These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#421 - 2012-06-13 00:34:11 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:

Oh, my bad, the problem is that Goons wardecced -SF- and are now swarmed by flashy reds. /s

Explain the problem as you understand it, then. I have been known to be wrong.

The problem is that the current system makes merc corps for hire not viable.

QFT

And the 1.1 proposed changes will do nothing to fix this, while unnecessarily widening the advantage between big/rich/vet and small/poor/new.


I'd be interested in knowing what your proposed fix to the Inferno wardec system was actually Alekseyev. If you had your way what would be done?

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

Finde learth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#422 - 2012-06-13 00:34:41 UTC
Why CCP and other CSM can't focus on this solution ?
Jade Constantine wrote:

And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker.



It solve this problem
Two step wrote:

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.


and don't hurt merc market.

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#423 - 2012-06-13 00:36:09 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Also I wish to interject that large alliances beating up on small alliances is fun. While a few wet blankets may complain that all the fun is at their expense, the fun the large alliances have easily counteracts the quiet sobbing of the small minority.


Not nearly as fun as large alliances getting beaten up by small alliances and their heroic allies - now that really is FUN, and frankly the large alliances create a far more impressive stream of tears.

This is merely the point of the ally system in general.

There is nothing heroic about doing virtually no effort (paying nothing, committing nothing) to sign up with a giant unorganized blob to fight the big aggressor alliance. It's just ePeen waving and forming irrelevant blobs in hisec. Sorry, calling it like it is (and it is incidentally why my alliance isn't signing up as an ally of SF in this war).

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

Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#424 - 2012-06-13 00:39:01 UTC
Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.

Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.

If Star Fraction war-decs Goons, the war-dec cost is based on SF's size (74) + GSF's size (9069) and so costs 500 million. If the Goons war-dec SF, same deal. But if Star Fraction war-decs Rote Kapelle, the war-dec cost is based on the sum of the size of SF (74) and Rote (234).

Yes, this would make every Goon war-dec cost 500 million ISK. I'm confident they can afford it.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#425 - 2012-06-13 00:40:41 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.

Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.

If Star Fraction war-decs Goons, the war-dec cost is based on SF's size (74) + GSF's size (9069) and so costs 500 million. If the Goons war-dec SF, same deal. But if Star Fraction war-decs Rote Kapelle, the war-dec cost is based on the sum of the size of SF (74) and Rote (234).

Yes, this would make every Goon war-dec cost 500 million ISK. I'm confident they can afford it.

It's been proposed to make the wardec cost be based on the absolute of the difference in numbers between the parties involved. I'm pretty sure that proposal was ignored somewhere along the line.

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

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#426 - 2012-06-13 00:40:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Mechael wrote:
I am very curious what you think of the new "allies" system, Alek. I realize that it's better than what we had before, but I still don't rightly understand why there isn't just a "mercenary marketplace" window where anyone can browse through mercs and hire them for negotiable prices and durations regardless of whatever is currently happening with current wars (or the lack thereof.)

This current system seems very arbitrary and wonky to me. I'd like to get your take on it.

The ally system has destroyed the viability of the mercenary profession as EVE has known it since launch. The fact that Inferno's "mercenary marketplace" has cause said destruction is very ironic and not a little bit insulting. Mercs would have been better off if CCP just patched the holes in the war dec system without meddling.

But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way.

Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Vherik Askold
Doomheim
#427 - 2012-06-13 00:41:11 UTC
Simply make it that anyone that holds Sov can't declare war (but can be targets). Would concord really want large spaceholding entities fighting their 0.0 political wars in concord space?

Powers Sa
#428 - 2012-06-13 00:46:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Powers Sa
Jade Constantine wrote:

Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.

Nope. We want unlimited wars. We want to have everyone red. We want empire to be as dangerous for goons as 0.0. We've been leading empire roams thanks to all of the free wardecs. You had to go and break that for us. This is the only way to win the war against goonswarm: Give us less targets, and make us bored. You are a jerk for making CCP break this, and I will personally never forgive you, no troll.
Jade Constantine wrote:

Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it.
Thats the difference.

A narrative exists, except you aren't privy to the details of said narrative.
Issler Dainze wrote:

We are 150 person alliance being prema-dec-ed by the two largest alliances in Eve. How could we possible fight them in any fair manner? The war dec war-dec fees will never be factor to these big alliances, they print isks with their tech moons for example.

All actions have consequences. Consider your possible options in the future, and you may not have this issue in the future. If you provoke someone, be ready to ~deal with it~

Quote:

We have added two new rules to the forums for EVE Online. The new rules are as follows:

· Personal attacks and abuse of CCP staff.

There has been a worrying trend of increased personal attacks on developers on our own forums as of late, this will not be tolerated. Our forums are an area for players to exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who abuse staff will receive a permanent forum ban across all of their accounts which will not be subject to review at any time.

· Rumor threads and posts

Rumor threads and posts which are based off no actual information and are designed to either troll or annoy other users will be locked and removed. Players who engage in these type of threads can expect to receive a warning and ban.

It's a shame CCP locked it earlier, I wasn't able to respond until I woke up.

When you guys keep Citing 9000 Goons, as if we are running an active campaign against you, you are in error. There have been, at most 20, actively cooperating goons in a fleet traversing the perilous gates of empire trying to engage people that are wardec-ed or allied to a wardec. If you take your 9000 + 75+2+3+5+4+2+6+2+20 number and change to 50 + 75+2+3+5+4+2+6+2+20, it becomes more compelling.

Goons live everywhere in eve. They live in small wormholes, they live in lowsec, they mostly live in nullsec, they live in incursions, they have alts in FW, and some live in highsec. We are in every meaningful part of this game. We make it so you can play whatever part of this game that you want to and still be able to live life as a goon.

We didn't stop paying bills on the war because you kept adding more people to the wardec. The goal here is to have everyone blinky red to goonswarm and make Empire the exact same as 0.0 as far as compelling targets go. Individual goons hand a director isk, the director wardecs someone. Our leaders are happy with this direction. We are able to pay directors to start little wars that a handful of guys want to engage in. We don't care about K/D, we don't care about the ~isk war~, we don't care about losses/metrics in general. We troll people who lose expensive ship, and make sure they learn from their mistakes. Nothing you are going to do will dissuade us from what we want to do. You aren't going to make our life any difficult than we want it to be. We wanted more targets, you gave us less targets. You should chalk this up as a win and walk away.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#429 - 2012-06-13 01:03:05 UTC
Powers Sa wrote:
We don't care about K/D, we don't care about the ~isk war~, we don't care about losses/metrics in general. We troll people who lose expensive ship, and make sure they learn from their mistakes. Nothing you are going to do will dissuade us from what we want to do. You aren't going to make our life any difficult than we want it to be. We wanted more targets, you gave us less targets. You should chalk this up as a win and walk away.


Alternatively you can support my proposal and we'll both get what we appear to want.
A bigger and better forever war.

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

Flash Morden
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#430 - 2012-06-13 01:08:26 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
• Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out.

On the current SIsi build my frame rate drops from 60FPS to under 10FPS when firing missiles from a Drake.

CCP Goliath wrote:
• All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.

This creates a washed out look and makes artifacts in the texture stand out more. No improvement, much worse quality-wise.
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#431 - 2012-06-13 01:09:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Ripard Teg wrote:
Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.

Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.

If Star Fraction war-decs Goons, the war-dec cost is based on SF's size (74) + GSF's size (9069) and so costs 500 million. If the Goons war-dec SF, same deal. But if Star Fraction war-decs Rote Kapelle, the war-dec cost is based on the sum of the size of SF (74) and Rote (234).

Yes, this would make every Goon war-dec cost 500 million ISK. I'm confident they can afford it.

It's been proposed to make the wardec cost be based on the absolute of the difference in numbers between the parties involved. I'm pretty sure that proposal was ignored somewhere along the line.


Both these ideas where brought up by players, oh... the day after fan fest. Then they got brought up again the day the first Dev blog came out introducing the scaling price according to defender size and where repetitively brought up every few post (on the original Dev thread) right up until CCP released inferno. CCP knows of these ideas, they just have rejected (well mostly ignored) them from the get go.

Why have they rejected these types of proposals? I honestly can't say. CCP has addressed a few of these ideas occasionally, but mostly with hilariously bad or conflicting reasons. I think a lot of the problem is that since day 1, other than limiting the ability to shed a war dec, there really never was a coherent framework given for the goals of the new war dec system. So now at this point there are so many problems we all can't even agree on what those are.
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#432 - 2012-06-13 01:10:03 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Alternatively you can support my proposal and we'll both get what we appear to want.
A bigger and better forever war.


Or we can all jump on board the RMS Reality and acknowledge that CCP doesn't want a "get in on a forever war for free" thing to exist, no matter how fun a select few of us might find it. They clearly want the ally system to be a real game mechanic extension of the mercenary profession, so talking about any ideas that don't fit within that framework is a waste of time. One thing we know about CCP, after all - once they've decided they want something A Certain Way, you can't exactly change that.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#433 - 2012-06-13 01:35:51 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
Maybe this has already been suggested and I missed it, but there seems to be an easy enough way to at least partially break the deadlock.

Make the aggressor in a war-dec pay for the war based on the sum of the size of the two alliances/corps involved.


I'd prefer to see scaling based on the ratio of the bigger to the smaller entiy. Thus a wardec between two 10-member corps would attract roughly similar wardec fees to a wardec between two 1000-member corps. The number should be modified by activity level, so that a 100-member corp who has 10 members active at any time is only slightly more expensive to wardec than a 10 member corp who is "always" active.

The cost of adding allies to the defending side should be minimal up until the aggregate size of the defender approaches that of the attacker. After that, the fees should scale as if the defender was wardeccing the attacking corp. After all, we want to encourage a merc market: what market will there be for mercs if simply adding them to the defensive side costs too much ISK?

Of course, most of this discussion about wardecs is based on the premise that there is a way to make wardecs a vehicle for encouraging hisec care bears to engage in combat. Someone is forgetting that you can't solve social problems through technical or legislative means. The way to encourage hisec care bears to engage in combat is to encourage hisec care bears to engage in combat. Don't add fancy new mechanisms which will simply be gamed by all and sundry. Get out there, "face to face" with the people you'd like to draw further into the game, take them on low sec roams, help them get some kills.

Some hisec care bears play EVE Online as a simple game, like civilisation or Reach For The Stars. They may not necessarily be interested in flying spaceships around. They love the spreadsheets or the ore collecting or simply flying courier missions and enjoying the scenery. Wardeccing those people just so you can enjoy seeing them never log in again is counter-productive to the community as a whole. Providing them some incentive to engage in combat when wardecced might be productive.

To provide incentives for combat, bring in a goal based wardec system. "The goal of this wardec is to remove the POS from Brapelille IV Moon 5." Once that goal is accomplished (by blowing up the POS, or by the defender taking it down), the war is over.

"The goal of this wardec is to suppress X alliance activity in Y constellation for one week." CONCORD takes a fee from the instigator, and gives the instigator a week to achieve their goal. Thus if X alliance doesn't log in for two days, the instigator gets their ISK back. If X alliance stays active for that entire week in that constellation, the instigator loses their ISK (and X alliance claims that ISK as a reward). Activity might be determined as "units of ore mined" or "NPC bounties collected" for example.

At the simplest level, the goal of the wardec might be "inflict 1B ISK damages". Every ISK value of the target's ships lost counts for the instigator, every ISK value of instigator's ships lost counts against them. Again, the instigator would pay CONCORD a fee. If the wardec conditions are failed (by the end of the week you have not inflicted 1B ISK damages) the target gets the reward.

The important thing here is that the target has an incentive to participate: "Hah hah! Johnny Rotten and his three friends want to stop us mining Veldspar in Wyllequet. If we mine more than 1M units in a week, we win 100M ISK!" (Johnny Rotten's wardec fees in this case were 200M ISK: 100M for the wardec, 100M for the objectives security).

But while purposeless wardecs are on the table, the fees should simply scale by square of the ratio of larger to smaller entity. No caps. If a 9000 member alliance wants to wardec a 30 member alliance, they will be paying 90,000 times more than a 30 member alliance wardeccing that same alliance. If a 3 neckbeard alliance wants to wardec a 30 member alliance, they can pay 100 times as much as if they were 30-strong. Still gameable (just roll more alts to add to your wardeccing corporation as required), but more likely to result in wars that actually involve combat.
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#434 - 2012-06-13 01:47:33 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
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...


I thought you were for the supercapital nerf

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Powers Sa
#435 - 2012-06-13 01:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Powers Sa
Jade Constantine wrote:
Powers Sa wrote:
We don't care about K/D, we don't care about the ~isk war~, we don't care about losses/metrics in general. We troll people who lose expensive ship, and make sure they learn from their mistakes. Nothing you are going to do will dissuade us from what we want to do. You aren't going to make our life any difficult than we want it to be. We wanted more targets, you gave us less targets. You should chalk this up as a win and walk away.


Alternatively you can support my proposal and we'll both get what we appear to want.
A bigger and better forever war.


Alternatively, I approve CCP Soundwave's overall direction for the game. I want mercenaries like Noir. Mercenary Group to get paid what they are worth. Our whole venture into highsec with these wardecs has been to build up a realistic bounty hunter profession, but unlike CCP's crappy ingame bounty system, ours actually works. Your massive boohoo fest was just a result of us testing things.
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.

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.

This all looks good to me.

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#436 - 2012-06-13 01:49:45 UTC
Manssell wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that since day 1, other than limiting the ability to shed a war dec, there really never was a coherent framework given for the goals of the new war dec system.


+1

What is the purpose of the wardec system, CCP?

We already have PvP in hisec in the form of can flipping, suicide ganking and awoxing. We already have RvB and FW. The people who are interested in fighting have many avenues for exploring their desire to blow things up.

Forcing industrial corps to dock and log out for a week is not "content", and it will never result in hisec care bears taking that first vital step into PvP. They'll go and play Diablo III or Words with Friends instead.

Having objective based wardecs with a reward system in place might motivate care bears to participate rather than disappear.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#437 - 2012-06-13 02:03:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Mara Rinn wrote:
Manssell wrote:
I think a lot of the problem is that since day 1, other than limiting the ability to shed a war dec, there really never was a coherent framework given for the goals of the new war dec system.


+1

What is the purpose of the wardec system, CCP?

We already have PvP in hisec in the form of can flipping, suicide ganking and awoxing. We already have RvB and FW. The people who are interested in fighting have many avenues for exploring their desire to blow things up.

Forcing industrial corps to dock and log out for a week is not "content", and it will never result in hisec care bears taking that first vital step into PvP. They'll go and play Diablo III or Words with Friends instead.

Having objective based wardecs with a reward system in place might motivate care bears to participate rather than disappear.


The sad thing is that when you end up jumping down on emergent gameplay and imaginative uses of the wardec ally system to allow a massively outnumbered target to turn the tables on a big fat aggressor because "eve isn't supposed to be fair" it does kinda leave you wondering what the point of the wardec system is as the poster above asks.

Is it just a pay-to-grief (with zero consequences on the attacker) tool after all?

Its not working for merc corps ... Alekseyev Karrde the CSM rep who knows more about empire wars and merc fighting than the rest of the CSM put together says this 1.1 change was the only option all the CSM agreed wouldn't help at all!

So whats the wardec change for if its NOT to boost or improve the merc profession?

It sure doesn't help defenders fight back against bigger attackers.
It doesn't help help little corps whose wars get jumped on by big fish.
It doesn't add any structure or goal to the system.

The ONLY thing it does is add increased advantage and defense to large alliances who wish to engage in wardecs without risking escalation by the defender.

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

Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#438 - 2012-06-13 02:04:16 UTC
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Brunaburh wrote:
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
Highsec entities a forced into wars without the diplo tools nullsec entities take for granted.


Since when do Hisec entities not have the ability to use chat, Skype, voice communications and negotiating skills?


Since when could any highsec entity just jump into a war and fire on enemies without beeing part of the wardec?


you are correct - it's a 24 hour notice to start a war, right? So it takes 24 hours.

However, the argument you are trying to make is answered by "in nullsec" - because CONCORD.
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#439 - 2012-06-13 02:08:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Mechael
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
The ally system has destroyed the viability of the mercenary profession as EVE has known it since launch. The fact that Inferno's "mercenary marketplace" has cause said destruction is very ironic and not a little bit insulting. Mercs would have been better off if CCP just patched the holes in the war dec system without meddling.

But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way.

Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.



See, now, that's good dialogue. Thank you, Alek. Most informative. Hopefully our hopes can be higher in the future.

Edit: Oh, and yes, I still think the rest of this patch looks great. :)

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

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#440 - 2012-06-13 02:15:05 UTC
Mechael wrote:
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
The ally system has destroyed the viability of the mercenary profession as EVE has known it since launch. The fact that Inferno's "mercenary marketplace" has cause said destruction is very ironic and not a little bit insulting. Mercs would have been better off if CCP just patched the holes in the war dec system without meddling.

But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way.

Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.



See, now, that's good dialogue. Thank you, Alek. Most informative. Hopefully our hopes can be higher in the future.


Yeah pretty much, example of good CSM communications - though it does show what a worrying fiasco the wardec change really is.

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