EVE General Discussion

I completely disagree, these are my changes that are being discussed and I should certainly be on the side of my changes or something would be horribly wrong.

As it now appears that the shoes is once again completely on the aggressors foot and not really giving the defenders much of a chance without forking out massive amounts of money I must ask. Why did they even bother changing them in the first place?

Take our best example Goonswarm, it now costs a lot more to wardec them but the same or relatively so for them to wardec us.
Apparently it doesn't work as intended if everyone jumps on wars the Goonswarm started even though so many people want to attack them, maybe for their actions like Burn Jita and Hulkagedon.

If it was another large alliance that so many people didn't dislike as much it would not be a problem. The new mechanic before the nerf meant that if they started a war they got attacked. Now they are just better off than before and smaller alliances are a lot worse off. Maybe CCP should just skip to the end and force everyone to join a large Alliance.

I think we should go back to the old less broken system.

When we have abused mechanics here such as, for example, the rampent ganking of mining barges in hi-sec, or in this case "dog-piling" into war-decs, isn't the responce from goons et al usually HTFU, adapt or die etc. etc.?

So what give in this case?

What mechanics are being abused in a way the devs didn't intend in your ganking example?

The ally system was being used in a way the devs did not intend as evidenced by their Dev blog on the subject before the new Dec system went live.

After reading up on what has been happening I was waiting for the comments from CCP Soundwave and CCP Unifex like they did with Burn Jita, Hulkageddon, etc. You know like:But no, comments like that were not to be seen, instead we get a scrambling backpedal from CCP.

So where's Goonswarms "Just have to roll with it" CCP? Sorry but this reeks of a double standard.

Every thread on the subject is full of goons howling for the change. Simply read them. Evidence is pretty clear.

I think the real issue at hand here is that Jade doesnt understand that hisec wars don't really affect large nullsec alliances. So how can this change be in favour of alliances that have chosen to live in a perma-wardec-esque state out in lawless space? The idea that CCP is protecting the large nullsec alliances from hisec wars is pretty daft. People like Jade need to go away and think about what they've done...

If you want to fight a nullsec alliance with unlimited friends and at zero cost guess where you can go?

Here I was thinking that CCP would be worrying about giving the deccers infinate free targets through the new ally system. Especially since allies can't back out of the agreement.

jade, can we call a truce? i left a cheetah hull in amarr that i need to get out

Having plowed through an interesting debate in which I have no fish to fry, it seems that Ms Constantine has the right of it.

CCP Soundwave's comment here:-

"[...] you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which isn't really a design philosophy in EVE. "

Seems rather odd from the point of game design philosophy.

To elucidate:-

At the micro level, no game design will allow "Tankmages".

At a macro level, some element of "fairness" (actually the correct terms is "balance") needs to be retained otherwise you have the Alliance-level analogue of a "Tankmage".

Any game design requires balanced forces, or the possibility of bringing things into balance (dynamic ongoing balance - there may be imbalances at times, but there have to be mechanisms to right that balance), otherwise there is no game. Things have to shift around fairly regularly, otherwise the game dies.

Furthermore, if you want to attract players to the game, precisely what you want to do is enable "mom and pop" organizations to band together against the big guns and shake things up. There needs to be an ease of doing that, to match the ease with which the larger organizations are able to wage war.

(IIRC the Goons did something like "newbie frig blobs" in their early days in EVE, but that was because they had the advantage of an out-of-game community with which to help organize it. Really, it would be better to have an in-game mechanic that enables disparate strangers to get together to do something similar.)

EVE's game design philosophy is not (and never ought to be) to allow large organizations to dominate. It is (and ought to be) to foster pew-pew so that the market can tick over so that EVE can be both an s-f simulator and a game. THAT is EVE's design philosophy.

Trying to turn EVE into "LOL In Space" - a game purely and solely about "winning" at any cost - will break EVE.

This thread has gone way off the topic. *click*