These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#301 - 2012-06-12 19:50:28 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

As I said thats the consequence of you making wardecs. If you want the hordes of corps to have to pay to wardec you then don't dec people. Thats a strategic decision your leadership can make.


Jade, I think the bottom line is that we are trying to *encourage* war, and encourage the use of mercenary forces to fight wars.

It's all fine and dandy to say "that's just the price you pay as an aggressor" if we are running with a punishment mentality, where the aggressor is the evil-doer and the victim needs protection at all costs. But to approach the game design with this in mind assumes that major alliances like Goonswarm targeting smaller entities for griefing is a commonplace and game-breaking occurrence.

What you've failed to convince me of so far is the scale to which the atrocities you're trying to prevent are occurring. I understand your personal situation, but CCP has to make game play decisions that are good for the majority of players, not that just cater to one group's particular situation.

I think trying to use the game mechanics to discourage a large corp from wardeccing a small corp are about as reasonable as trying to use game mechanics to discourage a large fleet from attacking a smaller gang. It quickly becomes a game of whack-a-mole, as groups that *truly* want to grief will never actually be restricted by the wardec system to begin with, regardless of its implementation. It's akin to obsessing over which lock to install on your front door - a true burglar isn't going to be deterred regardless.

Unlimited, cost-free ally-stacking defeats the entire purpose of creating a *competitive* mercenary market. It allows for pig-pile opportunistic wardecs without creating real incentive to actually participate in the war. I think a lot of us realize that forcing some degree of strategic *choice* will incentivize using the best allies for the job and increase the chance those allies will be used in the first place. I think that is a lot to toss away just to protect against a menace that isn't a well-known, well-documented threat to the universe.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Mechael
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#302 - 2012-06-12 19:59:49 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Unlimited, cost-free ally-stacking defeats the entire purpose of creating a *competitive* mercenary market. It allows for pig-pile opportunistic wardecs without creating real incentive to actually participate in the war. I think a lot of us realize that forcing some degree of strategic *choice* will incentivize using the best allies for the job and increase the chance those allies will be used in the first place.


Wouldn't creating a real mercenary marketplace where anyone could go to hire mercenaries for wars, limited only by a negotiable price (with factors such as duration, number of entities to declare war on, and taking into account a merc corp's war history), be much more conducive to this idea?

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I think that is a lot to toss away just to protect against a menace that isn't a well-known, well-documented threat to the universe.


You sound like a politician from the Mass Effect series. Blink

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

Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#303 - 2012-06-12 20:01:56 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Daneel Trevize wrote:
You've done something to your protocols again/the Socket Closed connection problem has returned. Can't keep a Sisi client connected for long. Last time it came and went with Sisi updates, so I'm blaming your end.


Is it occurring during active gameplay or are you leaving your client alone for periods of time?
Trying to be active but it kicks in pretty randomly and often near instantly. If anything like last time, there's not obvious timing or pattern to the thing, I must have tried getting past the first or second login/char selection screens at least many 10s of times over that week or 2, yet sometimes an alt would stay connected for whole minutes while either being used in space, fitting in station, or just docked and left to see. Frankly I don't want to bother see if it's similar this time around, having it start happening again is enough for me to leave it to you guys to resolve for a day or so.
Keep up the good work.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#304 - 2012-06-12 20:05:01 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.

Quite honestly, I want to manhug you for this post.

"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,

Mira Lynne
State War Academy
Caldari State
#305 - 2012-06-12 20:05:28 UTC
Looking forward to missile Flare, New Drake, and minmatar V3.
I have two questions though:
-V3ed ships are getting brighter - how much brighter? And why? IMO Current Amarr, Caldari and Gallente ships look great (Havent seen Minmatar V3 so i cant comment) and making them any brighter would reduce the overal effect.
-What is the reasoning behind the changes to the Rifter, Stabber and Variations' Sizes?

[u]I, too, horse frogs.[/u] Support the Return of Realistic Module Icons! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114818&find=unread

CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#306 - 2012-06-12 20:08:50 UTC
I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like thisBlink

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#307 - 2012-06-12 20:10:26 UTC
why does the new drake have 8 hardpoints on the sides? makes no sense :(
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#308 - 2012-06-12 20:11:07 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I think that is a lot to toss away just to protect against a menace that isn't a well-known, well-documented threat to the universe.


You sound like a politician from the Mass Effect series. Blink

Ah yes, 'Reapers'. The immortal fleet of newbie starships allegedly waiting in dark space. We have dismissed that claim.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)

CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#309 - 2012-06-12 20:11:18 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
something about man hugs


every time I see someone from Sudden Buggery post, it reminds me of the time I thought it was called Sudden Burgery (which is btw a better name Blink)

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#310 - 2012-06-12 20:16:16 UTC
Mechael wrote:
You sound like a politician from the Mass Effect series. Blink


Well, Jade has always had a flair for the dramatic. I thought I would respond in-kind. Cool

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#311 - 2012-06-12 20:17:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
@ Hans

Problem is you don't "encourage" war by making it more expensive for only one side to fight a war. All those changes achieve is to protect large alliances from the allied system being used against them. It will not encourage the use of paid mercs the way you think it will.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
It's all fine and dandy to say "that's just the price you pay as an aggressor" if we are running with a punishment mentality, where the aggressor is the evil-doer and the victim needs protection at all costs.


I think you have the wrong end of the stick. This is not about punishing an aggressor for "daring" to declare war, its about adding enough people into a war to make it a war rather than a sequence of random ganks. Unless the defender has a strategy to add sufficient numbers they simply won't fight and we'll be back to pre Inferno wardec evasion mentality and simply walking away.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
What you've failed to convince me of so far is the scale to which the atrocities you're trying to prevent are occurring. I understand your personal situation, but CCP has to make game play decisions that are good for the majority of players, not that just cater to one group's particular situation.


My particular situation is irrelevant to this line of thought really. No atrocity is occuring or can occur to my alliance obviously. What I saw via the ally system was an opportunity to build a real defensive coalition to take the fight back to the largest alliance in the game. Well okay, thats being nerfed but its no biggy. You and I both know what I do in Eve and it doesn't really involve hisec. The Goons dec, I'll add a free trade hub ganking alliance to the dec and never need to think about it again. Job done, but its not really the sense that I got from the intention for Inferno.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I think trying to use the game mechanics to discourage a large corp from wardeccing a small corp are about as reasonable as trying to use game mechanics to discourage a large fleet from attacking a smaller gang. It quickly becomes a game of whack-a-mole, as groups that *truly* want to grief will never actually be restricted by the wardec system to begin with, regardless of its implementation. It's akin to obsessing over which lock to install on your front door - a true burglar isn't going to be deterred regardless.


Listen Hans, you really do have the wrong end of the stick here. I don't want to discourage anyone from wardeccing anyone. I would like to make sure that once the wardec button is clicked the war becomes a dynamic and evolving thing that can grow in surprising directions.

Inferno wardecs with allies was a step in the right direction - nerfing those allies to the stone age is two steps in the wrong direction. Soundwave has declared his thinking on the issue and feels that big alliances should have all the advantages of the system - so be it. But my point is there will be no motivation for the defender to do anything but move all their logistics out of corp (as usual) and simply avoid the aggressors. Inferno 1.1 will give the ability to add ONE free merc to the war and thats all that will happen. The is absolutely no motivation to add a paid merc into a system where there is no war-objective, goal, or activity beyond random lols.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Unlimited, cost-free ally-stacking defeats the entire purpose of creating a *competitive* mercenary market. It allows for pig-pile opportunistic wardecs without creating real incentive to actually participate in the war.


Which of course is not what I proposed at all. I proposed cost-free while the defending coalition is smaller than the aggressor - once the defending force is bigger then they must pay of course and the attacker could then add additional forces.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I think a lot of us realize that forcing some degree of strategic *choice* will incentivize using the best allies for the job and increase the chance those allies will be used in the first place.


It simply won't happen the way you think it will. As long as you can add one ally for "free" that ally will be somebody who offers for free. Even if you nerf the free slot the next strategy will be to charge a willing ally a discount rate from their usual direct wardec charge. Nobody is going to pay for mercenary cover on random tradehub ganking wardecs. Without a meaningful system of objectives and win conditions for wars the only work mercs will get will be the kind of work described already in this thread (pos takedowns, pos defenses, area denial etc etc).

This change you are making will not do anything for mercenary corps and doesn't do anything at all to deal with the problem they will face on their ordinary business when whoever they dec just advertises for a free ally and gets a 5000 man alliance to join in for lols.

From the beginning of this thread I get the strong impression that the CSM members are not really listening to whats being said and are simply quoting from their own internal dialogue.

It seems you are simply justifying a decision that has already been made rather than discussing options so to be honest, we're running out of any point to the discussion.

This change will clearly happen without any alternation and we'll see how it develops over the next six months. It won't impact me much because I'll be enjoying Faction Warfare. (If the goons really wanted to "grief me" they'd have to join Minmatar FW to ruin the atmosphere there.

But it will remove the option of what could have been an enjoyable grand hisec war from the 70 allied corps at war with goonswarm of course - but thats collateral damage from the overt intention to protect large alliances from the implications of the Inferno allies system.

So congratulations - the CSM has taken the heat out of Inferno.

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

Mechael
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#312 - 2012-06-12 20:19:03 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.


Awesome. This is the concept that first got me excited when I heard about the mercenary marketplace and being able to bring mercs in to fight wars.

CCP Soundwave wrote:
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.


I totally agree with this. Anything else would be against the nature of EVE, which is of course meant to be the ultimate science fiction simulator. Cool

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.


What about a smaller entity that would like to gang up on a larger entity as the aggressors? Why should they have to be the defenders in order to employ mercenaries? Or better still, what about a shady industrial corporation that is sick of another corp that is mining all the rocks or undercutting all of their products? Shouldn't they be able to hire mercenaries in an aggressive way? I'm thinking of backroom deals with mercs who are under strict instructions not to reveal their employer (whether they do or not, well ... choose your mercs carefully.) Shouldn't we be able to do these sorts of things, and shouldn't it be supported by the game design itself? Why not have a real mercenary marketplace, where anyone can go to see a list of available mercenaries, review their history and credentials, and hire them (for negotiable price and duration, of course) if they so choose? I think that's what a lot of people were expecting with this expansion.

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

Imma ShroomDealer
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#313 - 2012-06-12 20:20:01 UTC
CCP goliath. if your changing the cycle times for the adaptive armor hardener. can you also tweak the capacitor consumption per cycle to reflect the change in cycle time so it uses the same cap after the change as it does now
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#314 - 2012-06-12 20:24:47 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like thisBlink


how about you guys let us duel on the regular one...

like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#315 - 2012-06-12 20:26:45 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like thisBlink
Slapfight? It will be like this.

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer

CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#316 - 2012-06-12 20:27:59 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like thisBlink


how about you guys let us duel on the regular one...

like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?


oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Bear

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

HVAC Repairman
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#317 - 2012-06-12 20:32:44 UTC
there was once an episode of saved by the bell that had a dance off i think you should do that
CCP Explorer
C C P
C C P Alliance
#318 - 2012-06-12 20:32:49 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like thisBlink
how about you guys let us duel on the regular one...

like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?
oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Bear
Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal!

Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Senior Development Director | EVE Online // CCP Games | @CCP_Explorer

CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#319 - 2012-06-12 20:34:50 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like thisBlink
how about you guys let us duel on the regular one...

like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?
oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Bear
Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal!


maybe the fish slapping one would be better for Fanfest.. seeing as it's on the harbor anyways

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#320 - 2012-06-12 20:36:10 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like thisBlink
how about you guys let us duel on the regular one...

like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?
oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??! Bear
Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal!



Oops i haz been trolled...

i was thinking more of a personal war dec that lasts only a short time... like two peeps ina npc corp cant fight in high sec because they are in noob corps...

but setting up a concord sacntioned pvp fight that has clear victory conditions would allow this to happen...

though can we see punky and karuk have a sword fight at fanfest anyways?

i woould donate a plex and free booze to the winner Cool

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.