These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Millions to attack, Trillions to defend?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2012-06-18 05:35:51 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Any real merc would go find fights in low sec or null where they dont have to pay for a dec


A real sandbox wouldn't have a designated "safe" area

check and mate

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#102 - 2012-06-18 05:41:11 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:
moon goo botting


how does this work?

I run 500 bot accounts that automatically cyno themselves about, reinforce tech moons and put up replacement towers.

[center]"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"  -MXZF[/center]
Sir Asterix
Doomheim
#103 - 2012-06-18 05:47:07 UTC
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:
Having to pay trillions of isk to get epicness in wars is breaking that. All it promotes is defensive carebearing - sitting in stations why your alts do the work elsewhere. It denies fun to the attacker, and it denies fun to the defender. It makes for a boring game.


It's not boring for the defender because whilst one character is indeed docked in a station their other character is out mining or running missions or what ever it is that they like to do. You fail to understand that other players have different play styles and what one person calls fun makes another person feel like logging off.
Stonecrusher Mortlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2012-06-18 06:04:48 UTC
linear wardec fee with a cap, but then have a logarithmic merc hiring fee with no cap.



yep
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2012-06-18 06:08:47 UTC
Stonecrusher Mortlock wrote:
linear wardec fee with a cap, but then have a logarithmic merc hiring fee with no cap.



yep

one is based on number of players, the other isn't - hth
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#106 - 2012-06-18 06:12:18 UTC
Sir Asterix wrote:
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:
Having to pay trillions of isk to get epicness in wars is breaking that. All it promotes is defensive carebearing - sitting in stations why your alts do the work elsewhere. It denies fun to the attacker, and it denies fun to the defender. It makes for a boring game.


It's not boring for the defender because whilst one character is indeed docked in a station their other character is out mining or running missions or what ever it is that they like to do. You fail to understand that other players have different play styles and what one person calls fun makes another person feel like logging off.


I don't fail to understand that. I call scamming "market pvp".

What I am saying is, it only entrenches the behaviors that Inferno was supposed to fix.

Its one step forward, two steps behind.
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#107 - 2012-06-18 06:16:18 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:

Any real merc would go find fights in low sec or null where they dont have to pay for a dec


I don't think that word means what you think it does.

A merc is someone who makes iskies by being paid to pew pew, not just someone who pew pews.


Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#108 - 2012-06-18 06:24:31 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Asuka Solo wrote:
Any real merc would go find fights in low sec or null where they dont have to pay for a dec


A real sandbox wouldn't have a designated "safe" area

check and mate


It is in't safe. Otherwise explain Burn Jita and Hulkaggedon.

Don't seem safe to me.

Oh wait, you mean, its not sandbox if there are game mechanic consequences for killing in a small area of the universe.

Yeah, that seems a great proportional response tears.

Let me put it to you this way, in all my alts I have visited every corner of highsec, every region, and a significant chunk of lowsec and a few null places.

You can spend weeks wraping in nullsec everyday for 10 hours non-stop and still not visit the whole of null.

For all intent and purposes, nullsec is Eve. Highsec is just for veldy and ganking.

It is a sandbox with a tiny corner in which waterwings are allowed. Let the kiddie pool be, you can divebomb it all you want anyways...
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2012-06-18 20:12:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Delen Ormand
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:


It will be bad because it limits demand. Its simple economics.

If 10 companies are servicing a client, and cannot offer their services, then 10 companies can prop up to replace them. The companies with better services can charge more, the ones with ****** services less.


That's only true if mercenaries have nothing more to offer than what can be supplied by a bunch of random strangers who want in on a wardec. Even simpler economics states that if you have a crap product that can be supplied by anyone, it's going to be a hard sell.

In order to have a market for their services, mercs are going to have to provide a service that is noticeably better than that provided by wardec dogpilers (as in, they'd be shooting down a lot more enemy ships), or provide services not offered by them (eg, taking out structures in enemy territory, that sort of thing).


::edit::

Looking through some of your later posts, I don't think we're on opposite sides here. I'm all in favour of the mercenary profession being a viable career, but I just don't think a healthy career option is going to come about via this kind of protectionism. If it does, I think people are not going to value mercenaries. They'll be seen as the group who had so little to offer clients that they couldn't compete with random strangers. I don't see clients wanting to pay mercs much if that's how they'd be viewed.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#110 - 2012-06-19 04:35:48 UTC
Delen Ormand wrote:


Looking through some of your later posts, I don't think we're on opposite sides here. I'm all in favour of the mercenary profession being a viable career, but I just don't think a healthy career option is going to come about via this kind of protectionism. If it does, I think people are not going to value mercenaries. They'll be seen as the group who had so little to offer clients that they couldn't compete with random strangers. I don't see clients wanting to pay mercs much if that's how they'd be viewed.


I agree we are not that far.

However, I do not think that being able to (relatively affordably) summon allies is in any way protectionism. In fact, I showed how to do a decshield even with the "new" new method.

Its about trillions versus billions.

As to the other stuff on quality etc. We agree.

But I think you make a false assumption, specially for a sandbox, which is that the game mechanics should be in the service of the best players.

Then it isn't a sandbox. It is a very hard game that only an elite few can play. It will become very boring and very unpopulated very quickly.

Let the top, elite, mercs, stand out because of word of mouth, actual delivery of services (which is very easy to verify now) etc. The crappy mercs will be crappy, and the good one will be good.

Let me give you another example: Red Frog/Black Frog haulers and freighters.

They charge way over the usual contract rate in the public contract pool for couriers. Yet nearly any industrialist and trader that doesn't self haul, or who needs extra hauling, goes to them at their inflated prices. Why?

Because they deliver a high quality, no bullshit, 99% successful service, even in the depths of war null, and in pirate infected low sec.

Yet, they have zero advantage in terms of the mechanic. They still have to put cynos up. They still have to jump gates, aligning the slowbelisks etc.

So mercs is the same thing.

A mechanic that affects mercs should be available to both crappy wannabes, and the most respected mercs. Or it breaks the sandbox.
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#111 - 2012-06-19 04:41:12 UTC
Delen Ormand wrote:
That's only true if mercenaries have nothing more to offer than what can be supplied by a bunch of random strangers who want in on a wardec. Even simpler economics states that if you have a crap product that can be supplied by anyone, it's going to be a hard sell.

Well, I think selling rights to camp the jita undock and kill wartargets' haulers and such should bring in more than -1 isk (you pay for "help").

You can then use this (1isk cost) "service" to prevent them from undocking in various market hubs, as long as they don't remember to use NPC corp alts or altcorps etc etc.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#112 - 2012-06-19 04:48:48 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Delen Ormand wrote:
That's only true if mercenaries have nothing more to offer than what can be supplied by a bunch of random strangers who want in on a wardec. Even simpler economics states that if you have a crap product that can be supplied by anyone, it's going to be a hard sell.

Well, I think selling rights to camp the jita undock and kill wartargets' haulers and such should bring in more than -1 isk (you pay for "help").

You can then use this (1isk cost) "service" to prevent them from undocking in various market hubs, as long as they don't remember to use NPC corp alts or altcorps etc etc.


That is what people don't get. Inferno professionalized war in hisec. And one of the ways it did so is going to be nerfed.

If you wanted to limit alliances, one way to do it is to have the amount of allies affect the ability to permawar.

One on one, can permawar for free. Bring one ally, and a 500 million payment after two weeks resolves the matter. Have two allies, its 400 million. Have 5 and its free.

I am not advocating (or opposing this). It is a random thought.

But it is clear that CCP punched this nerf in and didnt think it through, because I have come out with both a decshield and a more sensible solution, and I am not an employee of CCP.

They took a good thing that needed tweaking, and turned it into a bad thing that is broken. That is not delivering quality product.
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#113 - 2012-06-19 05:30:16 UTC
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:
That is what people don't get. Inferno professionalized war in hisec. And one of the ways it did so is going to be nerfed.

If you wanted to limit alliances, one way to do it is to have the amount of allies affect the ability to permawar.

One on one, can permawar for free. Bring one ally, and a 500 million payment after two weeks resolves the matter. Have two allies, its 400 million. Have 5 and its free.

Professional Market Hub Undock Camper: Elite


Hm, paying CONCORD money to end a war... and if you have more allies you can end it cheaper? So someone adds five random undock camping allies and in two weeks they can end the war for free? Nice...

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#114 - 2012-06-19 07:20:18 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:
That is what people don't get. Inferno professionalized war in hisec. And one of the ways it did so is going to be nerfed.

If you wanted to limit alliances, one way to do it is to have the amount of allies affect the ability to permawar.

One on one, can permawar for free. Bring one ally, and a 500 million payment after two weeks resolves the matter. Have two allies, its 400 million. Have 5 and its free.

Professional Market Hub Undock Camper: Elite


Hm, paying CONCORD money to end a war... and if you have more allies you can end it cheaper? So someone adds five random undock camping allies and in two weeks they can end the war for free? Nice...


I mean the attacker, not the defender. Lol
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Cede Forster
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-06-19 08:38:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Cede Forster
Eve War Concept:
Rule #1: Non consentual war requires a payment from the party who has the choice (Aggressor)
Rule #2: Non consentual war has no cost for the party who does not have a choice (Defender)
Rule #3: Consentual war has no cost for the aggressor or the defender.

If we add the new rule to it:

Rule #4: Third side are allowed to join a war without cost.

this effectivly disables rule #1 since the third side, having a choice and all, still does not have to pay for the war.
Instead of declaring war, you look what wars your opponent has and simply join it (and pay the Defender to make it mutual for a fraction of the cost of starting your own)

Yea, it is that easy. You are supposed to pay for wars you choose to fight and the ally system was circumventing that fact.
Third side joining should be still covered by Rule #1, you have to pay, perhaps with a 20% discount because otherwise you do not need the system at all.
Delen Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2012-06-19 09:04:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Delen Ormand
Crunchie Attuxors wrote:
But I think you make a false assumption, specially for a sandbox, which is that the game mechanics should be in the service of the best players.

....

Let me give you another example: Red Frog/Black Frog haulers and freighters.

They charge way over the usual contract rate in the public contract pool for couriers. Yet nearly any industrialist and trader that doesn't self haul, or who needs extra hauling, goes to them at their inflated prices. Why?

Because they deliver a high quality, no bullshit, 99% successful service, even in the depths of war null, and in pirate infected low sec.

Yet, they have zero advantage in terms of the mechanic. They still have to put cynos up. They still have to jump gates, aligning the slowbelisks etc.

So mercs is the same thing.

A mechanic that affects mercs should be available to both crappy wannabes, and the most respected mercs. Or it breaks the sandbox.


I agree. I think you may have misunderstood me earlier when I said something along the lines of "mercs need to offer more than the average uncoordinated random stranger", by which I meant people who pile in as allies in a wardec in order to get targets. These people probably won't take on difficult or necessary jobs like taking out a POS in enemy territory or disrupting supply lines in null. You may not even be able to trust them to come to your help when jumped on. The advantage of having them (in the Jade vs Goons example) is that it makes it harder for the enemy to come into Empire space to harass defenders without losses - but they are not really competition for good mercenaries, who would be able to offer a lot more than that.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#117 - 2012-06-19 12:08:49 UTC
Delen Ormand wrote:


I agree. I think you may have misunderstood me earlier when I said something along the lines of "mercs need to offer more than the average uncoordinated random stranger", by which I meant people who pile in as allies in a wardec in order to get targets. These people probably won't take on difficult or necessary jobs like taking out a POS in enemy territory or disrupting supply lines in null. You may not even be able to trust them to come to your help when jumped on. The advantage of having them (in the Jade vs Goons example) is that it makes it harder for the enemy to come into Empire space to harass defenders without losses - but they are not really competition for good mercenaries, who would be able to offer a lot more than that.



Then sir, we speak of different things. :)

I agree the opportunists of the style of the Drama War of Summer 2012 is not how it should be played.

Which is why I haven't said allies should be free. I have said allies shouldn't be bought in a logarithmic increase in cost. You do not tweak something by introducing a gigantic nerf. That is not bending the stick too far, that is making a 900 degree bend with the stick.

BTW, to be clear, the fee that aggressors pay is to concord (ie it gets out of the game), but the fee - it is my understanding - that the change makes goes to the merc corp.

So this will also put an onus on the buyer to pick good allies, because the defender would be paying players isk they can use.

That is an incentive to either fight alone, or hire good mercs. Because one thing is sinking isk to a hole, another is paying for someone to buy epeen who then doesn't deliver the goods.

To be clear: I think the mechanic as it stands today needs tweaking (it is not broken, but it is clearly not working absolutely well). However, the changes in 1.1 if they are final, will break it, not tweak it.

What inferno promised is what I want: tools that make mercs, both as aggressors and as defenders, be good at what they do, so the role can finally stop being what pew pew prone players do because they are too scared of goonsec or anywhere outside of empire.

Also, I find it a bad precedent that a mechanic is effectively banned not by direct means (a cap) but by indirect means. That is just sloppy and lazy, and if CCP gets sloppy and lazy on the small things, they will get sloppy and lazy on the small things. (Not that a cap in this case is called for).
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#118 - 2012-06-19 12:10:24 UTC
Cede Forster wrote:
Eve War Concept:
Rule #1: Non consentual war requires a payment from the party who has the choice (Aggressor)
Rule #2: Non consentual war has no cost for the party who does not have a choice (Defender)
Rule #3: Consentual war has no cost for the aggressor or the defender.

If we add the new rule to it:

Rule #4: Third side are allowed to join a war without cost.

this effectivly disables rule #1 since the third side, having a choice and all, still does not have to pay for the war.
Instead of declaring war, you look what wars your opponent has and simply join it (and pay the Defender to make it mutual for a fraction of the cost of starting your own)

Yea, it is that easy. You are supposed to pay for wars you choose to fight and the ally system was circumventing that fact.
Third side joining should be still covered by Rule #1, you have to pay, perhaps with a 20% discount because otherwise you do not need the system at all.



Did you notice that I agree with that criticism? 
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.
Kaelie Onren
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#119 - 2012-06-19 23:52:16 UTC
sabre906

Nothing prevents you from just fighting the abovementioned people and force them into submission.[:lol: wrote:


Sure there is. 20sp put into mining skills that's what.
Crunchie Attuxors
Always Another Corporate Venture
#120 - 2012-06-19 23:58:51 UTC
Kaelie Onren wrote:
sabre906

Nothing prevents you from just fighting the abovementioned people and force them into submission.[:lol: wrote:


Sure there is. 20sp put into mining skills that's what.


Or into science.

I love it how pewpewbrears think all their t2 stuff came from thin air...
Eve forums official anthem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pudOFG5X6uA Real men tank hull. Fake women shield-tank Gallente.