These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Eref Ataru
Kaos Studios
#541 - 2012-06-13 17:11:12 UTC
Let me just state, that I dont think the small corps are being represented in this thread, but that the core argument at the centre of the debate is that the question of how many corps we have to use to make up the attackers numbers, should not be punished and in the new system it is.

The new system will directly hinder any new merc corp starting up, I mean if they only have 10 members who in the right mind is going to hire them when they can go to a larger corp, pay the same Concord price for their help as 1 corp = 1 corp regardless of size. That just doesnt make sense?


I'd also like to add that many of the smaller corps in game are no doubt in support of Jades proposes but are perhaps too scared to voice their opinion in this thread for fear of reprocusions to their corp. So dont take the fact that it appears "Only Jade" because it isnt, I am truely disappointed that this kind of discussion wasnt resolved by the CSM as that is the ideal place for it, but to me again it highlights that whilst the CSM contains a heavy powerploc bias, you will never be able to true representation of the eve populace.
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#542 - 2012-06-13 17:11:39 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
Moreover, even if you managed to recruit every hisec trash corp in your free and idiot proof crusade, you'd STILL never be able to do any meaningful impact against the ebil alliance since you won't actually go to where it lives or operate cooperatively.


So what? The defensive coalition can deny access to hisec to the largest alliance in the game. Eventually you'll surrender.


Why would we surrender with all those targets?

Seriously, your logic is so full of holes and tinfoil. Give up already.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#543 - 2012-06-13 17:12:50 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

No you are ignoring the fact there is no pretense of gameplay balance where the attacker in a 9000 man alliance must pay 50m per week while the defender in a 100 man alliance would need to pay billions per week to attract a competant merc corp to fight a war that they have absolutely no chance (or indeed mechanism) of bringing to a conclusion. Especially since inferno 1.1 also nerfs the mutual system. The moment you bring in any ally (including your illustrious mercs) then it becomes effectively impossible to "win" the war because the attacker than just :forget: to pay the bill and escape at any time.

I have said this to you multiple times. I can only imagine you are now trolling. Suggesting the appropriate response to a 50m isk dec is to spend billions a week on mercs is simply a scam attempt.

Nonsense. You aren't being given a chance to "bring a war to a conclusion" because that is not an option for any side in highsec wars in EVE. If your wet dream came true and the attacker actually withdrew you can pay the mercs to wardec them. All of your complaints come down to "I don't want to pay money". Sorry, that's EVE. You're being given choices: you can fight on your own, you can recruit into your corp, you can surrender, you can hide, you can hire mercs. You keep acting as if you have no choices, but that's merely a result of your unwillingness to pay the costs of the choices you want.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#544 - 2012-06-13 17:13:46 UTC
there have been about 4 weeks in the last five years goons could safely go in highsec

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Rengerel en Distel
#545 - 2012-06-13 17:15:48 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Moreover, even if you managed to recruit every hisec trash corp in your free and idiot proof crusade, you'd STILL never be able to do any meaningful impact against the ebil alliance since you won't actually go to where it lives or operate cooperatively.

Your entire argument is a strawman. Give it up.


Instead of arguing why the change needs to be made, since a change will be made, what change should be made is what needs to be argued. CCP is going with a fee based model for allies, which everyone seems to agree doesn't solve the issue of promoting merc corps. Without the merc marketplace to showcase the better mercs, we'll end up with one MERC alliance that everyone hires if they're able with the free slot. That's not emergent gameplay.

Until the merc marketplace is in place, Jade's balancing of forces seems to be the best solution to the problem until a re-iteration takes place with the marketplace. The aggressors can still simply not pay if the war isn't going well, or surrender and move on to something else. All other debate when it talks about "actual" forces involved in a war are outside the scope really of CCP to take into account. They've based the system on characters in the alliance, so everything has to go from there. It doesn't matter if only 20 people from one alliance roam high sec, CCP can't base anything off of that, only the potential of all of them participating.

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#546 - 2012-06-13 17:16:45 UTC
The best change would be if CCP would give us a free mutual wardec with all of highsec all the time.

 Though All Men Do Despise Us
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#547 - 2012-06-13 17:18:57 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
Moreover, even if you managed to recruit every hisec trash corp in your free and idiot proof crusade, you'd STILL never be able to do any meaningful impact against the ebil alliance since you won't actually go to where it lives or operate cooperatively.


So what? The defensive coalition can deny access to hisec to the largest alliance in the game. Eventually you'll surrender.


Unlikely. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Most pilots who have been in null for more than a few days have high sec hauling alts in npc corps. So, this current system, while ridiculous, does not impact a null sec alliance.

A war between a high sec alliance/corp and a null sec alliance is simply ridiculous really. The high sec corp/alliance cannot "win" because they aren't going to go to null and attack sovereignty. The null sec alliance, likewise, cannot "win" because there really are not victory conditions that can be met unless the high sec group willfully loses. I mean, what are they going to do? Camp them into a station for a day? Shoot towers they magically forgot to take down in the 24 hour heads-up window?

The whole war dec system is ridiculous. There are no victory conditions that can be met in empire. This is why war decs are broken. CCP can monkey with the details of the mechanic all they want, until there is a way for both sides to grind the other into the ground with their thumb, it will continue to be a broken mechanic.
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#548 - 2012-06-13 17:20:44 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
I mean, what are they going to do? Camp them into a station for a day? Shoot towers they magically forgot to take down in the 24 hour heads-up window?


Now we would never do that wouldn't we?

 Though All Men Do Despise Us
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2012-06-13 17:21:06 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Hardly. Even that condition is nigh impossible to achieve, and you know it. You're being deliberately obtuse to filibuster the issue. Accept that your toys are being taken out of the pram due to safety recalls and deal with it.

Edit: ^Fit a tank and you don't have to worry about destroyers. Your mids and lowslots in an exhumer are not purpose-built for cargo expanders and mining upgrades. An unarmed ship SHOULD be killable by anything in the game; you're relying on Concord for protection when in fact it is just a penalizing force.
This is waaay offtopic though so that's the last I'll say about it.


Two destroyers then? What a whopping 5m to kill a 265mil Hulk, even if said Hulk is fitted with a tank. I think this is very much on the topic of making playstyles matter in Eve that Soundwave said he was trying to do. Mercs and miners are two different groups that both want to be able to have a reasonable expectation of performing their desired playstyle in the game. I don't understand why Mercs count but miners don't get an opinion.

Eve isn't supposed to be fair so lets make it tough on the ganker to get a kill instead of making the miner have to be the one to pay the price. The ganker can always join a Merc corp, start a war, or go to Low/Null to find someone to kill. Heck they can find 1v1 fights in almost every major trade hub if they only have a few minutes to be online. Lets show some consideration to the high sec miner that's logged on for an hour to visit his friends and enjoy a relaxing time killing astroids. Sure he still has to take some precautions to stay safe, the same as someone running a mission or hauling cargo around, but lets make it so the miner has the advantage and make the ganker have to work for the kill.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#550 - 2012-06-13 17:23:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Eref Ataru wrote:

The new system will directly hinder any new merc corp starting up, I mean if they only have 10 members who in the right mind is going to hire them when they can go to a larger corp, pay the same Concord price for their help as 1 corp = 1 corp regardless of size. That just doesnt make sense?

New nullsec alliances pop up all the time, and let me tell you, the barriers in the way of breaking into 0.0 is far greater then starting a highsec mercenary corp. The answer to your question is that such a small corp will either have to be able to prove their worth in results, recruit more members, lower their fees, or fail at their mercenary ambitions. They are not entitled to suceed any moreso then any other small startup enterprise in EVE.

For CSM 7, the EVE playerbase elected an experienced merc leader (Aleks) onto the council to represent highsec PVP. And a highsec mining corp leader (Issler) to represent highsec industry. Unfortunately for some, their ideas of improving their constituencies' space by increasing pvp, risk and scarcity as opposed to the evil predecessor 0.0 council, who were more content to ignore highsec then anything and press for 0.0 gameplay fixes instead.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#551 - 2012-06-13 17:26:12 UTC
Amdor Renevat wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
Hardly. Even that condition is nigh impossible to achieve, and you know it. You're being deliberately obtuse to filibuster the issue. Accept that your toys are being taken out of the pram due to safety recalls and deal with it.

Edit: ^Fit a tank and you don't have to worry about destroyers. Your mids and lowslots in an exhumer are not purpose-built for cargo expanders and mining upgrades. An unarmed ship SHOULD be killable by anything in the game; you're relying on Concord for protection when in fact it is just a penalizing force.
This is waaay offtopic though so that's the last I'll say about it.


Two destroyers then? What a whopping 5m to kill a 265mil Hulk, even if said Hulk is fitted with a tank. I think this is very much on the topic of making playstyles matter in Eve that Soundwave said he was trying to do. Mercs and miners are two different groups that both want to be able to have a reasonable expectation of performing their desired playstyle in the game.

"Mining" is a playstyle, "mining in a max-yield, zero tank, empty midslot failfit hulk" is not.
hth
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#552 - 2012-06-13 17:28:03 UTC
Krios Ahzek wrote:
Bagehi wrote:
I mean, what are they going to do? Camp them into a station for a day? Shoot towers they magically forgot to take down in the 24 hour heads-up window?


Now we would never do that wouldn't we?

You guys have Star Fraction, we have the Honda Accord. I doubt either of us could camp them in. They probably have JCs all over the place in empire with the amount of high sec grinding they have to have accomplished after all these years. Sadly, I doubt they had any structures to hit to begin with.

There really isn't much we can do to them, using a war dec, that we couldn't do far better with a handful of suicide ganks unfortunately. The war dec mechanic remains fairly useless as far as its intended purpose.
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#553 - 2012-06-13 17:34:03 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=72889

CCP just posted a devblog on this. Edit: Trolling removed, CCP Phantom
michael boltonIII
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#554 - 2012-06-13 17:43:43 UTC
michael boltonIII wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:

I think you should read the Inferno war devblog a bit closer. Any allies we bring into a war have their successes and failures recorded on our permanent war statistics. If we hired nothing but a bunch of innept clowns then our space e-pride would be dangerously wounded and people wouldn't take us seriously in future wars.

But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.



I would caution that ~honour~ is not really a viable enough stat to base a game mechanic around since it not quantifiable in any way.

Also, There is a world of difference between virtually no risk and ZERO risk. If I'm mining in a hulk, aligned to a safe pos, and ready to warp if someone enters local, then I have virutally no risk. If i want to fly around and pvp in a rifter, it costs me virtually no money to lose it. I cannot think of a single activity in game where I can gain something for myself or my alliance with ZERO (as in absolutely none) risk or cost aside from the current dogpile mechanic.

If you can come up with something other than getting a high score on the ship spin counter, then I am all ears.

Edit: Oops, I missed losing a noobship (but even then you lose an asset you could have sold) or losing an unimplanted alpha pod when you have less than 900k SP (but that is a mech designed to protect the very newest of players)


I'm still waiting on a reply Jade. I can understand that you don't enjoy getting dunked on, but I'm pretty much the Shaquille O'Neil of posting, I can't help but break the backboard.

I originally made my proposal of allowing war allies the same aggression rights with each other as corp mates as a joke, but now that I think about it, it solves the arguments on every side.

You get to build a coalition that is as large as you like, with as many members as you can gather, and you get to do it for free. You take the same risk in giving someone your trust that any 0.0 group does when picking allies, so it's a proven mechanic, and there are consequences for carelessly giving away your trust. Mercs are happy because suddenly reputation is very important, good groups can charge fees again because unkown merc groups could just be awox'ers.

It'll fit in with the revamp of Crime Watch, hell I think big alliances would even concede a big nerf and let alliances have the same aggression mechanics as corps, so that everything is congruent. You should already trust corps you let into your alliance enough not to aggress you, and it cuts out confusing and frustrating events when alliance fleets try and figure out who is in what corp (plus highsec alliance thunderdomes can happen again, hooray).
Rikanin
Mining Reloaded
The Commonwealth.
#555 - 2012-06-13 17:47:21 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Navigator
Removed.
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#556 - 2012-06-13 17:49:19 UTC
Rikanin wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Jade, this isn't GD. You don't *have* to understand where Test/Goons/Anyone but you stands on it. That's our job. You are welcome to give us feedback, not to tell everyone posting their own feedback that they're wrong. They're not wrong, and neither are you, because it's impossible to be wrong when you're just offering an opinion or idea for consideration.


More Goon favoritism I guess - I never see CCP stomping up and down on any of the **** griefing bad posts the goons make.


I have deleted approx 75% of goon posts in this thread, and will continue to do so when they step out of line. The only reason I didn't delete your post is that I didn't want to throw fuel on your fire.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#557 - 2012-06-13 18:07:55 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Rikanin wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Jade, this isn't GD. You don't *have* to understand where Test/Goons/Anyone but you stands on it. That's our job. You are welcome to give us feedback, not to tell everyone posting their own feedback that they're wrong. They're not wrong, and neither are you, because it's impossible to be wrong when you're just offering an opinion or idea for consideration.


More Goon favoritism I guess - I never see CCP stomping up and down on any of the **** griefing bad posts the goons make.


I have deleted approx 75% of goon posts in this thread, and will continue to do so when they step out of line. The only reason I didn't delete your post is that I didn't want to throw fuel on your fire.


To be fair Goliath has vaporized an awful lot of troll posts that were fired in my direction.
I do think he's done a good job of moderating what was a pretty charged subject and hot debate.

So thanks for that mate!

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
#558 - 2012-06-13 18:11:29 UTC

Anyway the wardec discussion is over. The forces of repression and tryannical poltroonary have triumphed and independent freedom-fighters will have to find workarounds in the new system. Life goes on.

So to change the subject.

Incarna clothing in the LP store. Bravo.

If this gets followed up by ship skins in the LP store it will be a massive success and turnaround from last-years fiasco with the NeX store.

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.
#559 - 2012-06-13 18:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Yonis Kador wrote:
With that being said, as someone who has no feelings either way, I do wish I were able to see both futures in this scenario. If all of high-sec were to hold hands in a massive, interconnected web of unlimited ally, hand-holding, kum-ba-ya'ing do-gooders and actually managed to wipe the entire Goon alliance off the map - what happens then?

You don't need a wardec to do this. In fact, having a live wardec to do this would be counter-productive to your logistics when doing it.

If you want to band together to take on Goons you can, right now, without highsec PVP mechanics ever coming into play.

Leaving a system in place which was solely being used to shoot unaware stragglers in highsec mission/trade hubs is not conducive to this aim or any kind of emergent gameplay at all.

The rest of your points were against the system and actually make sense, so on balance you'll have to agree the change isn't anything to do with large alliances.

If large alliances wanted a change to the wardec mechanics, this wouldn't be it. It would be CTRL+A, wardec.

"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,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#560 - 2012-06-13 18:22:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
If your point is that all wars fought are fought on equal terms, then let's just say that we completely disagree. I'd say the exact opposite, wars are fought when one side feels they have an advantage. Engaging in "fair fights" is about as far from human instinctive behavior as it gets, as soon as we're in a scenario where you have something to lose.


I think the point is in a game (which this is) people will be far more likely to fight when they feel they have a competitive fighting chance. If people do not feel they have a competitive fighting chance then they will simply opt not to fight.

See, you simply can't post without it being statements of personal preference presented as group fact. They're not. This is why not a single person is listening to you.

On Sunday I had a WoT game where me and another 2 guys took a 5>12 game to 13>13 and then won. Outside of EvE, that was probably the best gaming experience I'd had in years.

You can fight outnumbered. In fact, in your specific "issue" the numbers game is basically your fleet vs whatever happens to be hanging around in highsec. It should be very easy for you to engineer victories against GSF in this scenario because you're small and well organised fighting basically the tail end of a large pack of "press F1 warriors" (your term).

You could then start posting about your victories in this war, despite being outnumbered.

Instead, you're whining and telling everyone it's not fair and the only solution is free allies.

That's not EvE.

e: Your actual battle strategy was to basically "threaten" GSF with a stupid loophole in the wardec strategy with a LOL 150bil ransom demand and sit back and do nothing. Then this got removed and you went on a giant whinefest.

"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,