These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#341 - 2012-06-12 21:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Unless I'm overlooking some rule, it seems that there are indeed methods through which a defending alliance could take on as many willing participants as they can find, its just not *as easy* this way.

There's no rule stopping me from forming an alliance, wardeccing anyone I want to, and then offering corps to join the alliance to fight the war for free.

I could be 1 person declaring war on day one and 50,000 active in week two, and it's all allowable under the rules and there's a single flat cost capped at 500mil per week.

But hey, that's like, effort man. Why not design the game so that in the specific example of my specific grudge it is easier for me?

"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,

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#342 - 2012-06-12 21:57:20 UTC
To much stupidity here

Because A helps B does not mean that A was designed with that in mind. It may in fact be a small downside to a score of positives.

All this conspiracy nonsense is getting out of hand.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#343 - 2012-06-12 21:58:29 UTC
Azual Skoll wrote:
Surely if you're concerned about not being able to add sufficient allies to match your aggressor's numbers, you could simply recruit willing participants into your corp or alliance rather than use the ally system? Sure, fewer people will be willing do leave their own corp or alliance to do it, but hey - war is supposed to be all about consequences and difficult choices right? It'll be harder for you, but just ticking a 'requesting assistance' box and letting people do their thing seems a little easy to me - why shouldn't you have to put in some effort? Alternatively, you can simply pick your allies well - choose someone who has a proven record of forcing larger entities to surrender. That's what the ally system was supposed to be after all.



Let me give you a couple of reasons.

1. SF is not a mass recruiting alliance. We generally only recruit mature individuals with a good sense of humour and laid back attitude to life, culture and alternative sexuality - we don't really hit the mass demographic of most internet spaceship guilds.

2. SF is NRDS - we don't shoot neutrals, we take our diplomacy seriously and we don't recruit people who just want to shoot random noobs in lowsec, nullsec, wherever.

3. SF is currently in Minmatar Faction warfare, that means we're at war with the entirety of the 24th Crusade and State Protectorate and we can't even go to Jita without getting chased by the space-po-lice.

Hence adding random people and corps to the alliance is not really an option.

Azual Skoll wrote:
There are solutions, even if they aren't the most elegant solutions or the ones that you'd like to have as the defender. For the regularity with which such situations occur, I think it makes far more sense to rely on those than to demand the whole system be designed around your edge case.


Well the opposite is going on really. The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.

Azual Skoll wrote:
You're also assuming that these 'huge alliances' will active prosecute a war against a smaller party using their full membership, which isn't true at all - almost all of them are in nullsec, and even at a stretch you're going to be actively fighting a very small portion of their membership. Treating a wardec from a 9000 member nullsec alliance as a war with 9000 hostile participants is deliberately misleading.


Really doesn't matter what their 9000 membership does in space - its already had an impact in setting the price of any third party wardec against them at 500m per week.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#344 - 2012-06-12 21:59:00 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
You're both looking at the edge case and asking for the mechanic to be changed to meet it. This is the exact wrong thing to do when designing a system to cater for many.


The request is for the mechanic to not be changed. If the resolution of the edge case does not impede the design of the system for many people what is the harm?

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir.


So you think that Noir. could defeat the Goons, or at least bring them to terms?

Khanh'rhh wrote:
There's no rule stopping me from forming an alliance, wardeccing anyone I want to, and then offering corps to join the alliance to fight the war for free.


There are alliance mechanics which allow the executor corporation to be changed. A free invite policy can result in you losing the alliance rather quickly.

Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#345 - 2012-06-12 22:00:55 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
One more thing. You say access to 9000 targets in a war should have a high cost. Ok. The war dec mechanic is only relevant in high sec and maybe lolowsec if you really want to reach for things. Yet, to their own admission, only 1% actually go to high sec. Ok. So to have access to those 90 pilots you have to pay over 500 million ISK? But those 90 can war dec a corp/alliance of 150 for only 50 million ISK??

In one post you justify access to 9000, which is only on the extreme case all 9000 actually go to high sec. But then shortly after brush aside any posts describing extreme scenarios with words proclaiming you don't design game mechanics with extreme scenarios in mind.

What.

The.

****?!




We're in Orwell-land I'm afraid Marlona - the doublethink is getting thick in here.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#346 - 2012-06-12 22:02:23 UTC
Kadl wrote:

Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars.



Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered by this CSM (or apparently) team BFF.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#347 - 2012-06-12 22:05:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Alain Kinsella wrote:

@ Jade - Are you willing to open your alliance to corp recruitment and alliance merger? If you're this dead-set on showing any holes in the system, than consider standing up and taking it to the next level. Perhaps in the process you'll find the kernel of a new highsec power bloc.


Best bet is probably Marlona's alliance that we'll work out a deal with so she gets the zero cost ally slot. In addition I'll probably offer in trade hub raiding allies for cost (ie 10,20,40,80,160,320,640m isk per two week slot)

Its a bit of a pain but those sums paid to Star Fraction will get anti Goon fighter a better deal (500m per week) than paid directly to concord (obviously we then have to pay concord for the ally).

Quote:
@ Marlona Sky - Looks like you're (or at least a group of FHC folks are) doing this already at the merc level, which sounds intriguing and cool.


Of course if any of us are too successful it'll be nerfed again :)

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#348 - 2012-06-12 22:09:53 UTC
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.



With all due respect Soundwave, this is a load of absolute bull, and you all all should know better.

If a nullsec alliance today finds itself attacked by a numerical superior enemy, the game DOES NOT penalize it if it finds allies.

Increased risk forces higher level of coorporation and larger numbers to survive, which is why you find the biggest and best organized player entities in EVE in nullsec. Highsec is by comparison badly organized, badly led and fragmented. This is NOT likely to change any time soon. So even if a higsec entity where to achive parity, it would still be (presumably) inferior in organisation and leadership.

Then there is the argument that "just a small portion" of a nullsec entity will fight i highsec war. So basically, the argument is that a nullsec entity is entitled to a cake and get to eat it too? "we must keep the higsec entity numbers low, so the nullsec wardeccing party can fight them without really commiting". Is that it?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2012-06-12 22:13:02 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:


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


Some fencing at fanfest would be awesome!

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Finde learth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#350 - 2012-06-12 22:14:26 UTC
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.


So why we need ship balance ? Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#351 - 2012-06-12 22:15:04 UTC
Question. Based on:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered

and
Quote:
The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances

and earlier
Quote:
Goonswarm have whined CCP into nerfing the Inferno Wardec System because they hated the idea of ever losing even a fraction of their numerical advantage
[..]
we'll call it a form of moral victory that Mittani was forced to beg his mates at CCP to nerf the Inferno Wardec System


I really want to know why you think, after rampant lies, tinfoil hattery and tabloid style posturing that anyone would ever see anything you said on the matter as un-biased?

The system is NOT being changed for you. This has been said now a dozen times or more and you are still posting as though CCP have stepped in to put a stop to the specific examples here.

They haven't. Get over yourself.

I posed you a challenge a page back, go have a crack at it.

"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,

Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#352 - 2012-06-12 22:16:00 UTC
Alain Kinsella wrote:
@ Marlona Sky - Looks like you're (or at least a group of FHC folks are) doing this already at the merc level, which sounds intriguing and cool.

We will see. Keep in mind this alliance will not be exclusive to just FHC, but to everyone. Also it will be targeting whatever the largest alliance in the game hiding behind the Inferno war dec mechanic.

CCP introduced a new war dec mechanic that just so happens to protect large bloated alliances. Someone (just happens to be Jade - get over it) finds a way to fight back. Days later CCP announce a change that just so happens to add another layer of protection for the large bloated alliances. If CCP make another change to add a third layer of protection for them...

Well it will be crystal clear what the agenda is.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#353 - 2012-06-12 22:16:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Khanh'rhh wrote:
By the way, in the one or two instances where GSF actually acted on their wardecs (i.e. messing with Krixtal, etc) they numbered less than 20. Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir.



And who the hell is going to pay a proper merc's going rate for a wardec (1-2billion a week) to defend a nonsense dec from a 9000 man alliance that has to pay 50m a week for the pleasure of putting 1% into clown ships in Jita?

Anybody on the CSM who thinks that is going to revitalize the "Merc Profession" is smoking serious blunts and should probably have a nice cup of tea to calm down.

Thats so out of kilter its beyond lunacy.

Even if no shots are ever fired and nothing explodes that means the defender is losing 1950m a week for nothing.

Are you actually a goon scammer?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#354 - 2012-06-12 22:22:12 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
And who the hell is going to pay a proper merc's going rate for a wardec (1-2billion a week) to defend a nonsense dec from a 9000 man alliance that has to pay 50m a week for the pleasure of putting 1% into clown ships in Jita?

Anybody on the CSM who thinks that is going to revitalize the "Merc Profession" is smoking serious blunts and should probably have a nice cup of tea to calm down


You are 100% right.

This, by the way, is why the changes aren't about large nullsec alliances trolling empire dwellers but all about actual situations that would be aided by actual mercs doing actual work, and not having that eroded by Jita being 50% wartargets that were hired for no ISK.

But you just can't see past "and what about Goonswarm?" in anything so nothing makes sense to you.

"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,

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#355 - 2012-06-12 22:25:51 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

Azual Skoll wrote:
There are solutions, even if they aren't the most elegant solutions or the ones that you'd like to have as the defender. For the regularity with which such situations occur, I think it makes far more sense to rely on those than to demand the whole system be designed around your edge case.


Well the opposite is going on really. The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.


For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#356 - 2012-06-12 22:30:44 UTC
Two step wrote:

For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.


I'd like to hear the CSM position on mechanics that hurts only after parity is achieved.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#357 - 2012-06-12 22:31:11 UTC
Two step wrote:

For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.



For what seems the hundreth time will you please actually read the thread including the detailed proposal I made that addressed this specific issue.

There is no point you accusing me of having the universe revolve around me when you are refusing to discuss a proposal I've made to precisely resolve the problem you are raising.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#358 - 2012-06-12 22:32:27 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.



See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are, you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.

On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue?

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#359 - 2012-06-12 22:35:42 UTC
Two Step - Then push for some changes that revitalize the merc market without tossing a safety blanket over the large alliances. Can you do that??
Finde learth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#360 - 2012-06-12 22:40:28 UTC
And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?