These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#241 - 2012-06-12 16:12:47 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
corestwo wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:

Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."

Discouraging warfare by allowing plexes to be soloed in frigates isn't actually well done. The thread has multiple topics, please stop trying to monopolize it for your own grievances. What?


Funnily enough it is a fix that solves a problem - small scale pvp in complexes was previously nerfed by the fact that npc ew has a significant impact on the outcome of small fights. Tracking disrupting, painting, damping and ecm all help one side or the other disproportionately. The frankly pitiful damage output of the npcs on their own without the EW effects will not really impact the outcome of player on player fights.

Thats the positive direction of these changes. Now you can say they don't go far enough because one side can't speed tank and one side can and thats certainly a worthwhile discussion for the future - but aren't we supposed to be talking specifically about the test server stuff for 1.1 here?

(and yes, I've spent most of my last couple of months playing faction warfare)


While I realize and acknowledge the deleterious and unbalanced effect of the ewar within the plexes, simply removing it all is a poor solution - I happen to feel that no side should be able to simply speed tank plexes with frigates. As it currently stands, one side can speed tank and the other can't - the changes enabling both sides to do it are on the test server for 1.1 right now, and so are a valid point of discussion.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#242 - 2012-06-12 16:14:48 UTC
Lallante wrote:

As I mentioned before, the underlying principle should be to not discourage reasonably even numbers on both sides. The current proposals basically make getting even numbers against a large single attacker (like goonswarm) impossibly expensive and that has to be wrong.


I disagree.

GSF numbers are silly huge. But that's a result of a multi-region nulsec empire. You won't see those kinds of numbers in a hisec dwelling alliance--the closest AFAIK is Eve-U. Ha.
So trying to design for those edge cases is just dumb. Better to balance the system for smaller groups. Because, as has been stated, nulsec groups as a rule don't come into hisec en masse. Too many restrictions, too many station games, not enough interest, etc. So the numbers there would not be a concern--any competant merc group you could recruit using normal rules would still likely be a good match numerically for your OpFor.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#243 - 2012-06-12 16:15:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Fuujine wrote:
Because it merely takes blanket numbers into account. Inaccurate numbers at that.


Why are they inaccurate? The numbers are precise, they are used to calculate precisely how much a 3rd party entity has to pay concord to wardec them.

Fuujine wrote:
It does nothing to force you to consider merc quality, just numbers. You're still consigning the "pro" merc groups to be on par with the mob and unable (or just difficult) to break out and shine.


I'll really not. I am not considering this kind of large alliance general bullying/griefing dec to be the equvilent of a proper wardec for a purpose. General mayhem is good for dogpile allies - but a specific serious war threat would be good for professional merc involvemlent - but again, both of these cases are covered by the mechanic I have proposed.

Fuujine wrote:
Edit: Here's a scenario: you (74 man alliance) dec a 10 man. That 10 man brings in goonswarm. Per your system, no concord fees (first ally, was below the cap prior).


By my system that would then mean as the attacker I could then bring in free allies until such point as we reach parity. Same result, good mayhem, fun for everyone.

Quote:
Also, having to actively pay your allies as opposed to blanket man count also helps reduce the 1% issue on the part of your allies; if they aren't participating or pulling their weight you can fire them.


For a serious war sure. For one of these eternal random trade hub griefing wars - no way. You wouldn't ever pay a merc a penny to fight that kind of thing. Even in this new system it simply wouldn't happen. SF would offer the free ally slot to Orphanage/Privateers or something like that. And we'd sell the cheaper ones on the market for people who wanted a discount wardec on GS below 500m.

Fuujine wrote:
Just to reiterate, I don't care about GSF wars; I'm enjoying shooting the multitudes you've put together--I'd probably have chewed off my own arm out of boredom otherwise. My main concern is that you are devaluing the committed mercs from the :effort: gankers, and chilling out small/mid size corp wardecs.


And I maintain that if you think through the implications of the solution I have proposed it will draw a CLEAR line between the massive alliance on tiny target dogpile fights and the serious medium sized merc on target fights.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#244 - 2012-06-12 16:18:31 UTC
Has those not involved in a war assisting those in combat via assist modules (remote repair, remote sensor boosting, etc) been addressed? As in not allowed?
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#245 - 2012-06-12 16:19:01 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Lallante wrote:

As I mentioned before, the underlying principle should be to not discourage reasonably even numbers on both sides. The current proposals basically make getting even numbers against a large single attacker (like goonswarm) impossibly expensive and that has to be wrong.


I disagree.

GSF numbers are silly huge. But that's a result of a multi-region nulsec empire. You won't see those kinds of numbers in a hisec dwelling alliance--the closest AFAIK is Eve-U. Ha.
So trying to design for those edge cases is just dumb. Better to balance the system for smaller groups. Because, as has been stated, nulsec groups as a rule don't come into hisec en masse. Too many restrictions, too many station games, not enough interest, etc. So the numbers there would not be a concern--any competant merc group you could recruit using normal rules would still likely be a good match numerically for your OpFor.


Adding to this discussion is that while it might be very difficult to get the same number of people on paper, it's not necessarily the same effort getting the same number of people in practice. How many people will an empire focused merc corp have in an organized fashion in empire compared to GF for example? The total number of people in an alliance for that purpose isn't necessarily relevant.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#246 - 2012-06-12 16:19:46 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Is the first entity a defender allowed to ally with him free?


Yeah it appears so - your FHC foreign legion alliance might still be on the cards.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#247 - 2012-06-12 16:22:52 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:


I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.


Sorry mate but you are missing a trick here - its not about forcing fairness through mechanics, its about not PREVENTING the defender from evening the odds itself. Its absolutely in keeping with the Eve sandbox philosophy that the outcome of a war is down to player actions, metagaming (i.e. finding the right allies, paying them, etc) rather than incredibly restrictive mechanics that FORCE the defender to fight vastly outnumbered or stump up enormous amounts of cash.

You arent introducing forced fairness by implementing Jade's proposals, you are giving the players the tools needed to ensure fairness or unfairness as they see fit. Most, maybe even all empire corporations wont have the allies or isk to buy them necessary to match, say, Goonswarm's numbers man for man - there aren't many situations where this will make things "fair" but what it will do is stop actively forcing them to accept the unfair position (i.e. that they cant bring in more allies or have their friends wardec back because the mechanics make it prohibitively expensive to do so).

Basically the way you are proposing it means a large alliance can wardec whichever small entities they want and are protected from being wardecced back or from allies joining the fight. The numbers restrictions only hurt the defending side!
Quote:


Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.


There isn't really any real risk for a 5000 man alliance wardeccing a 50 man corp. Even if they punch 10x harder than expected this is still a drop in the ocean to the 5000 man alliance. Meanwhile the 50 man corp can neither bring in significant numbers of allies (unless it just invites in one super-massive ally), nor can it get its friends to wardec the 5000 man alliance withou incurring what will be a prohibitively high cost for most small entities.
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#248 - 2012-06-12 16:26:00 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Is the first entity a defender allowed to ally with him free?


Yeah it appears so - your FHC foreign legion alliance might still be on the cards.


Sounds good then. Well hold on, let me ask CCP if they will nerf that too...

CCP, Goons, TEST and the mighty CSM,

I would like to create an alliance for the purpose of letting those corps willing to fight the evil large null power blocks who think the new war dec system is a toy for them. Said alliance would not charge anything to ally with a defender. Such defenders that those large alliance war dec over some butt hurt post on the forums, different play style of the game or against someone who did not welcome having their online CV hacked and molested.

Mainly just to have fun. I hope fun is still ok.

Anyways, please let me know! Feel free to openly reply right here on the forums too. Considering the forums is where the real PvP happens.
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#249 - 2012-06-12 16:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Fuujin
Lallante wrote:

There isn't really any real risk for a 5000 man alliance wardeccing a 50 man corp. Even if they punch 10x harder than expected this is still a drop in the ocean to the 5000 man alliance. Meanwhile the 50 man corp can neither bring in significant numbers of allies (unless it just invites in one super-massive ally), nor can it get its friends to wardec the 5000 man alliance withou incurring what will be a prohibitively high cost for most small entities.



I think you missed something: you can still bring in as many allies as you want, you just pay an additional concord fee (on top of the hiring fees/if any). 10/20/40 is 70M for 3 allies; if you can't get several hundred mercs out of 3 allies to assist you (easily outnumbering the forces a large alliance will realistically bring to bear on a 50 man) you're just not trying.

Numbers parity is a fool's errand. Quality > quantity. Or you can just balloon your corp by spamming the recruitment channel and get the same effect.

Edit: To the above poster, feel free to create whatever group you want. It's up to the target to accept allies. But if you want to shoot nulsec dwellers, well, where we live is quite clearly marked on the map. Blink
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#250 - 2012-06-12 16:29:19 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
Is the first entity a defender allowed to ally with him free?


Yeah it appears so - your FHC foreign legion alliance might still be on the cards.


Sounds good then. Well hold on, let me ask CCP if they will nerf that too...

CCP, Goons, TEST and the mighty CSM,

I would like to create an alliance for the purpose of letting those corps willing to fight the evil large null power blocks who think the new war dec system is a toy for them. Said alliance would not charge anything to ally with a defender. Such defenders that those large alliance war dec over some butt hurt post on the forums, different play style of the game or against someone who did not welcome having their online CV hacked and molested.

Mainly just to have fun. I hope fun is still ok.

Anyways, please let me know! Feel free to openly reply right here on the forums too. Considering the forums is where the real PvP happens.


An alliance built to fight evil large power blocks... Sounds pretty rebellious to me. I like it!

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#251 - 2012-06-12 16:29:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
Lallante wrote:

As I mentioned before, the underlying principle should be to not discourage reasonably even numbers on both sides. The current proposals basically make getting even numbers against a large single attacker (like goonswarm) impossibly expensive and that has to be wrong.


I disagree.

GSF numbers are silly huge. But that's a result of a multi-region nulsec empire. You won't see those kinds of numbers in a hisec dwelling alliance--the closest AFAIK is Eve-U. Ha.
So trying to design for those edge cases is just dumb. Better to balance the system for smaller groups. Because, as has been stated, nulsec groups as a rule don't come into hisec en masse. Too many restrictions, too many station games, not enough interest, etc. So the numbers there would not be a concern--any competant merc group you could recruit using normal rules would still likely be a good match numerically for your OpFor.


Adding to this discussion is that while it might be very difficult to get the same number of people on paper, it's not necessarily the same effort getting the same number of people in practice. How many people will an empire focused merc corp have in an organized fashion in empire compared to GF for example? The total number of people in an alliance for that purpose isn't necessarily relevant.


While that is obviously true your mechanics penalise the defender for GF not being organised or committing to their empire wars. If they cant commit a sizeable force to fight a war they declared, they have three options:
1) accept that there is a possibility that they will be fighting outnumbered IF the defender is highly organised and can afford allies;
2) create a separate entity (alliance or corp) dedicated to the war with the people who will be involved in it; or
3) not declare war.

I don't really understand why you are penalising the defenders because the attacker only brings a fraction of its possible power into play. Every one of the 9000 players is -capable- of being involved in the war. Why should the defender suffer because only a fraction bother to do so in practice?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#252 - 2012-06-12 16:33:02 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We've been talking to some of the merc corps/alliances and having no meaningful choice in terms of picking a defender basically nullifies their business. What we wanted to do was put in an incentive to look harder at exactly who you ally with, meaning that successful merc corps would be able to market themselves better.

I agree that in an isolated sense, the 4500 vs 9x 500 people is a bit silly, but at the end of the day, making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. We can evaluate that later, but I'd really like to see how people who do this for a living fare with the changes.

Regarding the recurrence, we're definitely looking at that.



Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.

1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.

2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.

3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).

4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.

I think that solves the problem.

Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.

Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.

This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.

Can you see anything wrong with this solution?


I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.

Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.



so pretty much before inferno i get war decced i stay inside of station and now since i cant get enough peeps to help me out i have to sit in station?

good job...

whats to stop mercs from joining up like the old MA and have 4000 peeps then you are only hiering one ally?

can me being a mego merc allinace be allies for eveyone who is war decced in high sec?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#253 - 2012-06-12 16:33:08 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Lallante wrote:

There isn't really any real risk for a 5000 man alliance wardeccing a 50 man corp. Even if they punch 10x harder than expected this is still a drop in the ocean to the 5000 man alliance. Meanwhile the 50 man corp can neither bring in significant numbers of allies (unless it just invites in one super-massive ally), nor can it get its friends to wardec the 5000 man alliance withou incurring what will be a prohibitively high cost for most small entities.



I think you missed something: you can still bring in as many allies as you want, you just pay an additional concord fee (on top of the hiring fees/if any). 10/20/40 is 70M for 3 allies; if you can't get several hundred mercs out of 3 allies to assist you (easily outnumbering the forces a large alliance will realistically bring to bear on a 50 man) you're just not trying.

Numbers parity is a fool's errand. Quality > quantity. Or you can just balloon your corp by spamming the recruitment channel and get the same effect.

Edit: To the above poster, feel free to create whatever group you want. It's up to the target to accept allies. But if you want to shoot nulsec dwellers, well, where we live is quite clearly marked on the map. Blink


I agree quality > quantity (although its impossible for a mechanic to judge this) - Out of interest, why do you support a mechanic that escalates the cost of bringing in allies with the quantity of ally entities then? Is it just to troll jade (a noble endeavour).
MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#254 - 2012-06-12 16:38:49 UTC  |  Edited by: MailDeadDrop
Lallante wrote:
I don't really understand why you are penalising the defenders because the attacker only brings a fraction of its possible power into play. Every one of the 9000 players is -capable- of being involved in the war. Why should the defender suffer because only a fraction bother to do so in practice?

Oooo, now there's an interesting mechanic: Let's make the 2nd and following weeks' wardec fees proportionate to the proportion of pilots in the attacking corp/alliance who DO NOT participate in the war's combat during the preceding weeks of the wardec. That way attackers are financially incentivized to bring their pilots.

MDD
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#255 - 2012-06-12 16:42:20 UTC
Lallante wrote:


I agree quality > quantity (although its impossible for a mechanic to judge this) - Out of interest, why do you support a mechanic that escalates the cost of bringing in allies with the quantity of ally entities then? Is it just to troll jade (a noble endeavour).


Quantity has a quality all of its own. Especially for small scale wars--100 v 200 or 200 v 100, if you bring in a large merc corp of 200 guys you'll likely swamp the aggressor even if they aren't good. There needs to be a limiter on allies, if not a hard number than an effective ISK wall works just as well.

Ideally, the wardec system will be relatively simple and not bogged down with escalation rules, number count rules, weekly comparisons, derivatives of the membercounts, etc. You want Risk, not the board game of Game of Thrones.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#256 - 2012-06-12 16:44:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
CCP Soundwave wrote:
I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars


I'm not sure that is the issue to be honest. I accept you are trying to bring the merc trade back to eve but I don't think your proposal will work the way you think it will. Adding a concord penalty fee to allies simply means that a certain number of allies will get in as a way of discounting their ordinary concord declaration fee. But nobody is going to be paying mercenaries for random unspecificied trade hub ganking. Your ambition to give mercenary's meaning again will not be met until you are in the position to give specific war aims and goals that people can set their mercs. For example.

If the Goonswarm vs SF war had a default win condition of "do 100b isk damage" and came with a way of winning the war then sure - I'd be hiring decent mercs to do it. But there is no win condition, no structure, no real purpose apart from "go have fun blowing each other up" - and why am I paying other players to have fun? This is eve not themepark friendly cuddly creatures online :)

CCP Soundwave wrote:
Why would I want to balance a fight?


Thats a big question and it deserves a proper answer. You want to balance a fight because then people will take it seriously and try. The biggest problem with eve's combat system is that sure you can create unbalanced fights, but then you can also run away and avoid them. Try roaming lowsec in a giant T3 ahac gang with 10 guardians and triage carriers on station and see who engages you. Sure eve is not fair but all you are going to get from that play is a blue-balls. Go roaming in something that looks more engageable and you'll get fights.

Now there is something key here. Sure in the purity of Eve's jungle wardecs are not fair (and lets ignore for a moment the way you rebalanced Inferno to give huge alliances a 10x wardec fee protection bonus in boosting the default from 50-500m). But sure you let the large bully the small and sit back and call it the sandbox. Thats great, but as with the roaming ahacs they are not going to find people very interested in fighting and the targets will generally ignore the wardec. Why would anyone sensible engage massively outnumbered in a war that is completely biased in the attackers favour? This is why people getting a wardec from GS/TEST etc just outsource it to the trade hub raiders and forget about it.

If instead you give the defender tools to fight back if they can find and motivate allies then fighting the war becomes something sensible to consider and people will do it. People will take an interest and put some effort into engaging with the war rather than just shrugging and ignoring it.

Inferno is an expansion about war. But it should be an expansion about how to seduce people into war, how to excite people about war, how to make people see the possibilities in war. Thats how it becomes successful. While sure, its good old mittani style soundbite to talk about how eve isn't fair and the big crush the small and the aristocracy of 0.0 has all the advantages and if you don't like it HTFU and get out etc etc. This message has tactical limits - because if you can't interest people in the possibilties of the wardec system through the changes you roll out in Inferno then its going to be a failure - if people don't care about wars because they perceive the big guys have ALL the advantages they'll just keep wardec evading and ignoring and nobody is going to be hiring mercs to fight these things.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them.


See I had no problem with that thinking coupled with the allied system which could potentially even the field while adding targets (value) to the attack wardec. Take the example that is discussed widely in this thread. I have been attracting allies to the GS vs SF wardec. GS people say they like more targets. Every ally I bring adds more targets to the dec. I am effectively giving more specific value to the 50m per week that goonswarm are paying. Now either the goonswarm dec should increase in value to reflect the total number of the defending coalition - OR increasing the size of the defending coalition should be free because frankly (I'm giving GS more targets). Giving them more targets AND costing me money is just being double charged - sure eve is not fair but there has to be a point where you realize giving a double benefit to the largest alliances is just not really on.

I'm going out of my way to increase the numbers of players involved with a wardec in a wardec themed expansion in an open pvp game called Eve Online. You should not be designing mechanics intended to frustrate me in this intention. I'm doing what Inferno needs me to be doing!

CCP Soundwave wrote:
Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.


But it does massively boost the Mercenary Market and will make good merc corps excellent allies to have. Allowing a war to grow organically and dynamically as allies join will create a good balanced war which will interest people, will enthuse people, will suck people in. Why should a war be an arbitary one punch tilt for the attacker? What is the problem with having Inferno wardecs grow large and involve large numbers of corps and alliances?

Thats consequence. Why should the largest alliances in Eve be protected from consequence by arbitary wardec mechanics?

This is eve. Design a system where we make war for real. Take off the training wheels and let the chips fall.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#257 - 2012-06-12 16:50:02 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Jade Constantine wrote:
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.



-----Edit-----

Let's keep going onto the actual point. Why do I think that having (free) 50 allies, of which 80% have scored fewer than 10 kills, is a bad thing? I think we can agree that scarcity breeds competition. From the mercenary perspective, there is no scarcity when you can call in unlimited help. Why should a mercenary alliance strive to better than someone else? The current system is effectively "hi Moar Tears - how many free war decs do you want?" instead of providing an environment for mercenary corps to flourish.

Hope this cleared things up.

Please be respectful of others at all times.

Ensign Tyrozan
ISD Community Communications Liaisons

~
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#258 - 2012-06-12 16:54:50 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
So now we get back to your argument where you proudly stand on your ragged soap box and scream "CCP FAVORITISM" as loud as you can while quixotically claiming that Goons can destroy Eve unless you can bring in unlimited allies. To which you back-pedaled and went with unlimited allies until the summation of members from my allies is equal to that of the aggressor. In the old war mechanics, the one without allies, how many times did Goons wardec an empire entity and kill it off because it was too expensive to bring 50 other alliances (as you say is the necessary amount) to combat the Goon? Oh, zero in six years? You don't say!

I think we actually killed some highsec research alliance by wardeccing them and blowing up all their towers and stuff, but my memory is a little hazy. So its actually once, maybe, in six years.

Hopefully I didn't just undermine your point. Oops

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#259 - 2012-06-12 16:56:56 UTC
Hi Elise - Do you think after this change the war dec mechanic is perfect?
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#260 - 2012-06-12 17:02:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Think I'm going to have to post a few times to gain some traction with how fast this thread is moving atm...

Bloodpetal wrote:
Here's a different take on the ideas presented for Warfare:

The issue of an XYZ sized alliance able to cheaply war dec a smaller alliance is totally irrelevant. You could do this before and you can still do it now.

....

I think the solution is simple, for Inferno.

Make the cost be the difference in members. Both ways.

...

So, what will happen is huge alliances will have an incentive to war dec other huge alliances, and smaller alliances will have an incentive to grow [to avoid war decs from other small groups]. The bigger alliances still get an advantage in terms of ISK and numbers. But, it motivates people to grow or shrink based on their environment.



So, with this idea. A mega large organization that really wants to war dec a smaller one and "Save some money" can make a splinter group to go war dec them (or drop a corp from the alliance, whichever). This sounds like a good way to save money, but can become a risky proposition it the target calls in too many allies. On the other hand, a small organization that really wants to take on >>INSERT EVIL ALLIANCE<< can try and save itself money by gather many corps under an alliance banner, gather funds, and move to declare war and save itself some money. It may not reach 6000 people, but getting 1-2000 people together might make it worthwhile to save a few hundred ISK and so on.

The dynamic is a lot more forgiving to the pros and cons and leaves it much more in the hands of decision making on cost and effort vs risk.

Where I am.