These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
12Next page
 

Tinfoil hat? Or just lobbying for more Fairness? Wardec nerfing.

Author
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2012-06-16 04:52:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaelie Onren
Is the the world of EVE polarizing to 0.0's vs the rest of everyone else?

Wardec Nerfs, CCP supports unfairness.

I would have thought that making wars a 'free for all escalation' was what 'inferno' was all supposed to be about.

Maybe this post is old news, but I thought it would be fair to point this out to CSM. I have to say I am leaning on the side of the poster.

I think a proper sandbox should allow bullies to get bullied back.
mxzf
Shovel Bros
#2 - 2012-06-16 06:16:59 UTC
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but I have to say that that poster makes some very good points. I don't know if it was Goon influence or not, but I think that what that person described, being able to turn a wardec around with some allies and force the would-be attacker to pay for a surrender, seemed like the exact thing the new wardec system was designed to encourage. This change does seem like a bit of a "you can turn the tables on them, but only if they're small enough that 1-4 allies can do the job".

I agree with some of the changes being made, like 2-week contracts. But that poster does make some very valid points about how those changes very strongly favor large alliances and make it difficult for a defender to turn the tables on an aggressor (by exponentially scaling the ally cost and removing the ability to lock someone into a war with you and your friends, with the changes the aggressor will just drop the dec if they're losing and shrug it off).
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#3 - 2012-06-16 08:19:18 UTC
I think it's more a case of people abusing it to lock hundreds of corps into permanent wars, weather they like it or not.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#4 - 2012-06-16 08:44:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Ribikoka
Kaelie Onren wrote:
Is the the world of EVE polarizing to 0.0's vs the rest of everyone else?

Wardec Nerfs, CCP supports unfairness.

I would have thought that making wars a 'free for all escalation' was what 'inferno' was all supposed to be about.

Maybe this post is old news, but I thought it would be fair to point this out to CSM. I have to say I am leaning on the side of the poster.

I think a proper sandbox should allow bullies to get bullied back.


Jade used a known problem/exploit which could enabled to parcipiants to join war for 0.0 ISK and what the testers reported to CCP when the patch was in test phase on Sisi. CCP didn't fixed their fails (reported UI and wardec problems) before they released infeno. Everything else just a conspiracy theory.
sabre906
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-06-16 16:19:28 UTC
Danika Princip wrote:
I think it's more a case of people abusing it to lock hundreds of corps into permanent wars, weather they like it or not.


Actions and consequences.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#6 - 2012-06-16 18:13:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
I'm personally of the belief that it was right to stop people who make a war mutual from being able to hire allies.

All of the other changes however, are in bad taste as far as I'm concerned. Its just another nerf to the little guys. The auto-renew and cost changes in particular.

As to whether its the CSM and Mitanni trying to influence CCP? Well, who knows? I certainly can't make that call. But I do think CCP sees the big alliances as being somewhat integral and some kind of amazing part of the Eve Online universe (and I would agree to the latter), and therefore pander to their needs a little more than they should.

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2012-06-17 12:32:15 UTC
Arduemont wrote:
CCP sees the big alliances as being somewhat integral and some kind of amazing part of the Eve Online universe (and I would agree to the latter), and therefore pander to their needs a little more than they should.


The problem with this is that CCP should really be sticking to their model of open sandbox and emergent gameplay, fair for all. If the current alliances burn then others will rise up to replace them. That is the sacrosanct idiom of EVE. CCP should not pander to any particular alliance or demographic of eve, but make it possible for emergent gameplay to tear down existing systems and rebuild them, if the populace demands it.

Locking people into mutual wars is not good, but if a big alliance finds itself stuck in a war too big for them to handle, firstly, well too bad that it misjudged the ability of their victim to gather many friends to came to their aid, and secondly, well maybe they should be able to just swallow their pride and surrender.

I agree that the whole 'protecting merc' idea is a sham. Mercs should be hired guns to do operations in null or low. Not Highsec. Merc's getting paid to grief some small time corp in highsec, is frankly, something that they should not be paid to do. That's like getting paid to gank. If only all of us could have that much fun while getting paid to do it.

Lower the ally escalation costs to at least equal those of the aggressor party and also take out the limit on the number of allys to at least be the same as the people you are fighting. I believe that any war should fundamentally be able to be 'equalized' in balancing the numbers. It really is a game of 'picking your allies' well, and knowing not to declare war on a party that has many friends.

The counter argument of having a lot of small noob corps get stuck in wars is a sham and a red herring. No noob corp is stupid enough to join a war without being willing to pay the consequences.

Cyprus Black
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#8 - 2012-06-17 13:04:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Cyprus Black
So...

The Mitanni wardecs anyone and everyone who publicly spoke out against him.
The Goons are sent out in full force against small highsec corps.
These small highsec corps seek help from mercenaries.
The mercs and the highsec corps fight back.
Goons lose horribly.
Goons cry and whine that the wardec mechanic is broken.
CCP obeys the wishes of the Goons.
CCP changes wardec mechanics that directly benefit their situation.

Sounds like a case of DevSwarm.
Cost for the Goons to wardec highsec corps - 50 million isk.
Cost for those highsec corps to fight back - Billions of isk.
Yep, that's fair Roll

Summary of EvEs last four expansions: http://imgur.com/ZL5SM33

Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-06-17 15:40:19 UTC
Cyprus Black wrote:
...Yep, that's fair Roll

But use a known exploit it's fair too, isn't ?
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#10 - 2012-06-17 17:30:55 UTC
I think the 1.0 mechanics weren't perfect - a small corp being able to turn the tide and properly retaliate against a large aggressor is a good thing, but foreverwars with a thousand allied corps... ehh, dunno. The 1.1 changes are utterly ridiculous though, it just makes it far too skewed in favour of large alliances / aggressors. Yes, CCP have said they don't want war to be "fair", but why should smaller, poorer corps on the defensive be the ones who the system is weighted against?

I think perhaps having the 1.0 mechanics but with a single change: mutual wars cannot have allies. Smaller victim corps can still start a dogpile to turn the tide or force the aggressor to back down, but they can't trap corps in wars.
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#11 - 2012-06-17 17:37:56 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
Cyprus Black wrote:
...Yep, that's fair Roll

But use a known exploit it's fair too, isn't ?


Oh please, is the PR/damage control so weak that it's reached the point of crying "exploit! exploit!"

Goonies started a campaign against certain outspoken members of the community - small corps or individual people - and wanted to utterly crush them or force them out of the game, unfortunately for goons their targets threw a few surprise punches back at them. That's a good thing, and not something that should be rushed to be patched out of the game.
Ribikoka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#12 - 2012-06-17 17:55:29 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Cyprus Black wrote:
...Yep, that's fair Roll

But use a known exploit it's fair too, isn't ?


Oh please, is the PR/damage control so weak that it's reached the point of crying "exploit! exploit!"

Goonies started a campaign against certain outspoken members of the community - small corps or individual people - and wanted to utterly crush them or force them out of the game, unfortunately for goons their targets threw a few surprise punches back at them. That's a good thing, and not something that should be rushed to be patched out of the game.


Read again and stop crying when you see goons on any post.

"Jade used a known problem/exploit which could enabled to parcipiants to join war for 0.0 ISK and what the testers reported to CCP when the patch was in test phase on Sisi. CCP didn't fixed their fails (reported UI and wardec problems) before they released infeno. Everything else just a conspiracy theory."

You need to read the wardec topic at Eve Information Portal section : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=88487&find=unread

There was posted this 0.0 ISK exploit to CCP.
Arduemont
The State of War.
#13 - 2012-06-17 18:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Arduemont
Its only an exploit if it is "deamed" to be an exploit by CCP. Until he started using it, they didn't realise it was a problem. They only started calling it an exploit after the event. So when we used it, it wasn't an exploit. Do I have to argue with you in every thread on the damn forum Rib?

"In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." www.stateofwar.co.nf

Sephiroth CloneIIV
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#14 - 2012-06-17 19:07:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephiroth Clone VII
the title is inaccurate, its not a nerf to decing, its a nerf to people defending themselves from decs.

The key issue is that ccp saw 20 alliances vs one attacker, and thought that was a problem, not seeing that one of the alliances is the largest in the game and is modestly at least time times the size of the twenty combined.

The scaling of costs should only exist if the member count of all allies manages to be greater then that of the attackers.

Being the system might not be 'fixed' back soon, one could work with the system, and make a temp super alliance for battling goons, imagine if privateers, moar tears, and all the others merged in a alliance just so they could be the Ally for a underdog.
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#15 - 2012-06-17 19:13:17 UTC
Ribikoka wrote:
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Cyprus Black wrote:
...Yep, that's fair Roll

But use a known exploit it's fair too, isn't ?


Oh please, is the PR/damage control so weak that it's reached the point of crying "exploit! exploit!"

Goonies started a campaign against certain outspoken members of the community - small corps or individual people - and wanted to utterly crush them or force them out of the game, unfortunately for goons their targets threw a few surprise punches back at them. That's a good thing, and not something that should be rushed to be patched out of the game.


Read again and stop crying when you see goons on any post.

"Jade used a known problem/exploit which could enabled to parcipiants to join war for 0.0 ISK and what the testers reported to CCP when the patch was in test phase on Sisi. CCP didn't fixed their fails (reported UI and wardec problems) before they released infeno. Everything else just a conspiracy theory."

You need to read the wardec topic at Eve Information Portal section : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=88487&find=unread

There was posted this 0.0 ISK exploit to CCP.


How is people joining a war for zero isk a exploit, it is comprehend-able that isk is not the main motivator for all.

Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2012-06-17 20:41:24 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
I think the 1.0 mechanics weren't perfect - a small corp being able to turn the tide and properly retaliate against a large aggressor is a good thing, but foreverwars with a thousand allied corps... ehh, dunno. The 1.1 changes are utterly ridiculous though, it just makes it far too skewed in favour of large alliances / aggressors. Yes, CCP have said they don't want war to be "fair", but why should smaller, poorer corps on the defensive be the ones who the system is weighted against?

I think perhaps having the 1.0 mechanics but with a single change: mutual wars cannot have allies. Smaller victim corps can still start a dogpile to turn the tide or force the aggressor to back down, but they can't trap corps in wars.


Support.
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2012-06-17 20:43:12 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
Ribikoka wrote:
Cyprus Black wrote:
...Yep, that's fair Roll

But use a known exploit it's fair too, isn't ?


Oh please, is the PR/damage control so weak that it's reached the point of crying "exploit! exploit!"

Goonies started a campaign against certain outspoken members of the community - small corps or individual people - and wanted to utterly crush them or force them out of the game, unfortunately for goons their targets threw a few surprise punches back at them. That's a good thing, and not something that should be rushed to be patched out of the game.


Yeah, that pretty much sums up my view too. Make it 'unfair' for the defenders and the underdog for once, CCP.

Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#18 - 2012-06-17 21:39:42 UTC
How about when a war "goes mutual" BOTH sides are allowed to call in allies.

Also make the cost of starting a wardeck based on the difference in population between the two involved parties.

So a 1000 man alliance wardecking a 30 man corp (or a 30 man corp wardecking a 1000 man alliance) would have to pay the 970 man price.


Oh yeah and the 2 week renewal and costs to hire allies was to make the mercenary profession happen. Since defending corps can only bring in a few allies they have to carefully choose who they let in. And without dogpiling actual skilled pvp mercs can charge for their services. CCP just had some REALLY awful timing with their patch notes.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

Sephiroth CloneIIV
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#19 - 2012-06-17 23:03:54 UTC
Wolodymyr wrote:
How about when a war "goes mutual" BOTH sides are allowed to call in allies.

Also make the cost of starting a wardeck based on the difference in population between the two involved parties.

So a 1000 man alliance wardecking a 30 man corp (or a 30 man corp wardecking a 1000 man alliance) would have to pay the 970 man price.


Oh yeah and the 2 week renewal and costs to hire allies was to make the mercenary profession happen. Since defending corps can only bring in a few allies they have to carefully choose who they let in. And without dogpiling actual skilled pvp mercs can charge for their services. CCP just had some REALLY awful timing with their patch notes.


its not dogpileing if the attacking alliance has ten thousand, it would be almost fair.

You got to have some numbers to win, no leet amount of skills will make one pilot be able to beat 100 at once.

I would like to know which merc alliance (in existence not fantasy) can tackle the largest and wealthyest space empire alone.

Katie Frost
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#20 - 2012-06-18 05:13:58 UTC
Conspiracy theories aside, I would say that Jade Constantine's proposal in the 1.1 War Dec Amendment seems most "fair" given the direction of the war declarations in general:

Jade Constantine wrote:
1. Ally contracts are for 2 weeks (auto renew available so the 24-48 hour pause can be avoided if war is continuing charges can be auto billed if applicable)
2. Ally contracts have a minimum price tag (as per soundwave’s plan but without 20 limit or the crazy money multipliers) but only if the new ally would push the total size of the defending coalition (defender + all current allies) in excess of the size of the attacker.
3. Optionally, if the defending coalition is larger than the attacking coalition the attacker can add allies to match.


This way if the defending alliance/corp is smaller, they can get allies for free until their numbers match that of the attacker. This would fix large alliances griefing smaller ones at will and without recourse and it would also address dogpiling of allies for the defender once they have matched the size of the attacking alliance.

12Next page