These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#381 - 2012-06-12 23:11:43 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Finde learth wrote:
And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?


Because its just idiotic on its face?

Parity, equality, level fairness is not a goal. Disallowing free wardecs by all the tradehub and roving gankers against a small corp that wants to wardec someone else is just preserving the mechanic from abuse.

Forget Goonswarm. Consider the vast majority of cases--every single wardec is getting unlimited allies against the aggressor, be it 3 alts or 3000 mains. At that point, wardecs are less a way to put a hurt on a guy who's crossed you/competition, and more a way to get nulsec entities NBSI in empire.

If you can't see how that breaks the mechanic, I can't help you.


I dont se many - if any at all - in this thread that think unlimited allies isnt gamebreaking. Even Jade. So thats not the issue here. Unlimited allies is dumb and need to go.

However, due to Concord, you dont have the freedom nullsec enjoys when it comes to setting up blues and allies that will help fight your enemies. In highsec, you have to be in on the wardec to participate. Which is why the wardec mechanic benefits from an ally system in the first place. But it cannot get out of hand, because unlimited allies essentially kills the mechanic. Hence why a few of us proposes a "parity" mechanic, after which it will hurt financially to escalate, alternatively open up for allies to the agressor as well.

Now, mercenaries. The mercenary marketplace is also utterly destroyed by unlimited "free" allies, which obvioulsy breaks with the stated goals. In a parity mechanic though, focus shifts from numbers to quality. And qualitywise, mercs should be able to compete just fine with a Tom, **** and Harry corporation of 10 bantam pilots.

To summarize, 1) a parity mechanic should hurt you as a defender if you try to achieve numerical superiority, 2) it maintains the (good) change that opened up the highsec wardec mechanic to the sorts of higher level organization that permeates nullsec (diplos, allies, blues etc), and 3) since you will be fighting with roughly equal numbers, quality comes in to play, which lends itself to a descision wether you should hire high quality mercs instead of just relying on your carebear friend corp.

Problem solved.
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#382 - 2012-06-12 23:12:47 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Corp A is a 50man corp attacking Corp B, who is a 49 man corp.

Corp B decides they want help, and Corp C, a one-man wardec group, steps in to help.

Day two of the war and corp B is now a 300 man corp, as it was a shell the whole time. They declared war this way, because that's what they need to do to game the numbers under your system.

By the way - corp A drops 25 members from the corp into NPC corps. What then happens to the allied corps in the war?

Gaming the system and expecting it to work based on static numbers is silly, which is why the wardec fees are capped and run on an inverse logarithmic scale.

Your system is wide open to daily abuse by small entities attacking small entities, which is really what the whole point of wardecs is.


I am glad we are now talking about scenarios. Why not keep the ally calculation simple and do it at the time of acceptance.

Your scenario as written: Corp A thinks they can take on Corp B and war decs them. Corp B allies with Corp C. At this exact point the additional people does not exceed the size of Corp A meaning the war ally is free of concord fees. Corp B increases to 300 people! It seems that Corp A made a mistake. They can ride out the week of the war dec or they can surrender. All good.

Modified to be more interesting. Everything is the same up to Corp B increasing to 300 people. Instead lets make Corp A increase in size. Well then now Corp B can call on more free allies and actually fight, or they can flee. Of course Corp C as an ally must ride out the 2 weeks. Perhaps Corp C can be happy to have more targets since they actually wanted to be in the war.

Some gaming can happen, but this scenario is not that disruptive.
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#383 - 2012-06-12 23:13:07 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1

it's a bit tiringStraight

here, have this


So hats are coming out for us in the 1.1 patch?
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#384 - 2012-06-12 23:17:05 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1

it's a bit tiringStraight

here, have this


So hats are coming out for us in the 1.1 patch?


yes, but only for 9000 people alliances

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#385 - 2012-06-12 23:17:23 UTC
Kadl wrote:
Edit: It looks like you replied to him. I guess persuasion through friendship is too much to ask.


Unlike many, I don't really see Jade as an "enemy" here. We fly together from time to time in the militia, he's a gentleman in fleets and a pleasure to fly with. I just happen to disagree with him in this case, and frankly am in a better position to know the motivation behind these changes, since I've been around for the discussions.

And no, I haven't missed your point either, Jade, we just happen to disagree on whether this will do anything for mercenaries. I'm of the belief that the kind of pile-on opportunistic "allies" you loaded up on for this "test-the-system" effort don't really even the odds to begin with, because I haven't seen any evidence that this kind of free help actually participates on a scale to make the difference you claim it will.

On the other hand, forcing choice when picking allies very much encourages defenders to pick groups that will actually fight. And not just fight, but fight better than the next guy. And be able to charge for it. Or not. It's a sandbox. But without restrictions on the number of allies one can load up on, through *some means or another* (I'm not sold on the fees model either), the system will be used far more by those seeking the free wardec than by those looking to deliver a real, perfunctory service to the defending party.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#386 - 2012-06-12 23:18:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Jade Constantine wrote:
I know you are not listening Hans because at least twice now you've completely missed the point I've been making. Two step didn't even bother reading my proposal before missing the point. Seleene frothed without considering the issue. Elise and Dovonan trolled. The only sensible posts from the CSM in this whole thread game from Alekeseyez and Issler.


I 'frothed' because you were going on with your tinfoil nonsense about CCP and their Goon overlords. Thanks for taking your foot off of that particular gas pedal only to now try to paint me as a Goon Cheerleader for calling you out on it, which is almost as WTF but at least you're taking it in game now. Smile

I did give you a reply several pages back but you are ignoring it because I didn't just come out and say you were right about everything. Elise didn't troll, he made you look foolish and tried to give you some pointers on how to look less so. Two Step is well aware of what you are proposing but he's not under any obligation to sing your praises. Hans is arguably the most open minded guy on the CSM and you are dismissing him as well because he doesn't want to agree with you. Dovi trolled you tho.

Your points were made a while back and there are discussions being had on them and the whole subject. Nothing is locked in. Why isn't that enough for you at the moment? All you are doing by repeating yourself like this is alienating people. v0v

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#387 - 2012-06-12 23:23:31 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
But really there is nothing there that breaks the system - just people playing games in the sandbox.

Under the 1.1 system you could sign up a shell alliance as a free ally, then have 1-10,000 people join this alliance to "entertain a couple of thousand people" and it's all just "games in the sandbox".
The 1.1 system does nothing to protect large alliances at all, because exactly this is allowed and costs the same before and after. All you need do is change the way in which you go about it.

Of course, we both know the reality is that the same people who would join the war in the ally system would NOT be up for this as it is a commitment to actually fight in a war beyond it just being more reds undocking from Jita 4-4 in a day .... which is EXACTLY why this change is going through, to make large initiatives like this actually need to have some meaning beyond a free-for-all turkey shoot.

Frankly the only logical way you can be against it is if you already know no-one would help when it actually came down to an "us vs them" war, isn't 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,

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#388 - 2012-06-12 23:23:32 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
I know you are not listening Hans because at least twice now you've completely missed the point I've been making. Two step didn't even bother reading my proposal before missing the point. Seleene frothed without considering the issue. Elise and Dovonan trolled. The only sensible posts from the CSM in this whole thread game from Alekeseyez and Issler.


I 'frothed' because you were going on with your tinfoil nonsense about CCP and their Goon overlords. Thanks for taking your foot off of that particular gas pedal only to now try to paint me as a Goon Cheerleader for calling you out on it, which is almost as WTF but at least you're taking it in game now. Smile

"Almost as WTF"? You being a goon cheerleader is probably the single most ridiculous thing he's said in the thread, and yes, that includes his multiple insinuations that the developers are in our back pocket.

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

fofofo
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#389 - 2012-06-12 23:25:56 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Elise Randolph wrote:
snipped general ranting


So now you've got all that off your chest would you like to address the specifics of my proposal?

Quote:

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?


My main concern has never been with your opinion on a game mechanic, but that you chose to air your grievances by saying CCP is /obviously/ making this change because they love Goons. You don't get an automatic pass for that by pretending it didn't happen.

On to your proposal - why does war have to be even? Fleet fights certainly are never even. Skillpoints between entities aren't even, ISK coffers aren't even, intangible experience isn't even. It seems arbitrary to say "hey nothing in Eve is fair, except war". This isn't a fair honoure dueling mechanic, it's a war mechanic.

This is essentially where we have a difference of opinion on what the problem is. You think the issue is large alliance war-decing smaller ones is damaging. I don't, mostly because it has never happened and frankly it makes no logical sense that it ever would happen.

What I perceive as the bigger problem is when two small-to-medium sized entities go to war with one another - a scenario that I believe the war dec system should be built around, instead of the edge case of a nullsec powerbloc trying to kill an empire corp (which I have learned has happened exactly once in six years). Right now the aggressor gets pretty much zonked by the same types of corps who all tag along for a free wardec. No need to hire a merc when the "free wardecs" make fights between two smaller entities moot. I'd ideally like to see allies be penalized for allying with too many people.



~
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#390 - 2012-06-12 23:26:31 UTC
Seleene - feel free to answer the same question I gave Two Step.
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#391 - 2012-06-12 23:32:37 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:

On to your proposal - why does war have to be even? Fleet fights certainly are never even. Skillpoints between entities aren't even, ISK coffers aren't even, intangible experience isn't even. It seems arbitrary to say "hey nothing in Eve is fair, except war". This isn't a fair honoure dueling mechanic, it's a war mechanic.


All these things are factors that will affect both nullsec conflict and highsec wars, regardless of number of allies. Nobody proposes to do anything about it either. But where nullsec entities are free to ally with whomever they choose, the wardec mechanic in highsec limits the options. This is why this is important. Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#392 - 2012-06-12 23:33:14 UTC
There's so much douchebaggery going on in this thread it's painful.

Arrow Replace the "allies" system (we already have alliances for that. HINT: a member of your alliance is your ally.) with a legitimate mercenary marketplace, where anyone can go to hire mercenaries (not allies, again, we have alliances already but thanks for the thought) for negotiable prices and durations.

Everything else in this patch looks great.

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#393 - 2012-06-12 23:34:18 UTC
You know, the more I think about it, the system needs to just be flipped on it's head.

If "my furst merc corp" had to actually commit to an anti-GSF (or anyone) war then they would need to be convinced to do it, which would likely be in the sum of some ISK changing hands.

No exponential war fees, no CONCORD fees for blah blah blah - let as many allies join a war on either side as want to join it - with the condition that they can't also join another war as an ally.

Because they won't do this for free, and locking mercs/allies into the wars in this way ensures that for the duration of the wardec they very much see it as being "on contract" and working for a specific target list, and not just adding numbers to a list of people who you won't get CONCORDed for shooting, which is what is currently happening and would continue to happen under Jade's system.

Increase demand (in the mercs) by limiting their supply.

Someone can go and put that to someone who cares as a proposal.

"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,

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#394 - 2012-06-12 23:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Seleene wrote:
I 'frothed' because you were going on with your tinfoil nonsense about CCP and their Goon overlords.


What I actually said was this was a change that purely benefits large alliances and since the illustration of the "dog-pile" mechanic has occured in reaction to wardecs from certain large alliances the nerfing of the allied system to prevent this play option was a bit suspicious/smelly. I believe I clarified when you called me on it before that I think this bad change has probably come from the CSM rather than CCP.

Seleene wrote:
I did give you a reply several pages back but you are ignoring it because I didn't just come out and say you were right about everything.


If you think I'm wrong I'd like you say why you think I'm wrong. Why is including the relative sizes of the attacker and defending coalition a bad thing when determining if defensive allies should be charged or not? Its a fairly simple question and I'd be interested to hear your thinking on it.

Seleene wrote:
Two Step is well aware of what you are proposing but he's not under any obligation to sing your praises. Hans is arguably the most open minded guy on the CSM and you are dismissing him as well because he doesn't want to agree with you.


I'm not asking anyone to sing my praises I would like to know why precisely you guys don't think that its a good game mechanic that a smaller defender can add allies without concord charge to fight a larger attacker. If you want to come out like Soundwave and say that "eve ain't fair" attacker should have advantages - whatever really. But I would like to know you've at least addressed the question and quite honestly I don't feel you currently have.

Seleene wrote:
Your points were made a while back and there are discussions being had on them and the whole subject. Nothing is locked in. Why isn't that enough for you at the moment? All you are doing by repeating yourself like this is alienating people. v0v


Well see, this is the first time there has been the slightest mention that nothing is "locked in" really. And to be honest, if you guys are so sensitive that me arguing the case against large alliances being protected by an unwise change to the wardec system is going to make you decide to support a rubbish game mechanic just to spite me well ... pfft ... welcome to politics.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Il Feytid
State War Academy
Caldari State
#395 - 2012-06-12 23:45:27 UTC
Just stop it guys. EVE is not meant to be balanced. It is meant to be cold and harsh...

Well unless people start fighting large alliances and causing damage, then that needs to be fixed, then it's back to the cold dark universe...

Well unless people fly one specific super capital in large numbers, then obviously that needs to be fixed, then back to the unfair galaxy that is eve...

Well, unless...
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#396 - 2012-06-12 23:50:28 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
On to your proposal - why does war have to be even? Fleet fights certainly are never even. Skillpoints between entities aren't even, ISK coffers aren't even, intangible experience isn't even. It seems arbitrary to say "hey nothing in Eve is fair, except war". This isn't a fair honoure dueling mechanic, it's a war mechanic.


It doesn't have to "even" it has to be competitive because (as I said in my response to soundwave earlier) if there isn't even the possibility of a competitive engagement then one side is not going to play. This has been the bane of the wardec system for the last nine years really. One side has all the intiative advantages they decide when to dec when to move a fleet when to let the war drop etc, - the defenders can fight or they can just ignore it and go somewhere else. In order to get people taking wars seriously and trying you general need the war to be competitive. This is why RedVBlue is successful, this is why FW is successful, there are systems in place to make the war a contest both can win.

Now the problem with this change in the wardec system is that it is handing ALL the advantages to the large alliance attacker. They pay a pittance to make the dec. They can decide how long the dec lasts, when they want to fight and where. And in order to escalate the war beyond a certain fraction the defender will literally bankrupt themselves. It costs 20 trillion isk or something to bring 20 allies into the war - lol tbh. People will look at this kind of war as they have traditionally looked at them and ignore it. Its not worth fighting because there is no pretense of competitive balance. Its clearly all in the attackers favour so why bother fighting on those terms?

Elise Randolph wrote:
This is essentially where we have a difference of opinion on what the problem is. You think the issue is large alliance war-decing smaller ones is damaging. I don't, mostly because it has never happened and frankly it makes no logical sense that it ever would happen.


See thats not it either. I don't think this mechanic change is "damaging" particularly. I think its boring. I think it takes something that was potentially wonderful in Inferno (the crazy growing war with a life of its own) and returns it to pre-inferno yawn-a-phon of the standard trade hub ganking dec. When the defender cannot enlarge the war to make it a significant threat to the attacker then there's no real point fighting it in earnest - why not just add a single free ally trade hub ganker and ignore it?

I see this is a missed opportunity, a stifling of emergent gameplay and a game change that stamps on the creativity of little guys trying to fight back against a superpower.

Elise Randolph wrote:
What I perceive as the bigger problem is when two small-to-medium sized entities go to war with one another - a scenario that I believe the war dec system should be built around, instead of the edge case of a nullsec powerbloc trying to kill an empire corp (which I have learned has happened exactly once in six years). Right now the aggressor gets pretty much zonked by the same types of corps who all tag along for a free wardec. No need to hire a merc when the "free wardecs" make fights between two smaller entities moot. I'd ideally like to see allies be penalized for allying with too many people.


Which is precisely why I proposed that the concord fee should trigger when the defending coalition becomes larger than the attacker. I think both of our "problems" are solved with the same resolution.


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
#397 - 2012-06-12 23:51:35 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
And to be honest, if you guys are so sensitive that me arguing the case against large alliances being protected by an unwise change to the wardec system is going to make you decide to support a rubbish game mechanic just to spite me well ... pfft ... welcome to politics.



....pffft indeed, Jade. So now we're doing this JUST TO SPITE YOU?? Puhhhh-leeeeeease. That statement is so ego-driven it could be mistaken for something that the M - bah, I don't even need to say it.

And again, you're intentionally presenting subjective opinions as objective statements - implying not only that this is all about "protecting alliances" but also that this change is known to be "unwise", which is exactly what everyone has been trying to suss out and debate the last 22 pages.

I agree with those earlier that brought up the problem of the signal-to-noise ratio in this thread - its very hard to have a grounded discussion when you have clearly already made up your mind about why we support this (which the CSM hasn't ever explicitly said, in fact quite the opposite in several cases) and continue to frame arguments with these presuppositions in mind.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#398 - 2012-06-12 23:52:23 UTC
I have a feeling Jade has some issues with the new ally mechanics...

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#399 - 2012-06-12 23:52:25 UTC
Quote:

And to be honest, if you guys are so sensitive that me arguing the case against large alliances being protected by an unwise change to the wardec system is going to make you decide to support a rubbish game mechanic just to spite me well ... pfft ... welcome to politics.

It couldn't be that your idea was ****, it /must/ be that there's a conspiracy to disagree with you out of spite.

You nailed it. Touche.

~
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#400 - 2012-06-12 23:53:31 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
What I actually said was this was a change that purely benefits large alliances and since the illustration of the "dog-pile" mechanic has occured in reaction to wardecs from certain large alliances the nerfing of the allied system to prevent this play option was a bit suspicious/smelly

Nope.

What you actually said was
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

and
Quote:
I guess 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

and
Quote:
CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response

and
Quote:
Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance [.....] Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani [.....] You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies [....] The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really. [......] this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into [.....] These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliance in Eve


The thread is locked, you're told to shutup, then you start referring to a "9000 man entity" -- as though there were more than just one example.

Stop going back on your words. You can't throw a massive tantrum and claim Goon/CCP interaction and then turn around and say you've been nothing but reasonable and talking with respect to the facts on the table.

"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,