Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:35:00 -
[421] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Dear Internet Spaceship Historians, I went back in time to 2004 and found who's members barely left their trial and as such where not overly capable. Just to find out what wardecs (no decshield back then) are about. The forum back then is quite different from what we see today. The general consensus was that a wardec is simply something that happens to corps and that they just mount some frigs and fight back. Seams that was actually working for them. There is something wrong with EVE but it's not the wardec system. EDIT: I would like to add that because you could declare war on noobs the game never made any profit and CCP went bankrupt at the end of 2004.
I think it just goes to show what an old argument this is. I got here around 2006 and saw these same back and forths then.. the sky is always falling and EvE is always dieing....
Though the link did highlight one significant change, scale. At the time the power imbalance was that that big, everyone was still fairly new. Over time though we have had an increasing consolidation of power that has locked a lot of that early experience off from today's new players, and I think it is that change that many people are latching on to here. I mean seriously, can you see, today, '80 frigages' getting deep into null and having an impact on one of the big alliances?
Other then that, the discussion looks exactly like what we see today... same basic complaints, same basic advice. |
gfldex
430
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 19:53:00 -
[422] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: I wasn't around for this time, so I guess I'd have to request a bit of perspective. How long had the game been out at that time? How far were the older players from the new ones? What were people flying; is all the bittervet talk about mining in frigs for ages to afford cruisers true? What tech 2 mods and ships existed at that time?
Not to say that wardecs are the thing that keeps eve from growing, but it seems the difference between new players and older ones then and now is a world apart. Drawing parallels would be difficult at best.
The game was about 1 year old and most of the members in the attacker corp (who claimed to be hired) where a more then 2 month old. That bittervet talk was correct. A million ISK was a lot of money back then. There where pretty much no T2 mods or ships there (IIRC interceptors where about to get released). Back then folk avoided to fly BS if they could because it required corp mining ops to get a member into a new BS. That's what the talk about fighting in frigs is about. Working together to get members into ships was quite common. Not doing so didn't pay out well when a war hit.
The differences between noobs and one year old players was much lower because nobody tanked their ships and remote repping simply didn't happen. Two frigs could take any BS down, no loltanks back then. Station games didn't work either.
Goons are the 3%. |
Devore Sekk
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
11
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:07:00 -
[423] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Being a former hi-sec warmonger for a few years myself I got the best out of the current system engaging corporations and alliances outnumbering ourselves in numbers, but not in skils and assets. It was a blast and until people started training their falcon alts into logistic alts it was a good time...
It can continue being a good time, if neutral reps were made part of the war they are interfering in. But then you wouldn't be able to use them either, which is what 99.9% of high sec warriors do, instead of relying on their supposed superior skills. |
Citizen Smif
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
89
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:14:00 -
[424] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: I wasn't around for this time, so I guess I'd have to request a bit of perspective. How long had the game been out at that time? How far were the older players from the new ones? What were people flying; is all the bittervet talk about mining in frigs for ages to afford cruisers true? What tech 2 mods and ships existed at that time?
Not to say that wardecs are the thing that keeps eve from growing, but it seems the difference between new players and older ones then and now is a world apart. Drawing parallels would be difficult at best.
The game was about 1 year old and most of the members in the attacker corp (who claimed to be hired) where a more then 2 month old. That bittervet talk was correct. A million ISK was a lot of money back then. There where pretty much no T2 mods or ships there (IIRC interceptors where about to get released). Back then folk avoided to fly BS if they could because it required corp mining ops to get a member into a new BS. That's what the talk about fighting in frigs is about. Working together to get members into ships was quite common. Not doing so didn't pay out well when a war hit. The differences between noobs and one year old players was much lower because nobody tanked their ships and remote repping simply didn't happen. Two frigs could take any BS down, no loltanks back then. Station games didn't work either.
I wasn't around back then but the thread has suddenly taken a turn so strongly into nostalgia its making me feel wistful.
They sound like cool times, everybody seemed to get along and actually give genuine advice.. Now look at us.. Fighting and quarrelling over everything, ganking miners for no good reason, ganking each other for no good reason, ganking poor EVE-Uni students. Even ganking to the point where we try and get people to commit suicide IRL.. What has happened to us all? Can't we all just get along?
What a sad universe this is |
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 20:19:00 -
[425] - Quote
Halycon Gamma wrote:Buying and a ship or their gains from PVP on the market isn't market pvp. It's the raw material for market PVP. It isn't .01 wars on price. It isn't going out and contracting ore from small corps. It isn't shipping large bulk orders to out of the way locations to open up new markets and feeding the combat player. It isn't anything that is actual market PvP. Combat PVP are the people we sell to, but it isn't the people we're competing against. Combat PVP players are simply the people who feed market PVP players money to keep score of who's winning and losing. In that case ... what IS this 'market PvP' as you so claim to know about?
Based on what you said it sounds like you are only looking at the 'big picture' as market PvP (you never actually said what it is, only what it isn't). That's fine. If you're going to do that, then I'll look at the only real PvP being SOV warfare and not some petty fighting in Empire (regardless of CONCORD intervention). I can make the claim that the only fights that are true PvP are the fights that impact system ownership and/or Super production.
I wonder if you realize that someone playing the market (but not 'market PvP' as you stated) has done billions more isk in damage than a standard empire PvPers, and it is the standard PvPers in empire who is paying those billions of isk. Nohb Oddy likes you. |
Alain Colcer
Quantum Cats Syndicate Villore Accords
8
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 21:11:00 -
[426] - Quote
To team Superfriends And CCP SoniClover
I strongly suggest you guys give a read to the following thread that started in FailHeap-Challenge, althought quite strong in opinion a first, it evolved into a number of arguments and counter arguments that provide quite a few interesting options in the frame of the sandbox.
http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?6224-DevBlog-changes-to-war-mechanics
It explores the ideas how for both aggresors and victims war-decs are handled in terms of game mechanics (how they start, how they end, what is allowed and what not).
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
60
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 22:04:00 -
[427] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions.
Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities? A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it.
I'll be continue monitoring this thread and will try to answer further questions.
And may I ask what exactly is your reasoning for making this "conscious decision" to charge the people least able to afford it, more than those who can for the same war?!
"We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it." So you see no reason to support small corps efforts to wage war on larger entities, but you see a reason to support large entities efforts to declare war on small corps? REALLY! ......REALLY!?
While I support the rest of the changes, I can't even begin to understand how you can justify charging a higher war fee for the 5 man corp to dec the 100 man corp than the 100 man corp would pay decing the 5 man corp. |
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 22:29:00 -
[428] - Quote
Manssell wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Hey guys, thanks for good comments, I'll try to answer a few of your questions here. I'm paraphrasing many of the questions.
Q: Tiny entities deccing large entities? A: The fact this makes this harder is a conscious decision. We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it.
I'll be continue monitoring this thread and will try to answer further questions.
And may I ask what exactly is your reasoning for making this "conscious decision" to charge the people least able to afford it, more than those who can for the same war?! "We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it." So you see no reason to support small corps efforts to wage war on larger entities, but you see a reason to support large entities efforts to declare war on small corps? REALLY! ......REALLY!? While I support the rest of the changes, I can't even begin to understand how you can justify charging a higher war fee for the 5 man corp to dec the 100 man corp than the 100 man corp would pay decing the 5 man corp.
Pretty simple really. They just want a value judgement made between messing with 0.0 alliances and completely shutting down corp activity in The Forge region, maybe even toss lonetrek in there. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
97
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 22:38:00 -
[429] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote: I wasn't around for this time, so I guess I'd have to request a bit of perspective. How long had the game been out at that time? How far were the older players from the new ones? What were people flying; is all the bittervet talk about mining in frigs for ages to afford cruisers true? What tech 2 mods and ships existed at that time?
Not to say that wardecs are the thing that keeps eve from growing, but it seems the difference between new players and older ones then and now is a world apart. Drawing parallels would be difficult at best.
The game was about 1 year old and most of the members in the attacker corp (who claimed to be hired) where a more then 2 month old. That bittervet talk was correct. A million ISK was a lot of money back then. There where pretty much no T2 mods or ships there (IIRC interceptors where about to get released). Back then folk avoided to fly BS if they could because it required corp mining ops to get a member into a new BS. That's what the talk about fighting in frigs is about. Working together to get members into ships was quite common. Not doing so didn't pay out well when a war hit. The differences between noobs and one year old players was much lower because nobody tanked their ships and remote repping simply didn't happen. Two frigs could take any BS down, no loltanks back then. Station games didn't work either. Given the time and age of the game it stands to reason that new players fighting back in 2004 would have it much better than those same players trying it today against what we now consider veterans. Which in my mind begs the question: Would those players who were dec'd have had the same attitude and fared as well if their opponents were using T2 and pirate ships on high skilled characters? |
Nekopyat
Nee-Co
39
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 22:53:00 -
[430] - Quote
gfldex wrote: The differences between noobs and one year old players was much lower because nobody tanked their ships and remote repping simply didn't happen. Two frigs could take any BS down, no loltanks back then. Station games didn't work either.
I heard a while back that CCP did not start using version control till recently.. which is a pity since if they did they could do something special like set up an 'early EvE' server and let people poke around that universe.
|
|
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 22:59:00 -
[431] - Quote
Could be something amusing to think about. War changes weren't ever going to please everybody, simply due to the nature of the thing. What we have with this monstrosity is a system that doesn't even pander to its stated goals. |
gfldex
430
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 22:59:00 -
[432] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote: Given the time and age of the game it stands to reason that new players fighting back in 2004 would have it much better than those same players trying it today against what we now consider veterans. Which in my mind begs the question: Would those players who were dec'd have had the same attitude and fared as well if their opponents were using T2 and pirate ships on high skilled characters?
At that time? Yes, because a T2 cap recharger would set you back by 15M (they went up to 19M). Since non of the HP boosts, RR boosts and damage mod nerfs where in effect back then you actually had a chance to blow ships up even if you where out gunned. If the noobs would have outnumbered the attacker 2:1, well the attacker would not have used T2 stuff. Income was much lower back then and most players where using plain T1 guns for PvP. (Unless the attacker was holding T2 BPOs, made them wade in ISK.)
Goons are the 3%. |
KanashiiKami
98
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 23:02:00 -
[433] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:ok CCP likes sweeping change, heres 1 ... PLEASE COMMENT : lets change the war dec name to ... CORP wars (borrowed from faction wars) and we also change the dec-ing format from affecting entire alliances to ONLY affect at corp wide level. acronym CC = concord the war system (or CC bribery spree) becomes fixed price 100m, 24hr CD to start of conflict, and will only last a fixed 5 days without a ending 24hr CD. a corp can only express to attack 1 war target corp per 50 corp members (ie if you have 101 pilots in your corp, you can goto war with 3 target corps) up to a max of 10 wars (much like a research slot). big alliances can launch multiple strategic wars and will have to be more brainy about it. a corp expressing war as an attacker will no longer be able to use recruitment/expel-member option as per normal (individuals with combat involvement in war will not be able to leave corp via being marked IN-WAR after being involved in any conflict, individuals who have not participated in the attacking war can leave corp by paying 20m ISK to CC during the 6 days) there will also be a POST WAR CD of 30days in place, so that after completing 1 war expression, that particular CORP war expression ability slot will be on CD of 30days. so if a attacker corp has 250 pilots that can do 5 simulataneous war fronts uses up all 5 at 5 different war target corps and ends all 5 wars on the same day. the attacker corp will have to wait 30days for all 5 warring expression ability to CD. so it is therefore possible to rotate such warring expression ability to constantly put a target corp at war. a TARGETTED corp of expressed WAR will not be CC mailed about who is going to attack them, they will have to BRIBE CC 10m ISK to tell them who is the attacker. CC will only inform of impending WAR that will start at bla bla bla date/time. a ATTACKING corp after BRIBING for WAR expression on target corp will be able to access CC npc agent for free locator services once per day per pilot only on TARGET corp pilots. an attacker corp cant recruit/expel pilot at anytime of war expressed (individuals may choose to leave if they have not fought). TARGETTED corp pilots can leave war at anytime by paying CC fee 10m ISK and can recruit pilots in at 10m ISK per head. these incoming/outgoing pilots will have to go thru a 24hr CD to shed / take on the WARing status. a TARGETTED corp cannot reject a WAR, however he can further BRIBE CC to shorten the WAR. pay 40m isk to CC and reduce in WAR time by 48hrs, 80m to reduce by 4 days. in the event of TARGETTED corp war shortening BRIBEs, the time bought over by TARGGETED corp during a WAR becomes unusable for ATTACKER to re-express a new WAR until the time bought by them is expired. attacker cannot end war, once a war starts it will run 6 days for the attacker in full. a TARGETTED corp can disband CORP to ultimately end ALL EXPRESSED WARS on them. the maximum number of WARS a corp can recieve is 5. ALL disbanded corp members will be marked unable to join other corp/establish new corp for 60days. a TARGETED CORP whose CEO having a CC sec Status of 5+ and having less than 10 pilots in corp have automatic CC WAR protection scheme. CEO of such CORP will only need to pay 20% of fee to shorten WAR times. ATTACKING corp can add WAR allies to selected WAR expressions by paying CC an extra 50m isk at time of EXPRESSING WAR on the TARGET. attacker corp cannot add/change number of ally attacker corp DURING a WAR. ally attacker corps are subject to same pilot movement restrictions into/out of corp TARGETTED corp can add WAR allies to selected WAR expressions by paying CC an extra 50m isk after establishing attacker id of expressed WAR. ally targetted corp pilots are subject to same pilot movement restrictions/schemes/war-time-line as the master corp at war. CCP will need to make a seperate WAR panel to show WAR in progress time line and openslots avail for new WAR. each WAR slot may or may not display parties involved etc .. .depending on how the GUI programmer think it shud be. but if u ask me, i like 1 panel = 100% info, pls dun ask us to flip pages ... i dun mind scrolls up/down like a web page, every one in game can deal with panels that look like web page. and yes, if any at war pilot wish to recieve AID from a NEUT pilot, he will have to PAY CC 10m isk. the aiding pilot will then be in the usual aggression CD 15minutes. after 15 minutes is up , if he initiates a new aid, he will need to pay CC 10m isk again. aided pilot will need to click "YES, recieve aid" n re mutual war, if u want it ... both of u jus go losec n bash it up ... skip the clicking n isk payment process ... everyone please comment, ESP DEVs/GM ... TYVM for reading
no comments on the above? or its too radical a change? WUT ??? |
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 23:04:00 -
[434] - Quote
KanashiiKami wrote:no comments on the above? or its too radical a change?
I haven't had time to give it a good read over. However, i believe Inferno is too close for CCP to rework this completely. I have a feeling if it isn't going in as stated in the dev blog, then nothing is going to change at all.
Proposing massive overhauls at this stage I don't think is realistic. Though maybe worth talking about in the future. I think right now people are trying to focus their efforts on ironing out details they see as highly problematic and also plausible to fix in the time frame given.
|
Halycon Gamma
Judian Peoples Front
24
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 23:51:00 -
[435] - Quote
ChickenandWatermelon wrote:KanashiiKami wrote:no comments on the above? or its too radical a change? I haven't had time to give it a good read over. However, i believe Inferno is too close for CCP to rework this completely. I have a feeling if it isn't going in as stated in the dev blog, then nothing is going to change at all. Proposing massive overhauls at this stage I don't think is realistic. Though maybe worth talking about in the future. I think right now people are trying to focus their efforts on ironing out details they see as highly problematic and also plausible to fix in the time frame given.
And this upsets me to no end. Instead of a robust system with checks and balances, we get a monolithic one size fits all simplified system. It's simplicity makes it easier to game, inbalanced towards many otherwise perfectly fine types of play, and rips other types of play out of the game in their entirety.
The current system is broken, I'll fully admit that. But this new system is just as broken. It doesn't fix the underlying problem with wardecs, and just randomizes who gets hosed this time around.
Swinging the pendulum to the other extreme is just as bad as the one it's currently in.
|
KanashiiKami
98
|
Posted - 2012.03.30 23:57:00 -
[436] - Quote
ChickenandWatermelon wrote:KanashiiKami wrote:no comments on the above? or its too radical a change? I haven't had time to give it a good read over. However, i believe Inferno is too close for CCP to rework this completely. I have a feeling if it isn't going in as stated in the dev blog, then nothing is going to change at all. Proposing massive overhauls at this stage I don't think is realistic. Though maybe worth talking about in the future. I think right now people are trying to focus their efforts on ironing out details they see as highly problematic and also plausible to fix in the time frame given.
true
i think the first thing CCP need to do is to really fix launcher/repair/patcher thingy .... it is the most basic item of any game ... it is suppose to be the simplest "item" to use of any game. i think too many players are having too many problems with it ...
i think CCP will just roll out inferno irregardless we spoke of any idea we think is important ...
*sad faced* WUT ??? |
KanashiiKami
98
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 00:08:00 -
[437] - Quote
Halycon Gamma wrote:ChickenandWatermelon wrote:KanashiiKami wrote:no comments on the above? or its too radical a change? I haven't had time to give it a good read over. However, i believe Inferno is too close for CCP to rework this completely. I have a feeling if it isn't going in as stated in the dev blog, then nothing is going to change at all. Proposing massive overhauls at this stage I don't think is realistic. Though maybe worth talking about in the future. I think right now people are trying to focus their efforts on ironing out details they see as highly problematic and also plausible to fix in the time frame given. And this upsets me to no end. Instead of a robust system with checks and balances, we get a monolithic one size fits all simplified system. It's simplicity makes it easier to game, inbalanced towards many otherwise perfectly fine types of play, and rips other types of play out of the game in their entirety. The current system is broken, I'll fully admit that. But this new system is just as broken. It doesn't fix the underlying problem with wardecs, and just randomizes who gets hosed this time around. Swinging the pendulum to the other extreme is just as bad as the one it's currently in.
haha i like the way u put it .... "randomizes who gets hosed this time round" ... QFT
every1 is getting something wet n drenched once in a while from that wild firemans hose on full throttle w/o a fireman handling it ... WUT ??? |
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 00:11:00 -
[438] - Quote
I don't think they'll roll out anything regardless of what we do. We just have to hammer at the really bad parts of this that are easier to fix. Which in my opinion is the cost scale favoring giant 0.0 blobs and encouraging deccing smaller entities that not only can't defend themselves, but won't give good fights, or even bad fights.
I have been ever so not subtly hinting that. For the price of deccing goons for a week, you could likely enforce NPC corp membership of an entire region of space for a week. That's pretty messed up. |
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 00:16:00 -
[439] - Quote
Halycon Gamma wrote:
And this upsets me to no end. Instead of a robust system with checks and balances, we get a monolithic one size fits all simplified system. It's simplicity makes it easier to game, inbalanced towards many otherwise perfectly fine types of play, and rips other types of play out of the game in their entirety.
The current system is broken, I'll fully admit that. But this new system is just as broken. It doesn't fix the underlying problem with wardecs, and just randomizes who gets hosed this time around.
Swinging the pendulum to the other extreme is just as bad as the one it's currently in.
I don't think this is a pendulum. I think this hoses everyone at once. So far i've seen both the likely aggressors and likely defenders in this thread pretty much in agreement that the payscale is ******** |
Vangococo
Frozen Enterprises
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 00:38:00 -
[440] - Quote
Karim alRashid wrote:"Once youGÇÖre an ally, youGÇÖre committed to the war until it ends."
I don't think this is a good design. In fact you're not allies, sharing a common goal, you are a contractor, a hired mercenary.
Such contracts should have a term. At the end of the term, both parties choose to continue or not the contract.
You have a contract or did you fail to read the Devblog correctly.
The MERC corps are being contracted for the entire War... that is the contract you are signing up for.. You wanna be a MERC be a MERC, You wanna only fight when you think you can win go join a 100Man russian blob fleet and leave your balls at the door.. Really when did mercs loose all balls. You as a MERC are being paid ISK to come rescue small corps/INDY corps. because they dont feel they can properrly defend themselves and dont want to hide inside of a station till the war is over. that is why the asked for help. And now you want to just think the idea of coming to their rescue and then running with your tails between your legs is a option. it is called research and CCP is doing 90% of the work for you. It is called the WAR progression tracker. If somebody asks you to help them you can read up on the Aggressor corp and see if you think you can defeat them. |
|
ChickenandWatermelon
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 00:49:00 -
[441] - Quote
Vangococo wrote:Karim alRashid wrote:"Once youGÇÖre an ally, youGÇÖre committed to the war until it ends."
I don't think this is a good design. In fact you're not allies, sharing a common goal, you are a contractor, a hired mercenary.
Such contracts should have a term. At the end of the term, both parties choose to continue or not the contract. You have a contract or did you fail to read the Devblog correctly. The MERC corps are being contracted for the entire War... that is the contract you are signing up for.. You wanna be a MERC be a MERC, You wanna only fight when you think you can win go join a 100Man russian blob fleet and leave your balls at the door.. Really when did mercs loose all balls. You as a MERC are being paid ISK to come rescue small corps/INDY corps. because they dont feel they can properrly defend themselves and dont want to hide inside of a station till the war is over. that is why the asked for help. And now you want to just think the idea of coming to their rescue and then running with your tails between your legs is a option. it is called research and CCP is doing 90% of the work for you. It is called the WAR progression tracker. If somebody asks you to help them you can read up on the Aggressor corp and see if you think you can defeat them.
Not sure if trolling. Nothing to do with balls or e-peen or space bushido.
You obviously clearly also don't understand the implications of this system. Mercs won't be defending little corps. Little corps can't afford what the Mercs will be charging in the first place. Mercs will also be coalescing into much larger merc corps...or unsubbing, finding other activities in eve, or whatever, but smaller merc corps that don't want to fight targets less interesting than red crosses ( implying fights would even be happening ), will stop existing.
Small bear corps will be ending too, as they blob up to make any incoming wars expensive. Why own a pos in a little corp when you can just alliance up and make it that much more expensive to take down.
It's also hilarious that you think the tracker offers anywhere near the depth of research that is typically done when research is done at all on a target.
This system encourages everyone in highsec to blob up into nullsec style blocs. on both sides. Small corps on both sides have reasons to be pretty upset. None of those reasons have anything to do with what you are talking about. |
KanashiiKami
99
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 02:44:00 -
[442] - Quote
well ... i wish i can gather the right resources ... ive been thinking to make a MMORPG .... maybe i will name it ADAM online lol ... WUT ??? |
sankoku
Twilight Ephemeris
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 02:59:00 -
[443] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Dear Internet Spaceship Historians I went back in time to 2004 and found a corp who's members barely left their trial and as such where not overly capable. Just to find out what wardecs (no decshield back then) are about. The forum back then is quite different from what we see today. The general consensus was that a wardec is simply something that happens to corps and that they just mount some frigs and fight back. Seams that was actually working for them There is something wrong with EVE but it's not the wardec system EDIT: I would like to add that because you could declare war on noobs the game never made any profit and CCP went bankrupt at the end of 2004.
You really seem to think this is about the ability of old-timers being able to pick on n00bs
No, that's not it at all. It's like you're trying to argue on an entirely different topic
Can you point to a point in history where old-timers get to war-dec on n00bs, but n00bs (or small independents, not necessarily n00bs at all) are PREVENTED from declaring war on large corps
Basically, the *problem* with this idea, is two-fold
1) It PROTECTS huge, powerful entities who need no protection, from smaller rivals. Why
2) It enables infinite wars-of-harassment, which in turn may screw up the possibility of hiring mercs, because who wants to commit to a war that the aggressor can simply prolong infinitely for virtually free
Make it so wars have a point, a goal, and end, and you won't screw it up. Remove the financial protection of the big from the small
If a Merc actually HAS a way to bring a war to an end -- as opposed to it being at the aggressor's whim, then they'll be willing to commit
I DO like the idea of a merc being committed. But it has to be a commitment that makes business sense
But right now, all the commitment is on defense, all involuntary. No commitment at all on the offense, and the war continues at their pleasure
See? Not about wardecing n00bs. It's about huge corps not being willing to face any risk or challenges. Huge corps too lazy to get out their and risk there rears and reps
Frankly, a lot of us are tired of the whining from the giants in the game, when anybody objects to the game going just the way the Goons and the other various swarms want
HTFU. Accept that some big corps may get wardeced by small corps if the fee structure is changed. Accept that maybe if you declare a war, you may not be able to drag it out indefinitely
Even accept that some people may choose to evade you, rather than fight you. Why does that bother you so much? you still get to disrupt their operations. You still may be able to negotiate a surrender based on that. If not -- maybe they weren't the rich target you thought they were? Maybe your intel -- wasn't so intel? |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
424
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 04:31:00 -
[444] - Quote
Manssell wrote:And may I ask what exactly is your reasoning for making this "conscious decision" to charge the people least able to afford it, more than those who can for the same war?!
"We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it." So you see no reason to support small corps efforts to wage war on larger entities, but you see a reason to support large entities efforts to declare war on small corps? REALLY! ......REALLY!?
While I support the rest of the changes, I can't even begin to understand how you can justify charging a higher war fee for the 5 man corp to dec the 100 man corp than the 100 man corp would pay decing the 5 man corp.
CCP doesn't know anything about actual highsec PVP gameplay and they don't care about PVP in highsec being good either. They just want to push out some new system while putting as little thought and effort in to it as possible so they can go "look we fixed highsec PVP" so they can sweep it under the rug.
The only proposed feature that fixes any actual issue with highsec PVP gameplay is wars continuing on corps that drop from alliances. Everything else is just adding features for the sake of adding features. |
Ilandrin Yona
Helion Production Labs Independent Operators Consortium
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 05:33:00 -
[445] - Quote
Vimsy Vortis wrote:Manssell wrote:And may I ask what exactly is your reasoning for making this "conscious decision" to charge the people least able to afford it, more than those who can for the same war?!
"We don't want to ban this activity of course, but see no reason to support it." So you see no reason to support small corps efforts to wage war on larger entities, but you see a reason to support large entities efforts to declare war on small corps? REALLY! ......REALLY!?
While I support the rest of the changes, I can't even begin to understand how you can justify charging a higher war fee for the 5 man corp to dec the 100 man corp than the 100 man corp would pay decing the 5 man corp. CCP doesn't know anything about actual highsec PVP gameplay and they don't care about PVP in highsec being good either. They just want to push out some new system while putting as little thought and effort in to it as possible so they can go "look we fixed highsec PVP" so they can sweep it under the rug. The only proposed feature that fixes any actual issue with highsec PVP gameplay is wars continuing on corps that drop from alliances. Everything else is just adding features for the sake of adding features.
Perhaps the cost of the war should be based not on the actual number of members of either corp, but instead on the difference in size between the corps? That way, whether it's 100-member-corp declaring on 5-member-corp, or 5-member-corp declaring on 100-member-corp, it's still the same cost?
... ..... ....... ... ..... ....... ... ..... ....... ... ..... ....... ... ..... ....... http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Ilandrin_Yona |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
466
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 05:58:00 -
[446] - Quote
bornaa wrote:Adunh Slavy wrote:
The point of the new system is so people commit to their actions.
This is bullshit!!! Because attacker does not have commitment at all. He just don't pay and its over. This all is one big bullshit.
LOL, you know you do not own the car you see in the new car lot until you pay for it, regardless of what crap you tell the salesman. |
Marie Cuerie
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 07:05:00 -
[447] - Quote
It look a long time!
But now we have a PVP-play. As an Aggressor we can fight against the industry corps how long we want without the risk to have to go in lowsec. I hate the lowsec because there are every time crummys which kill me without any chance to defense.
This is a good chance for little pvp corps to become enimies and ISK. To massacare mining fleets with hulks, and orcas. - Lets kill! - The danger that the industrycorp hire a mercenary corp isn't real, because this will cost much if they have to do this every month and we as agressor can end the war in this case next week or call a supply fleed or another pvp corp wich declare ware to the industry, too. The costs for that is now low again. But in the other case the industry corp has to wait untill we are ready to massacare it.
If we show the war history of the target corp we know if the corp will pay, fight or let masacrare itself. And if the last war of the target corp is not so long ago we can know if they have money for mercenary or it's an easy target which we can agress without risk.
So is PVP funny!
Hope that CCP make good offers for newcomers, so we have all time easy targets.
A great time will beginn in EVE!! |
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 07:56:00 -
[448] - Quote
I have realized another problem with the Dec fee based on toons within the defender's corporation. Any bear corp out there that wants to make it as hard as possible to get deced is simply going to tell all their corp members to use all three toons on their account to inflate their numbers to three times more than what they would normally be. While this exploit would not be as extreme as counting trial accounts, it will still have a large negative impact. Not only will the wars cost three times what the Dev Team is calculating, but there will be one third the possible targets.
On that note, all you bears reading this, be sure you do exactly this, inflating the required dec fees.
Additionally, I feel I'm out of the loop. Can someone point me in the direction of the new High Sec power-block for wardecing in empire? Since the fee is now going to be based on the number of heads, having all the griefers and blood thirsty warmongers (of whom I respect) in one single corp/alliance will become the norm. This will prevent people paying for the same 'head' more than once, thus keeping everything in line and everyone on the same page (to explain; if two corps want to dec a target they can either each pay this high fee, or they can join up and only pay that fee once).
While I dislike having to deal with power-blocks (main reason I don't stick around Null for long), CTAs, and the like, I can see what is coming. Empire will become the home the pirate power-block to reduce the total fees they have to pay while maximizing the number of targets they can shoot at.
Oh, but don't worry bears, you're not left out of this either. To try to prevent getting deced you should all also join up in your own Empire base power-block to make it impossible for the standard solo/small wardecing corp from ever hoping to afford paying the wardec fees against you. So please, all of you join up together in one massive group.
Did you realize that under this new system it will cost TWELVE TIMES more isk to dec a four man corp than it does today? Twelve times more isk to dec a four man corp. Nohb Oddy likes you. |
Vanir Waelcyrge
Enochian Key
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 08:25:00 -
[449] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Q: Price of war? A: The current formula is 20 mill (for corp, 50 for alliance) base price plus 500.000 per member in target corp. We're looking into some sorts of diminishing returns/cap, but nothing has been decided yet. We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.
Most of the changes are good, but I really don't understand the reasoning behind the corp size factor to cost. What is the perceived benefit of that? Why do you want to reduce wars against large corps? And as a side effect, increase wars against tiny corps?
Targeting a big corp is, in general, a bigger risk for the agressor, because a bigger corp probably have a better chance to summon a defense. And inflated corp sizes will become a natural way to counter the threat of wars. The harrasment (griefing) of small corps on the other hand will become comparably cheaper. If size should be a factor then the opposite of the current plan would increase large scale wars between high-sec corps. Something that would give wars a bigger impact on the highsec political landscape.
Personally I would like to see a cost ratio based on the strength of the agressor (stronger corp=higher cost), and if the cost is secret then it wouldn't give any info. But I understand that it would be too complex to judge/implement. In the end, a flat rate is probably a good thing.
|
Nohb Oddy
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.31 08:41:00 -
[450] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:We will not modify cost based on aggressor size as it is too easily gamed.
How can that system be gained when the aggressor is unable to bring new members into their corp/alliance after a war is active? Nohb Oddy likes you. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |