If thats the way of creating scarcity then so be it. Certainly from a mercenary perspective it makes sense they would be concentrating entirely on the war they are paid to fight no?
And I quite like the autorenewal free forever but pay if you back out before the end of the war thing as a neat mechanic to stop risk free farming of war offers.
In general Khanh'rhh's revised solution is not the one I'd go with instinctively but its NOT a bad solution - and its a lot better than the 1.1 solution the devs have offered us.
Fair enough.
I'd like to see Aleks' take on it, or various parties in the Merc community. It might suit you, but I worry it would have negative impacts for them, that might be easily handled with a few tweaks.
Not sure how much attention this is going to get considering what other things have hit the fan today. This appears to have been Soundwave's baby (at least he was the Devs voice for it, earlier in the thread) and I suspect he's otherwise occupied at the moment.
|
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
145
|
Posted - 2012.06.21 22:33:00 -
[571] - Quote
>.<
include a corporations standings towards the 4 highsec factions and concord into the calculations for cost to wardec. Higher standings = higher cost Alliance NPC Standings = a macro version of how corporation standings are derived, also stops gaming of the system.
stagger the standings to cost increase on a logarithmic scale to provide a cost disincentive defence for small high standing corps against huge moderate/low standing corps/alliances. |
Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 03:59:00 -
[572] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
That seems to be the general sentiments - wars should be unfair... so long as the unfairness is in favour of big nullsec alliances. If it's unfair AGAINST them then that's unfair and we need to make the unfairness unfair to be unfair for other people because thats only fair.
I think I said that
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 04:10:00 -
[573] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kale Freeman wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Kale Freeman wrote:Another suggestion...
What about separating mercs from allies
Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!
Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.
EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end! Works for me. Although after reading this a few times it suddenly dawned on me that the right way to do this would be to have treaties. Manage your friends a mutual defence treaty, and hire your mercs through this expensive wardec ally mechanic. Perhaps so, but I suspect the same people whining about the defensive ally "dogpile" consequence would still moan about treaty-dogpiling if it turned out that wardecs turned sour when too many people alligned with the defender. End of the day its diffcult to divorce people's in-game interest and bias from this discussion on any level - thats kinda what we need the devs for.
Funny tho; isnt that how the big dogs in 0.0 work it? Set to blue all the ppl in the "treaty" in this case. Nobody seems to be QQing that theres too many ppl giving brohugs and asking CCP to change that.
CCP Goliath wrote:
On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
SO I do have a specific question then, how does the crapload of smalls forming together to take on a large functionality work?
Cause toppling a large isnt usually gonna come from another large getting tired of being bloated and fat.
Small groups getting together to get rid of a bigger group
like for instance say all the high sec miners getting sick of getting decced by Goons, banding together and having at it (yeah fantasy, I realize, but hey its what Goons say to do, "come at me bro" and all)in a war.
Doesnt work real well when the costs to bring people into the war to get the edge in numbers (thus NOT "making it fair") goes into the infinite. Working as intended? http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries Orion Consortium
51
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 04:46:00 -
[574] - Quote
I've read the statement several time that the current system isn't working because if one small corp war decs another small corp, the defending corp could bring in enough allies to make it 10 to 1 in their favor. That is considered bad. Yet, if the opposite happens and a 2000 member alliance war decs a 200 member corp that is considered to be an 'edge case' and something to tolerate. In the case of two small corps, the attacking corp can end the war after 1 week if things go bad. In the second example, all a 200 member corp can do is hope none of its membership gets someone in large alliance mad enough to war dec them.
If it is true that allies have a 24-48 hour cool down before they can be renewed, then corps having a POS to defend will need 2 merc corps hired staggered a week apart to make sure at least one is around for defense. But wait, you can only hire 1 before you need to pay a penalty fee? |
Antisocial Malkavian
GloboTech Industries GloboTech Trade Federation
137
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 07:45:00 -
[575] - Quote
Molic Blackbird wrote:I've read the statement several time that the current system isn't working because if one small corp war decs another small corp, the defending corp could bring in enough allies to make it 10 to 1 in their favor. That is considered bad. Yet, if the opposite happens and a 2000 member alliance war decs a 200 member corp that is considered to be an 'edge case' and something to tolerate. In the case of two small corps, the attacking corp can end the war after 1 week if things go bad. In the second example, all a 200 member corp can do is hope none of its membership gets someone in large alliance mad enough to war dec them.
If it is true that allies have a 24-48 hour cool down before they can be renewed, then corps having a POS to defend will need 2 merc corps hired staggered a week apart to make sure at least one is around for defense. But wait, you can only hire 1 before you need to pay a penalty fee?
I said it before, EVE isnt meant to be fair but only for the defender apparently
http://gizmodo.com/5913381/season-your-food-with-salt-from-real-human-tears
you will be harvested |
Tanae Avalhar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 08:42:00 -
[576] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kale Freeman wrote:Another suggestion...
What about separating mercs from allies
Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!
Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.
EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end! Works for me.
Form an alliance then you be in the same war, yeah, you would be showing your commitment to your cause?
Mind you I think if the Goons actually took you seriously and came to hi you and your "friends" may stay and fight I suspect however your allies (and their remote reps) would simply dock up to protect their killboards. Someones always watching |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
102
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 11:54:00 -
[577] - Quote
Really, what it all comes down to is people desiring some little special bits here and there to deal with edge cases (like 9000 man alliances targeting ten man corps / individuals, intent on running the war forever because the little guy can't do anything about it). 1.0 did that in an unexpected way, but unfortunately it also cocked up the more typical wars, 1.1 will work better for the majority of wars but those extreme cases are still a problem. Pisspoor damage control such as "well wars shouldn't be fair" doesn't cover it, clearly, as many people are still talking about it
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2488
|
Posted - 2012.06.22 13:13:00 -
[578] - Quote
Cuts all ways. If you are looking at the total size of the attacking entity and saying that the defender can freely add allies to the war up to the total number of pilots the attacker has (then they need to start paying) then you simply count heads. Both sides have exactly the same issue with alts and inactives so its senseless to worry about such pilots on either one side or the other. You can happily ignore both factors.
CCP Goliath wrote: I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere!
Couple of problems with the alliance option:
1. CCP have not iterated on the alliance structure in years. The mechanisms are not suited to creating a loose coalition of wardec fighters that grows beyond a certain size. You need to personally control 1 alt corp for every single external corp you allow in otherwise you will lose control of the alliance to infilitration. While I can understand CCP pushing this "solution" because it means you'll sell more subscriptions (we'd need an addition 17 accounts to ensure our 50 strong coalition against goons could continue within an alliance structure) - its not an equitable solution or decent alternative to the Inferno 1.0 war system.
2. Its also not free (which is the point) it costs 2m per ally per month + 1billion formation costs) and its again making the defender pay a disproportionate isk surcharge far greater than the miniscule sum taken from the attacker for the declaration.
CCP Goliath wrote: It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system.
Why not? It was considered healthy in the initial Inferno 1.0 devblog on war where Soniclover explains his thinking and says its a consequence to the attacker that sometimes they can find themselves in wars where unexpected things happen. The Free Ally system was a natural balance to the closing of loopholes and discount declarations for the attacker really, removing it swings the balance completely back to the largest alliances in Eve and thats the problem.
CCP Goliath wrote: Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
And the proposed solution (defensive allies are charged only if the defensive coalition outnumbers the attacker) is specifically balanced for everyone. All cases, big vs small, small vs small, medium vs medium and large vs large. So its more functional than the solution you are going with.
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! |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
1054
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 20:36:00 -
[579] - Quote
Yeah, making people pay for allies was and still is a terrible decision, CCP. Mane 614
|
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.24 21:09:00 -
[580] - Quote
I was wondering, can someone explain to me, HOW do you make war fair? If war was really fair, There would be no more wars. One side or the other has to have, or potentially have the ability to gain the upper hand,
If you're the little guy, you get forced into war, because the big guy wants to kick your butt. And, if you're lucky, before you go down for the count, you get some other big guys to jump in on your side, and kick the bully's butt. If not, you die a horrible, painful death.
Oh well, hit reset, start again.
I mean, really. I thought CCP wanted more fighting? This change is probably gonna discourage it. But hey, not my game. I just play here, once in a while, for FIVE LONG YEARS. Yeah, I know. A lot of you have more time invested than that. Still, I think I'm entitled to gripe once in a while.
Oh well. Now, where did I put that STO launcher icon??? They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago? |
|
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain
Remanaquie Federation
15
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 05:05:00 -
[581] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: [...] On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
Here's a scenario then.
Someone wardecs me. Anyone from a 10k member alliance to my next neighbour's one man corp.
I create an alliance (leave my current one first if I'm on one already) and make it a mutual war.
This alliance would be Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* or some other ever so cleverly created name.
Invite other corps to join my new Anti-*insert war decking's entity name here* alliance, thus creating a dogpile again, evading the ally tax.
Now what? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
618
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 10:45:00 -
[582] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: [...] On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
Here's a scenario then. Someone wardecs me. Anyone from a 10k member alliance to my next neighbour's one man corp. I create an alliance (leave my current one first if I'm on one already) and make it a mutual war. This alliance would be Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* or some other ever so cleverly created name. Invite other corps to join my new Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* alliance, thus creating a dogpile again, evading this new ally tax while having potentially unlimited convenience pvp for lolz friends joining. Now I have a dogpile, unlimited friends for free on a mutual (perhaps perpetual) war and all I had to to was to jump over this hurdle called inferno 1.1 Now what? Buy all tinfoil hats from the market and sit on them waiting for Inferno 1.2 patchnotes so I make a killing?
Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me! CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
475
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 11:26:00 -
[583] - Quote
Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putain wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: [...] On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts. I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere! It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system. Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.
Here's a scenario then. Someone wardecs me. Anyone from a 10k member alliance to my next neighbour's one man corp. I create an alliance (leave my current one first if I'm on one already) and make it a mutual war. This alliance would be Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* or some other ever so cleverly created name. Invite other corps to join my new Anti-*insert war decing's entity name here* alliance, thus creating a dogpile again, evading this new ally tax while having potentially unlimited convenience pvp for lolz friends joining. Now I have a dogpile, unlimited friends for free on a mutual (perhaps perpetual) war and all I had to to was to jump over this hurdle called inferno 1.1 Now what? Buy all tinfoil hats from the market and sit on them waiting for Inferno 1.2 patchnotes so I make a killing?
This is the way things have always been. Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:03:00 -
[584] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!
I'm sorry CCP Golliath, I hope I haven't misunderstood, but I think you maybe wrong. If a small corp has to go through the pain and meta gaming of dealing with all the problems of running an alliance, just because some griefer corp wants to blow stuff up with no repercussions, then that doesn't make a good game.
Small corps would rather not play, than deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. How does that effect you immersive, action packed gameplay?
Granted, the "dogpiling", does need to be addressed, but as many people have said, this is not the way.
|
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:05:00 -
[585] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!
I'm sorry CCP Golliath, I hope I haven't misunderstood, but I think you maybe wrong. If a small corp has to go through the pain and meta gaming of dealing with all the problems of running an alliance, just because some griefer corp wants to blow stuff up with no repercussions, then that doesn't make a good game.
Small corps would rather not play, than deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. How does that effect you immersive, action packed gameplay?
Granted, the "dogpiling", does need to be addressed, but as many people have said, this is not the way. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
638
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:05:00 -
[586] - Quote
Lady Boon wrote:CCP Goliath wrote: Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!
I'm sorry CCP Golliath, I hope I haven't misunderstood, but I think you maybe wrong. If a small corp has to go through the pain and meta gaming of dealing with all the problems of running an alliance, just because some griefer corp wants to blow stuff up with no repercussions, then that doesn't make a good game. Small corps would rather not play, than deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. How does that effect you immersive, action packed gameplay? Granted, the "dogpiling", does need to be addressed, but as many people have said, this is not the way.
I feel like the small corp that doesn't want to get involved with allies, etc, and is going about its own business quite the thing, is extremely unlikely to get wardecced by a large entity. Wouldn't you agree? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Dantes Wolf
Invictus Mortalitus Paradox Initiative
19
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:07:00 -
[587] - Quote
CCP Guard wrote:Inferno 1.1 is just around the corner bringing some new features and a bunch of iterations and defect fixes. To tell you what Team Superfriends have been doing with the War Dec System for 1.1, here's CCP SoniClover with a new blog. Oh, and in case you forget, we want your feedback as always
chances are noone will read this, but.. seriously.. Amazing job ( at least from reading the patch notes ) - last few days Ive been wondering what on earth you guys DID @ CCP.. seems your finally getting structured and things are taking shape :) 650+ MB of solid data on the porch and patchnotes looking like you went from rubble to almost complete castle in the blink of an eye ( EVE - time ;) Really glad to see it and looking forwards to testing it :)
D.
( oh ye, ty for the orbit approach thing, really, thnx for taking it serious, and with such a short notice also - Can play EVE again now =) Plot of The Crying Game: She's a guy. |
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:11:00 -
[588] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!
I'm sorry CCP Golliath, I hope I haven't misunderstood, but I think you maybe wrong. If a small corp has to go through the pain and meta gaming of dealing with all the problems of running an alliance, just because some griefer corp wants to blow stuff up with no repercussions, then that doesn't make a good game.
Small corps would rather not play, than deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. How does that effect you immersive, action packed gameplay?
Granted, the "dogpiling", does need to be addressed, but as many people have said, this is not the way. |
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 12:42:00 -
[589] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: I feel like the small corp that doesn't want to get involved with allies, etc, and is going about its own business quite the thing, is extremely unlikely to get wardecced by a large entity. Wouldn't you agree?
Sadly, I do not agree. Small corps minding their own business are precisely the corps that greifer corps go after. I'm not suggesting that war should be fair, but the aggressor corp should take on some risk. The changes largely mitigate this risk, since it is likely that it will be too costly to mount any defence.
The wardec system seems to be returning to a "pay to grief" mechanic, which is something I hoped CCP was going to address. |
Jake McCord
Greater Metropolis Sanitation Service Barbarian Wine and Cheese Society
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 13:07:00 -
[590] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: I feel like the small corp that doesn't want to get involved with allies, etc, and is going about its own business quite the thing, is extremely unlikely to get wardecced by a large entity. Wouldn't you agree?
No, I don't. I had a small corp that had maybe 20+ members in it. Of that, probably half were active. We got wardecced by a rather large Mercenary alliance because one of the guys in my corp had pissed off someone else. Some imagined slight, or some such.
Then, later on (over 2 years later) I've got this small alliance. Some jackass nimrod comes into the system where my corp and a couple others are mining and mission running.
One night, because some of the residents in that system were having a non-accusing conversation about bot miners, the previously named nimrod takes imagined offense. Starts giving orders like he's lord of the blowflies or something, saying what we can or can't talk about, and bot mining is one of those subjects.
Up to this point, I've hardly said a word to jerk off, but the next night, when I log on, I'm told by friends how I must be a horrible racist (They were kidding, nimrod was not) He'd been giving orders all day, "don't talk about this, I'm gonna gank your ship, It's all Jake's fault cause he called me a racist epithet in private convo, I've petitioned him to CCP" and on and on, ad nauseum. All one big fat lie. (He never petitioned CCP.)
( I NEVER had a private convo with the jerk. Apparently, one guy is running all the toons in one corp, and maybe the entire alliance. Because he's doing that, he assumed the same with me. I have one toon and 3 alts. That's it. The rest of the 50+ people, I don't know, I'd guess maybe 1/3 to 1/2 were alts. )
Eventually, he finally gets around to wardecing my alliance, but the big chicken poop can't do his own fighting, so he brings in a merc alliance, and all but one of his people drop out of his corp, for neutral corps or some such.
Most of the people in my Alliance were/are indy types, so most of them left as well. I stayed, a few others stayed, They finally went away.
Thing is, the whole thing was a major pain in the butt This was under the OLDER wardec rules. If I'd been able to call in help under the rules that got replaced today. It probably would have been over in about 30 minutes.
I don't mind wars, but a lot of the people I hang with do. It cuts into profits. And regardless what CCP does, the wardec system will never really be fair. For anyone. Doesn't matter what you do, someone will complain. They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way! Did I mention, I used to live in Chicago? |
|
Lady Boon
Perkone Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 14:50:00 -
[591] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: - Corps can declare war as normal - Corps can only bind to one ally - Allies auto-renew if the war is renewed, but can leave the war on a 7 day cooldown if they wish - Leaving an ally should (probably) have you pay the bill you would have paid to wardec, to discourage farming free wardecs with no consequences.
I think this would be my preference for changes. Maybe Merc corps could pay (bribe) Concord to ally themselves with other war decced corps, similar to the war dec costs perhaps. Just to clarify, when you say "Corps can only bind to one ally" you mean a corp can only ally to one war decced corp, not that a war decced corp can only have one ally. |
None ofthe Above
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 15:52:00 -
[592] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:
I feel like the small corp that doesn't want to get involved with allies, etc, and is going about its own business quite the thing, is extremely unlikely to get wardecced by a large entity. Wouldn't you agree?
The allies stuff happens after the wardec. So that seems like an odd statement to make. (If you are saying getting counter-wardec'ed later because you where an ally in earlier war, fair enough.)
Entities large and small do things for odd reasons. Certain large entities have made an open policy of wardec'ing corps because they don't like a members post on these forums, for example. (Post with your alt!)
This seems a bit like, "don't wear the mini-skirt and you won't get attacked young lady", inversely implying anyone who did get attacked deserved it. I don't think that should be a design principle. Random violence does happen (which to a degree is a desired feature in EVE), we shouldn't be waving it away like that. IMHO.
|
None ofthe Above
270
|
Posted - 2012.06.25 16:55:00 -
[593] - Quote
Lady Boon wrote:Khanh'rhh wrote: - Corps can declare war as normal - Corps can only bind to one ally - Allies auto-renew if the war is renewed, but can leave the war on a 7 day cooldown if they wish - Leaving an ally should (probably) have you pay the bill you would have paid to wardec, to discourage farming free wardecs with no consequences.
I think this would be my preference for changes. Maybe Merc corps could pay (bribe) Concord to ally themselves with other war decced corps, similar to the war dec costs perhaps. Just to clarify, when you say "Corps can only bind to one ally" you mean a corp can only ally to one war decced corp, not that a war decced corp can only have one ally.
Have to say, Khanh'rhh's proposal is really growing on me. It is far more elegant than what we've got.
|
Zod Sokarad
Kneel Before Zod Inc. Tesseract Nexus
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 00:30:00 -
[594] - Quote
Yep...definitely shifts it back to the aggressor--unfairly I might add. it is time to destroy CFC and the Goons ONCE AND FOR ALL!
Join ZOD! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2531
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 03:38:00 -
[595] - Quote
Eve IS real, it costs around one third of a million dollars to add Privateers Alliance into our defensive wardec against Goonswarm!
For the same price I could buy 200 (semi automatic) assault rifles and 10 reconditioned jeeps from American gun-retailers.
Comes to something when Internet spaceship wars cost more real wars! (well small wars anyway)
Perhaps for the 1.2 Wardec patch you guys could consider allowing us to add an ally to the war for 1000 aurum instead?
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! |
Laashanna
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.06.26 17:45:00 -
[596] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: Now you've made an alliance, actively recruited for said alliance, and have to deal with the logistics of running an alliance, spies, etc. Rather than clicking a button that said "FREE FITE NAO". Sounds like some pretty immersive, action packed gameplay to me!
No it sounds like boring tedium due the poor interface that alliances have. To get immersive, action packed gameplay in this situation my best bet is to play another game. Or just join an npc corp, dock up, or head to WH/LS/NS.... |
Souverainiste
Corsairs Inc. Soldiers Of New Eve
23
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 04:05:00 -
[597] - Quote
Oh wow, now big alliances will be able to grind and **** the **** out of smaller alliances. I guess goons didnt like the taste of their own medicine.
And forcing us to buy mercs who might not even get the job done when honda accord proved regular people could **** **** up is plain ********.
Funny how, at each expansion, the ball is always in the camp of big alliances and the small ones are left to die and defenceless. defenceless. defenceless.
**** you ccp, you just made the game suck more than it already did. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2564
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 14:21:00 -
[598] - Quote
Souverainiste wrote:Oh wow, now big alliances will be able to grind and **** the **** out of smaller alliances. I guess goons didnt like the taste of their own medicine.
And forcing us to buy mercs who might not even get the job done when honda accord proved regular people could **** **** up is plain ********.
Funny how, at each expansion, the ball is always in the camp of big alliances and the small ones are left to die and defenceless. defenceless. defenceless.
**** you ccp, you just made the game suck more than it already did.
The real issue of this for me (beyond the $300,000 dollars to hire privateers into the war) is the way I consider that CCP Developers responding on this topic have appeared to codify something of a mechanical bias in favour of the largest and wealthiest organziations in the game. All the talk of "go build a big alliance" "social consequences of annoying fat cats" "paying for targets" etc etc are examples of mechanics that flow one way.
It ignores the understand that some players do not want to play inside large alliances in Eve Online, some people like to have smaller organizations where they know everyone and don't have the stress of dealing with large gaming communities. It ignores the fact that "social consequences" drove the "dogpiling" in the 1.0 mechanic. Sure, I attracted a wardec from Mittani because I'm the greatest enemy of Goonswarm in Eve etc etc - but I got 51 free allies because Goonswarm is not a popular entity and people wanted to fight them without charge to me. Thats a social consequence that cuts both ways - but now its been nerfed so it only flows downhill.
Paying for targets thing is just crass on the wardec fee calculations. Especially when the developers themselves acknowledge that the grand majority of 0.0 alliance members will not be available as targets to a hisec aggressor. Why are we billed for 9000 targets when there are only a few dozen targets available to us in empire?
And as a developer - its not really convincing to say "hey they live in 0.0 go fight them there!" as an answer to this mechanical imbalance, and neither does it show a convincing knowledge of wardec psychology and the conduct of hisec wars in Eve.
Wars ARE a "grief" mechanic. They are designed to allow you to hurt an enemy and fight on your terms. You don't wardec a 9000 man 0.0 entity because you want to fight them in 0.0 in their stronghold and fortified territory. You wardec them because you want to shoot their loners, shoot their logistics, shoot their random idiots who run missions in pimped ships. The last place you want to be is operating in proximity of an enemy who actually want to fight - you are looking for victims not participants in a friendly space joust!
All in all this debacle has demonstrated that neither CCP nor the CSM have a good understanding of how to produce a decent wardec mechanic that does anything beyond serving the specific interest of large 0.0 entities who already have every advantage and resource the server can deliver them. The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
111
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 14:31:00 -
[599] - Quote
1.1 mechanics are an absolute joke, they swing it too far back in favour of giant alliances
Exponential costs for allies is just pants-on-head ********, especially when it can be small 40 man corps facing an aggressor with a thousand or more pilots.
There absolutely must be some form of balance for those types of edge cases - you were quick enough to rush out a balance fix when fifty corps jumped on as allies to interdict goonies in hisec, after all.
LOL at it costing 10 trillion isk / $300,000 for the allies against goonswarm. Pathetic. Who allowed that change to go through? Couldn't you have at least done something partway sensible like cap the ally costs so that bringing on extra allies after X corps would only be a fixed amount each time (e.g. 250m for each new ally after the 20th)? |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1206
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 18:27:00 -
[600] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:1.1 mechanics are an absolute joke, they swing it too far back in favour of giant alliances
Exponential costs for allies is just pants-on-head ********, especially when it can be small 40 man corps facing an aggressor with a thousand or more pilots.
There absolutely must be some form of balance for those types of edge cases - you were quick enough to rush out a balance fix when fifty corps jumped on as allies to interdict goonies in hisec, after all.
LOL at it costing 10 trillion isk / $300,000 for the allies against goonswarm. Pathetic. Who allowed that change to go through? Couldn't you have at least done something partway sensible like cap the ally costs so that bringing on extra allies after X corps would only be a fixed amount each time (e.g. 250m for each new ally after the 20th)?
perhaps the 'defenders' should consider how much those random 3-man tax dodging corps are actually contributing to the 'defense' and base their decisions to accept assistance on that a rogue goon |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2568
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 18:57:00 -
[601] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:1.1 mechanics are an absolute joke, they swing it too far back in favour of giant alliances
Exponential costs for allies is just pants-on-head ********, especially when it can be small 40 man corps facing an aggressor with a thousand or more pilots.
There absolutely must be some form of balance for those types of edge cases - you were quick enough to rush out a balance fix when fifty corps jumped on as allies to interdict goonies in hisec, after all.
LOL at it costing 10 trillion isk / $300,000 for the allies against goonswarm. Pathetic. Who allowed that change to go through? Couldn't you have at least done something partway sensible like cap the ally costs so that bringing on extra allies after X corps would only be a fixed amount each time (e.g. 250m for each new ally after the 20th)? perhaps the 'defenders' should consider how much those random 3-man tax dodging corps are actually contributing to the 'defense' and base their decisions to accept assistance on that
Perhaps an aggressor against goonswarm should be charged only for the couple of dozen pilots you have in empire (as targets) rather than being billed for the full 9000.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1206
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 19:31:00 -
[602] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Perhaps an aggressor against goonswarm should be charged only for the couple of dozen pilots you have in empire (as targets) rather than being billed for the full 9000.
they're not billed for the full 9000 a rogue goon |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1206
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 19:35:00 -
[603] - Quote
also note the irony of you saying that aggressors should be billed only for the number of members in a given alliance active in empire while acting like you have the weight of our entire alliance coming down on you
make up your mind a rogue goon |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2568
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 22:48:00 -
[604] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:also note the irony of you saying that aggressors should be billed only for the number of members in a given alliance active in empire while acting like you have the weight of our entire alliance coming down on you make up your mind
I really isn't my fault if a 9000 man entity declares a war and then sends a couple of dozen people to fight it. I have to assume it was a serious declaration of war and treat it accordingly - and I can't honestly see how CCP developers can be expected to code a game mechanic that is pased around the notion of "goon joke decs" rather than simply counting heads and reaching a balanced escalator charge for everyone concerned.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
112
|
Posted - 2012.06.28 23:16:00 -
[605] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:1.1 mechanics are an absolute joke, they swing it too far back in favour of giant alliances
Exponential costs for allies is just pants-on-head ********, especially when it can be small 40 man corps facing an aggressor with a thousand or more pilots.
There absolutely must be some form of balance for those types of edge cases - you were quick enough to rush out a balance fix when fifty corps jumped on as allies to interdict goonies in hisec, after all.
LOL at it costing 10 trillion isk / $300,000 for the allies against goonswarm. Pathetic. Who allowed that change to go through? Couldn't you have at least done something partway sensible like cap the ally costs so that bringing on extra allies after X corps would only be a fixed amount each time (e.g. 250m for each new ally after the 20th)? perhaps the 'defenders' should consider how much those random 3-man tax dodging corps are actually contributing to the 'defense' and base their decisions to accept assistance on that
Oh please, there is simply no defending a mechanic that, when rushed out, suddenly drops a ten trillion isk ally bill on a rather interesting bit of ~emergent gameplay~ effectively shutting it down instantly and preventing anything like it ever happening again. They should have taken the time to work out how to properly balance it, not just stamp it out. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1207
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 03:54:00 -
[606] - Quote
TheGunslinger42 wrote:Oh please, there is simply no defending a mechanic that, when rushed out, suddenly drops a ten trillion isk ally bill on a rather interesting bit of ~emergent gameplay~ effectively shutting it down instantly and preventing anything like it ever happening again. They should have taken the time to work out how to properly balance it, not just stamp it out.
I suppose the intent is for a defending group to be more selective about who they accept assistance from instead of simply giving out free rides to everyone?
I mean really I don't care either way but the bleating about Goonswarm apparently having the ability to batphone CCP to make a change like this is ~hilarious~ but in the end it's all the same if three serious hisec PvP groups use the ally mechanic to wardec us or if the same three corps use the mechanic alongside 30 scrubs in tax dodging corps a rogue goon |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2568
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 12:53:00 -
[607] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote: I suppose the intent is for a defending group to be more selective about who they accept assistance from instead of simply giving out free rides to everyone?
Thats social consequences for you Richard Desturned. If you are in an unpopular organization making wardecs is supposed to be a risky business. At least that was the stated intent of the 1.0 devblog. But 1.1 removes social consequences from the largest alliances in the game by rendering the scale of defensive allying null by introduction of a ridiculous exponential cost multiplier. At the edge case of 9000 vs 100 then nobody is going to be selective - you need to at a couple of hundred allies before you are even close to parity in on the books numbers.
If CCP were to go on record with the admission it can't balance competitive game mechanics where the largest entities of the game are concerned then :shrug: really - thats would be a pretty damning admission.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1207
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 13:38:00 -
[608] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Thats social consequences for you Richard Desturned. If you are in an unpopular organization making wardecs is supposed to be a risky business. At least that was the stated intent of the 1.0 devblog. But 1.1 removes social consequences from the largest alliances in the game by rendering the scale of defensive allying null by introduction of a ridiculous exponential cost multiplier. At the edge case of 9000 vs 100 then nobody is going to be selective - you need to at a couple of hundred allies before you are even close to parity in on the books numbers.
If CCP were to go on record with the admission it can't balance competitive game mechanics where the largest entities of the game are concerned then :shrug: really - thats would be a pretty damning admission.
no, humor me, how much have corps like "Sons of Michael," "The Blacklist LTd," "Spontaneous Castigation," "Tremendous Fail Inc.," "Dukes of Noobs," "C.I.A. NRDS," "We help Noobs" and the other one-man tax dodging corps in your "alliance" contributed, compared to, say, Moar Tears and Double Tap? I mean you could literally boil down your entire "defense" to 3 groups and you'd still have all of those random Ibises and Badgers to brag about killing.
oh btw a bunch of the corps in your "defense" are closed, lol a rogue goon |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2568
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 14:57:00 -
[609] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Thats social consequences for you Richard Desturned. If you are in an unpopular organization making wardecs is supposed to be a risky business. At least that was the stated intent of the 1.0 devblog. But 1.1 removes social consequences from the largest alliances in the game by rendering the scale of defensive allying null by introduction of a ridiculous exponential cost multiplier. At the edge case of 9000 vs 100 then nobody is going to be selective - you need to at a couple of hundred allies before you are even close to parity in on the books numbers.
If CCP were to go on record with the admission it can't balance competitive game mechanics where the largest entities of the game are concerned then :shrug: really - thats would be a pretty damning admission. no, humor me, how much have corps like "Sons of Michael," "The Blacklist LTd," "Spontaneous Castigation," "Tremendous Fail Inc.," "Dukes of Noobs," "C.I.A. NRDS," "We help Noobs" and the other one-man tax dodging corps in your "alliance" contributed, compared to, say, Moar Tears and Double Tap? I mean you could literally boil down your entire "defense" to 3 groups and you'd still have all of those random Ibises and Badgers to brag about killing. oh btw a bunch of the corps in your "defense" are closed, lol edit: seriously when you can have 6 "quality" allies for the less than the price of a t2 fit battleship every other week i don't see why you're complaining
Because it costs an aggressor with 9000 members the cost of a t2 fit cruiser to wardec an entity 100 times smaller than itself and in order for the defender to assemble a coalition to equal the attacker side would cost more dollars than exist on this planet.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1207
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 15:03:00 -
[610] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Because it costs an aggressor with 9000 members the cost of a t2 fit cruiser to wardec an entity 100 times smaller than itself and in order for the defender to assemble a coalition to equal the attacker side would cost more dollars than exist on this planet.
unless you find an ally with 9000 members, in which case, well, it's free a rogue goon |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2570
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 16:38:00 -
[611] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Because it costs an aggressor with 9000 members the cost of a t2 fit cruiser to wardec an entity 100 times smaller than itself and in order for the defender to assemble a coalition to equal the attacker side would cost more dollars than exist on this planet. unless you find an ally with 9000 members, in which case, well, it's free
But is the intent of the inferno 1.1 changes to ensure there is an overwhelming game benefit to be had by cramming 9000 people into the same alliance?
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1207
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 16:52:00 -
[612] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:But is the intent of the inferno 1.1 changes to ensure there is an overwhelming game benefit to be had by cramming 9000 people into the same alliance?
No, that's the intent of the game as a whole. Why shouldn't you have an advantage if you can get 9000 dudes (we don't actually have 9000 dudes, we have maybe 5000 and that's being optimistic) into one alliance under a common command structure and solid in-game and out-of-game communication? a rogue goon |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2570
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 17:32:00 -
[613] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:But is the intent of the inferno 1.1 changes to ensure there is an overwhelming game benefit to be had by cramming 9000 people into the same alliance?
No, that's the intent of the game as a whole. Why shouldn't you have an advantage if you can get 9000 dudes (we don't actually have 9000 dudes, we have maybe 5000 and that's being optimistic) into one alliance under a common command structure and solid in-game and out-of-game communication?
Well you do of course have a great many advantages that come from pure numbers. Many many aspects of the game provide this to the side that simply "brings more." But my question to you was specifically about a mechanic bias in favour of "more" in a single alliance structure. Things don't neccessarily work like that even in 0.0 - where the dogpile is unlimited and you can literally bring the kitchen sink into a fleet fight. So why specifically should 9000 in a single entity be specifically advantaged (by game design bias) in empire warfare? The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1207
|
Posted - 2012.06.29 21:27:00 -
[614] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well you do of course have a great many advantages that come from pure numbers. Many many aspects of the game provide this to the side that simply "brings more." But my question to you was specifically about a mechanic bias in favour of "more" in a single alliance structure. Things don't neccessarily work like that even in 0.0 - where the dogpile is unlimited and you can literally bring the kitchen sink into a fleet fight. So why specifically should 9000 in a single entity be specifically advantaged (by game design bias) in empire warfare?
You're missing the point entirely. You know full well that the weight of our "9000 man alliance" will never bear down on you. And like I've already said, if you trimmed your "defensive coalition" (it's not a coalition no matter how much you say it is) down to the top six, it wouldn't make a difference because the rest of that "coalition" consists of closed corps, one-man tax havens and coattail riders who kill a couple of Ibises and declare victory. a rogue goon |
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
156
|
Posted - 2012.06.30 00:25:00 -
[615] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Well you do of course have a great many advantages that come from pure numbers. Many many aspects of the game provide this to the side that simply "brings more." But my question to you was specifically about a mechanic bias in favour of "more" in a single alliance structure. Things don't neccessarily work like that even in 0.0 - where the dogpile is unlimited and you can literally bring the kitchen sink into a fleet fight. So why specifically should 9000 in a single entity be specifically advantaged (by game design bias) in empire warfare?
Because Empire space is designed for and has always been intended to be for noobs only. And the hyper-casual, I suppose I can grant that as well.
Once you know how to play, gtfo of rainbow unicorn land where people still struggle to find stargates. Get out of the theme park and go play in the sand. Whether or not you win the game matters not. -áIt's if you bought it. |
Andrew Keiran
MORIA INDUSTRIES
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.02 21:06:00 -
[616] - Quote
/deleted/ |
Tug McLub
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
2
|
Posted - 2012.07.06 01:51:00 -
[617] - Quote
10,20,40,80m for allys? Really? Why dont you make it cost like Decs cost, 10 m isnt ****.
This game is going to the nubs |
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.10 15:20:00 -
[618] - Quote
The wardec and alliance system suffers from a bit of an identity crisis. It wants to be too many things while contradicting its motivation.
If a big alliance is pissing off enough people that 80% of the player base wants to declare massive war against them and it takes 100 allies of smaller corporations to equal the larger alliance numbers, then so what. Why is that a problem?
These fragmented allies still need to coordinate resources and deal with internal politics to such a degree that it could completely work against them. Let that skill set be the determining factor of success.
Take the example people keep citing here about the massive war with tonnes of allies against the Goons. Now, I like the Goons, but they started this "emergent gameplay" nonsense propping up Hulkageddon indefinitely, kept shooting their mouthes off, keept saying how "no one wants risk and no PVP" and blah blah blah, and then finally there was "do something about it".
So they did, people got together and declared war and got all the allies they can muster... now, all of a sudden, there is something wrong with that.
Shut the f@ck up.
The tiered alliance fees are stupid, plain and simple.
CCP just needs to remember what happened a while back when they tried to cover too many bases and lost their way, same thing is happening here. Dont try to cover all the bad things that may happen, especially if those things are a natural.
It REALLY needs a fresh look from the ground up and needs to have some balls attached to it. Get an expert already or some outside advice, its just not working. Primary Test Subject |
Grojar Flesp
SQS Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.25 20:18:00 -
[619] - Quote
Quick question, thought to look up the new skill on evelopedia, wasn't there.
Found out it was a stub, so could somebody please update something so that the stub is up to date again?
Perhaps rattle a server, jiggle with an utp cable, you know, standard ITIL service management please |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2758
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 11:37:00 -
[620] - Quote
So (just curious really) its been a few months now. Is anyone currently enjoying the Inferno 1.1 wardec system in game?
If so could you take a moment to explain the good things about it and how you've found its enhanced your enjoyment of Eve Online?
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedomInferno Wardecs - Shoot Goons for FREE $300,000 dollars :(-á |
|
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
312
|
Posted - 2012.09.05 13:37:00 -
[621] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: So (just curious really) its been a few months now. Is anyone currently enjoying the Inferno 1.1 wardec system in game?
If so could you take a moment to explain the good things about it and how you've found its enhanced your enjoyment of Eve Online?
Also, is there data available on pre and post Inferno wardec kills? In other words, is this new wardec system facilitating more death and destruction? Was the old system better at enabling combat with war targets? Etc.
284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: [one page] |