These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Inferno 1.1 Sisi features

First post First post First post
Author
#121 - 2012-06-11 19:48:54 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system:

Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here.

Much like there not being a log on who removed all the stuff from your corp hangers, it's pretty much a "give the roles to people responsible and trustworthy" thing.

My sense of mischief wants it left how 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,

Shadow Cartel
#122 - 2012-06-11 20:04:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Everyone please, this has gone on long enough. Sorry to spoil all the fun, but I thought I'd clear this little debate up right now. I might lose my council seat but I just can't hide the truth any longer.

What the CSM has been hiding is that Trebor Daehdoow is actually "Future Mittani" - sent back through a wormhole in order to rewrite history. Apparently during the Great Carebear uprising of 2057 Goonswarm is all but annihilated after a mining boycott forces the Goonies into retrievers and a massive wardec fueled by insane profits off custom capsuleer-created NEX clothing leaves them helpless and vulnerable.

Now Future Mittani must get the war dec changes tweaked in order to prevent certain disaster! I also have it on good authority that Hilmar is personally responsible for letting the wormhole technology fall into the wrong hands....

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Mercenary Coalition
#123 - 2012-06-11 20:06:53 UTC
Aside from the fact that unlimited allies completely **** over any chance of mercenaries having a chance, it was just a dumb thing. When all of this came up at the CSM Summit the primary examples discussed were about what had happened with EVE Uni and how it would affect the Mercenary profession, which is something CCP does intend to keep working toward making viable. Unlike in the past, CCP has recognized this was a dumb thing and have acted to fix it quickly. I'm not a fan of this EXACT fix but maybe it'll change a bit more between now and release. Regardless, unlimited allies was a dumb thing.

However, this tinfoil idiocy is an even dumber thing. You want to argue about the mechanics, fine. If you don't like the way they are now or the way the changes will make them, that's fine too. But check the tinfoil crap at the door.

I cannot fathom how after nine years of this game being live anyone could really BELIEVE that the people that work on it give two ***** about the colors on a map or what corp / alliance is affected by balance changes. I worked at CCP in Game Design for over three years and I never made a decision or a change based upon how it would affect in game ~politics~ and no one I worked with did either. It's completely off the rails to suggest that someone like CCP Soundwave takes his cues from anyone other than CCP Unifex, the guy that does his salary reviews. It's even more absurd to bring CCP Screegs into anything related to Game Design because the guy is too busy hammering bots and RMTers; he's got nothing to do with this stuff.

It's just too dumb; I refuse to believe that you believe this stuff, Jade. The more you rabble about it along those lines, the less attention anyone is going to pay to you. Stick to talking about the actual mechanics and stop this nonsense.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Break-A-Wish Foundation
#124 - 2012-06-11 20:10:20 UTC
I personally think that a better solution to ally spamming would have been to allow the aggressor to bring in an ally for every ally the defender brought in. Escalation is good because more war is better.
Shadow Cartel
#125 - 2012-06-11 20:37:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Jade Constantine wrote:
One of the things you guys on the CSM are supposed to provide is a breadth of experience to help avoid this kind of fiasco.


Well, what if we don't think its a fiasco? This is one of those cases where the breadth of experience provided by the CSM led to a fairly consistent conclusion - unlimited allies doesn't make for good gameplay. Not that the CSM was unanimous, but most of us though this was a bad idea and that it defeated the whole purpose of having a competitive "mercenary marketplace" in the first place.

Having a "breadth of experience" doesnt mean the feedback has to be split 50/50 on every issue.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Streamfleet
#126 - 2012-06-11 20:43:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
I'm the one spearheading for reforms to the Inferno war dec system (not Mitanni) and the CSM has pretty solidly been behind the changes we discussed prior to and during the CSM summit.

The slight cost added to taking new allies was not one of those changes, I do not support it, and I do not think the CSM as a whole is too enthused (though Issler doesn't support it for different reasons than the rest of us do: it's still ****).

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

The Star Fraction
#127 - 2012-06-11 20:43:52 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
One of the things you guys on the CSM are supposed to provide is a breadth of experience to help avoid this kind of fiasco.


Well, what if we don't think its a fiasco? This is one of those cases where the breadth of experience provided by the CSM led to a fairly consistent conclusion - unlimited allies doesn't make for good gameplay. Not that the CSM was unanimous, but most of us though this was a bad idea and that it defeated the whole purpose of having a competitive "mercenary marketplace" in the first place.

Having a "breadth of experience" doesnt mean the feedback has to be split 50/50 on every issue.


So what about the compromise solution where you don't pay concord for allies as long as the total headcount of defender + all allies is less than the total headcount of the aggressor?

This puts an upper limit on allies for most smaller wars - while allowing proper countering of a giant alliance wardeccing a smaller alliance.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Streamfleet
#128 - 2012-06-11 20:45:36 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
One of the things you guys on the CSM are supposed to provide is a breadth of experience to help avoid this kind of fiasco.


Well, what if we don't think its a fiasco? This is one of those cases where the breadth of experience provided by the CSM led to a fairly consistent conclusion - unlimited allies doesn't make for good gameplay. Not that the CSM was unanimous, but most of us though this was a bad idea and that it defeated the whole purpose of having a competitive "mercenary marketplace" in the first place.

Having a "breadth of experience" doesnt mean the feedback has to be split 50/50 on every issue.


So what about the compromise solution where you don't pay concord for allies as long as the total headcount of defender + all allies is less than the total headcount of the aggressor?

This puts an upper limit on allies for most smaller wars - while allowing proper countering of a giant alliance wardeccing a smaller alliance.

Frankly Jade this whole concord fees issue is the wrong direction entirely.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Pandemic Legion
#129 - 2012-06-11 20:46:10 UTC
I agree with Jade. If you couldn't bring in world renowned PvP allies like
We help Noobs, INVARIANT TENSOR, Angelserivce, Dukes of Noobs, Spontaneous Castigation, Pods Must Cry, Nocturnal Twins, I AM UGLY AND THIS MAKES ME ANGRY ALSO JUMP, Kicking Smurfs, Hostile Kids, Freight Club, Next Era Dawn, Kamikaze Tactics, Unicorn Zero, PAX Interstellar Mercenary People, The Blacklist LTd., Kursk Security, Destruction Overload, Envy., Multicultural Appreciation Society, Pandora Cartel, P I R A T, Iron Oxide., Corsairs., Let Us Sleep, Ex Obscuritas, Electric Society, Tactical Knightmare, New eden lotto, Hikage Corporation, Rowdy Ramblers, Moustache Twirling Space Cads, and Corpus Alienum
to fight the Goon menace, then there is NO WAY to fight them. It's impossible, really. The only way to kill Goons is to have 100 random allies in Empire. Then and only then can their nullsec empire crumble.

~

The Star Fraction
#130 - 2012-06-11 20:47:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I'm the one spearheading for reforms to the Inferno war dec system and the CSM has pretty solidly been behind the changes we discussed prior to and during the CSM summit.

The slight cost added to taking new allies was not one of those changes, I do not support it, and I do not think the CSM as a whole is too enthused (though Issler doesn't support it for different reasons than the rest of us do: it's still ****).



hmmm now, Seleene can froth at me all he likes saying "how dare you accuse CCP of being unbalanced in favour of goons" but thats exactly how its going to look when the goons can wardec at target for 50m isk and it takes potentially unlimited ISK to significantly counter the dec through the Inferno allied system.

It will be a simple matter of ISK comparison. When the largest entity in the game can wardec for peanuts and you can't bring allies for less than an emperor's ransom then something is very fishy with the system.

And it makes a mockery of Inferno. (at least as far as wardecs go).

I've been pretty complimentary of many aspects of this patch - I think Yterrbium has done a superb job with Faction Warfare - but team "superfriends" have really dropped the ball with this proposed wardec change.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

The Star Fraction
#131 - 2012-06-11 20:59:48 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
I agree with Jade. If you couldn't bring in world renowned PvP allies like
We help Noobs, INVARIANT TENSOR, Angelserivce, Dukes of Noobs, Spontaneous Castigation, Pods Must Cry, Nocturnal Twins, I AM UGLY AND THIS MAKES ME ANGRY ALSO JUMP, Kicking Smurfs, Hostile Kids, Freight Club, Next Era Dawn, Kamikaze Tactics, Unicorn Zero, PAX Interstellar Mercenary People, The Blacklist LTd., Kursk Security, Destruction Overload, Envy., Multicultural Appreciation Society, Pandora Cartel, P I R A T, Iron Oxide., Corsairs., Let Us Sleep, Ex Obscuritas, Electric Society, Tactical Knightmare, New eden lotto, Hikage Corporation, Rowdy Ramblers, Moustache Twirling Space Cads, and Corpus Alienum
to fight the Goon menace, then there is NO WAY to fight them. It's impossible, really. The only way to kill Goons is to have 100 random allies in Empire. Then and only then can their nullsec empire crumble.


So Elise - since you find these allies so utterly laughable and irrelevant why should I have to pay concord a premium for them as long as the total size of my alliance and these corps is less than the total size of the entity making the incoming wardec?

Riddle me that.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Mercenary Coalition
#132 - 2012-06-11 20:59:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Jade Constantine wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
I'm the one spearheading for reforms to the Inferno war dec system and the CSM has pretty solidly been behind the changes we discussed prior to and during the CSM summit.

The slight cost added to taking new allies was not one of those changes, I do not support it, and I do not think the CSM as a whole is too enthused (though Issler doesn't support it for different reasons than the rest of us do: it's still ****).


I'm glad to hear that Alekseyev - thanks for your comment. I mean when/if this thing does go live it will create some ridiculous situations. I mean Seleene can froth at me all he likes saying "how dare you accuse CCP of being unbalanced in favour of goons" but thats exactly how its going to look when the goons can wardec at target for 50m isk and it takes potentially unlimited ISK to count the dec through the allied system.

It will be a simple matter of ISK comparison. When the largest entity in the game can wardec for peanuts and you can't bring allies for less than an emperor's ransom then something is very fishy with the system.


Jade, my 'frothing at the mouth' is actually quite measured compared to the rampant paranoia you've attempted to foster over the last several pages. Don't backpedal by saying it's a lack of dev experience or CSM inaction now. As I said in my post, I don't believe you are dumb enough to believe in that tinfoil crap (quite the opposite really) so this coy "what it will look like" routine just falls flat. Yeah, it makes me a little ~mad~ because I honestly thought we were past that sort of nonsense, especially someone like you that has been on the CSM and met some of these guys.

As for the CSM, we're not watching this from the sidelines and were already asking after it before this forum madness kicked off. As Alek said, I'm not sure how the wires got crossed here but I'm pretty sure we can resolve it with a few good posts internally. That doesn't mean the ally system should allow 20,30 or 70 corps, etc... to bandwagon tho. v0v

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

#133 - 2012-06-11 21:05:06 UTC
So another point of view.

I don't believe there is deliberate goon influence in the current CSM, that said, there are some CSM and CCP developers that seem to have pretty similar views of Eve when compared to the goons.

I am the only CSM seriously being affected by this change and I am definitely NOT happy with the current planned change. We were grief-ed deced some time back by the goons and then by test. We asked for allies and we got some great responses for free. So we have lots of folks hunting goons and test with good result.

I can't say that this fact hasn't had something to do with pressures to change what we now have. That's my opinion, and again, I am the only CSM member directly affected in a major way by this proposed change.

We are 150 person alliance being prema-dec-ed by the two largest alliances in Eve. How could we possible fight them in any fair manner? The war dec war-dec fees will never be factor to these big alliances, they print isks with their tech moons for example.

The current allies system at least let them pay in actually combat losses for their nonsense. But making us have to start paying a lot for allies will be a burden for us. Where is that fair given the huge difference in size 150 vs 12000!

So what I hoped for and don't see yet are changes that address these issues.

1. Something that takes into account the difference in the sizes of the corps/alliances involved.
2. Some clear reasonable "win" condition, like driving someone out of some part of space or some amount of isk loss that triggers surrender.
3. An allies system that takes into account the relative sizes of the parties, I should be allowed to have a lot of allies if I am fighting 12K folks with my 150.
4. Something that makes it more attractive to me to hire a merc as compared to free allies. If there has to be a cap for the number allies we can have, then we should be able to make any fees that have to pay past that maximum of free allies go to mercs we can hire, not concord.
5. Fees sustainable by smaller organizations under siege.

I don't see these changes addressing any of those items.

So I don't think the goons got this because of plants in the CSM or CCP, but I think its clear from my perspective if this change goes forward it eliminates the only way a small outfit like the Honda Accord can survive against such an unbalanced war and definitely favors larger aggressors in a very unbalanced manner.

Issler

The Star Fraction
#134 - 2012-06-11 21:11:29 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Jade, my 'frothing at the mouth' is actually quite measured compared to the rampant paranoia you've attempted to foster over the last several pages. Don't backpedal by saying it's a lack of dev experience or CSM inaction now. As I said in my post, I don't believe you are dumb enough to believe in that tinfoil crap (quite the opposite really) so this coy "what it will look like" routine just falls flat. Yeah, it makes me a little ~mad~ because I honestly thought we were past that sort of nonsense, especially someone like you that has been on the CSM and met some of these guys.


Its precisely because I have been on the CSM I know quite how persuasive the attempts to influence game development from the CSM representatives to the benefit of particular interest groups can be. Sometimes to the clear detriment of the game for the general player base. My perception from the outside on this case is that a pretty damned appalling one-sided fiasco of a change has been allowed to pass without appropriate challenge from some of the CSM.

Seleene wrote:
As for the CSM, we're not watching this from the sidelines and were already asking after it before this forum madness kicked off. As Alek said, I'm not sure how the wires got crossed here but I'm pretty sure we can resolve it with a few good posts internally. That doesn't mean the ally system should allow 20,30 or 70 people to bandwagon tho. v0v


Okay let me ask you again Seleene - why shouldn't 70 corporations be allowed to bandwangon on a wardec made by a giant organization against a small organization as long as they don't take the total headcount of the defenders above the attackers?

How does it damage the game to let 70 mom and pops trade hub raider corps join a war to defend a small target wardecced by a huge one.

By all means look at ways of ensuring that a small wardec corp doesn't get hungely outnumbered by free allies when it attacks an equal sized or larger target - but that is a different issue and can be solved without the broad stroke devastation of the initial proposal.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

#135 - 2012-06-11 21:17:31 UTC
I'm curious, why was it determined that only defenders could bring in mercs, sorry, "allies" (don't we already have alliances?) in the first place? Why not allow anyone, attacker or aggressor, to bring in as many mercs as they can afford (with an adjustable contract length, much like price is negotiable?)

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Goonswarm Federation
#136 - 2012-06-11 21:19:24 UTC
Mechael wrote:
I'm curious, why was it determined that only defenders could bring in mercs, sorry, "allies" (don't we already have alliances?) in the first place? Why not allow anyone, attacker or aggressor, to bring in as many mercs as they can afford (with an adjustable contract length, much like price is negotiable?)

an agressor can just get their buddies to wardec the target themselves

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

#137 - 2012-06-11 21:23:46 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
an agressor can just get their buddies to wardec the target themselves


True, but it's not under any sort of obligatory contracted system. Right now, I can't (as say, an industrial corp that wants to push out competition), go look up some mercs to hire and set up a legitimate contract that says, "You will wardec x corporation for y ISK and z length of time." It's all scouts honor, which in EVE generally means it's not going to happen as often as would be nice.

When I first heard about the mercenary marketplace, that's what I was hoping for.

The current system doesn't make much sense to me any way you slice it.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Goonswarm Federation
#138 - 2012-06-11 21:25:24 UTC
Well, you're still stuck hoping they actually do anything instead of issue a wardec and then just ignore the corp.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

#139 - 2012-06-11 21:26:57 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Well, you're still stuck hoping they actually do anything instead of issue a wardec and then just ignore the corp.


True, but that's why we can look up a corp's war history now, isn't it? Cool

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.

Goonswarm Federation
#140 - 2012-06-11 21:28:10 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Well, you're still stuck hoping they actually do anything instead of issue a wardec and then just ignore the corp.


True, but that's why we can look up a corp's war history now, isn't it? Cool

have you considered hiring goonswarm to fight your wars? we come cheap, only 500k isk per member!

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Forum Jump