These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

requiescat csm7 - withdrawn - vote T'Amber instead! yay
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#21 - 2012-02-09 19:16:23 UTC
This guy has been passing himself off as the original owner of the character Requiescat but blatantly isn't.

Would you trust a CSM that flat out lies to you?

http://eve-search.com/thread/1445996-0/page/1#4

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#22 - 2012-02-10 00:37:42 UTC
Requiescat wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
The issue with aggression systems and large fights in high-sec is not as you said. We had a large fight with Abaddons and Guardians against Drakes and their POS in hisec, and whenever we aggressed a new target, the energy transfers and remote reps of the Guardians turned off. Every single time, even though the Guardians were not aggressed to anything new. It was far, far worse than the ECM drones, causing something like half the logistics to be completely capped out at any given time.

The way that remote reps deactivate when someone gains an aggression timer might protect Incursion runners from scams and ganks, but the last time I checked it renders large-scale usage of Guardians and Basilisks completely impractical in hisec, ruining completely legitimate engagements.


I was not aware of this, but again, a complete overhaul of the aggression system is on my agenda. I don't see this being a problem going forward

And as for the ECM debate, how about "first first," ergo if one ecm mod is active on a target, any additional mods take stacking penalty regardless of strength, and if by some miracle multiple mods activate at the same time, strongest first will apply?

As for the first subject, it is a very important issue that requires a lot more attention than "ccp please fix aggression kthx". It is a deliberate change that CCP has implemented in stages since the release of incursions, and it is continually worsening the situation for any legitimate fights in hisec.

As for the ECM thing, that's just reiterating what you said originally, and it once again would not be a good mechanic. Activating modules one at a time from weakest to strongest would still provide the best chance to jam. I could only support this if it was proposed with a formula that would always yield the same effectiveness when combining different modules in any order.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Requiescat
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-02-10 02:22:11 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
This guy has been passing himself off as the original owner of the character Requiescat but blatantly isn't.

Would you trust a CSM that flat out lies to you?

http://eve-search.com/thread/1445996-0/page/1#4


I got phished, I got my character restored. You're just desparate to discredit me, aren't you?

PS: If this guy ran for CSM, I could make the very same post you just made.

hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#24 - 2012-02-10 04:23:11 UTC
I think you are doing a perfectly good job discrediting yourself.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Requiescat
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2012-02-10 04:24:18 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
I think you are doing a perfectly good job discrediting yourself.


I think you're doing a perfectly good job of being my own personal Tea Party, so thanks for that

hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#26 - 2012-02-10 04:26:58 UTC
Lady Spank wrote:
I think you are doing a perfectly good job discrediting yourself.

He obviously did not sell the character. If he really has offenses on his account from scamming character transfers, I'm sure that CCP will cut him out of the ballot in the second stage. This is not something you need to concern yourself with.

Quote:
In addition to the above in accordance with the CSM white paper, any serious violations of the EVE Online EULA may void your eligibility to run.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Requiescat
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-02-10 04:38:06 UTC
Iam: I haven't put in my official ballot application yet, my passport is in the mail. When it comes, we'll see what's up.

Arrow
Some brainstorming on the war overhaul:

Question
What if there were some sort of delay to leaving an alliance while at war? Leaving a corp while at war? Maybe a 24-hour aggression timer for people who leave corps to escape wars?

Question
I think the escalating-price model needs to be looked at, in particular I think it would be novel for the price of multiple sustained wars to decline over time, so that, say, if your alliance has two other alliances perma-wardec'd, eventually the 100mil dec will slide down to 50m, and after a long enough period (say, a month or two) neither will count against your total of active wars for the purposes of calculating costs. This will have a twofold effect, firstly making operations like the 0rphanage a little easier to manage, and secondly making dec shielding operations like E-UNI runs (multiple alt corps permadec the main alliance to keep the wardec cost prohibitively high) a little more complicated to run, if possible at all.

hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#28 - 2012-02-10 04:43:58 UTC
Requiescat wrote:
Iam: I haven't put in my official ballot application yet, my passport is in the mail. When it comes, we'll see what's up.

Arrow
Some brainstorming on the war overhaul:

Question
What if there were some sort of delay to leaving an alliance while at war? Leaving a corp while at war? Maybe a 24-hour aggression timer for people who leave corps to escape wars?

Question
I think the escalating-price model needs to be looked at, in particular I think it would be novel for the price of multiple sustained wars to decline over time, so that, say, if your alliance has two other alliances perma-wardec'd, eventually the 100mil dec will slide down to 50m, and after a long enough period (say, a month or two) neither will count against your total of active wars for the purposes of calculating costs. This will have a twofold effect, firstly making operations like the 0rphanage a little easier to manage, and secondly making dec shielding operations like E-UNI runs (multiple alt corps permadec the main alliance to keep the wardec cost prohibitively high) a little more complicated to run, if possible at all.

I think dec shields should be mechanically impossible as they exist today.

Here are my thoughts pertaining to the war mechanics situation today. Tell me what you think.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Requiescat
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#29 - 2012-02-10 04:53:55 UTC
@Iam: I like a lot of the points you bring up, honestly. However, a couple of things:

I think an ISK fee for leaving a corp that's at war would penalize the honest newbie who's too new to know what's going on, and his corp recommends that he leave while they settle out their differences with whoever else

I think disallowing corps from joining alliances while wardec'd may be going too far. I think the war should continue for at least one more week at the same cost, and the corp shouldn't be able to (as freely) leave the alliance once it's in, and a stasis period for joining would be neat too, but I like it when a corp I've dec'd joins a meaty alliance full of new targets who don't know what to expect from me. At the same time, your proposition would pretty much eliminate Jita undock alliances, who definitely have their place in New New Eden

Alliances that exist solely for the purpose of dec shielding are stupid, honestly, how any GM could have thought that would be OK is beyond me.

I think a new UI for corp joining would be a neat idea; when you go to apply to a corp, a window pops up with the name and logo of the corp, etc, and other information like taxes, website, current wars, leadership structure, and a "recruitment description" written by a director, versus the current "apply to corp -> include text with application?" dialog

I think the "war" tab in the corporation window could use some updates. I think it's a pretty awful and clunky interface and people who want to do wars have just been putting up with it, and it could be so much better than it is. Maybe an expandable list of wars, both active and pending, that drop down and have info like relevant dates, a link to a "member delta" window with summaries of new and departing members to the hostile corp, etc etc etc, which is all information available from the API and viewable on third-party websites, but could be integrated into the EVE UI itself

hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#30 - 2012-02-10 05:39:00 UTC
Requiescat wrote:
@Iam: I like a lot of the points you bring up, honestly. However, a couple of things:

I think an ISK fee for leaving a corp that's at war would penalize the honest newbie who's too new to know what's going on, and his corp recommends that he leave while they settle out their differences with whoever else

I think disallowing corps from joining alliances while wardec'd may be going too far. I think the war should continue for at least one more week at the same cost, and the corp shouldn't be able to (as freely) leave the alliance once it's in, and a stasis period for joining would be neat too, but I like it when a corp I've dec'd joins a meaty alliance full of new targets who don't know what to expect from me. At the same time, your proposition would pretty much eliminate Jita undock alliances, who definitely have their place in New New Eden

Sure, I can see not wanting to pay an ISK fee to leave the corporation. That seems like it's punishing the wrong people.

Disallowing corps from joining alliances while wardec'd is almost completely essential, I think. The only way to avoid that is to make the war, once transferred to the joined alliance, transfer BACK to the corporation when it leaves again. Aside from that, what are your concerns about it? I assume that if a major alliance were to attempt to reform, an enemy alliance would be able to declare war on their members with alt corporations nearly indefinitely... other than that I don't see any major issues with this that demand resolution.

Perhaps the war should simply transfer back to the corporation when it leaves. If they were allowed to join an alliance, you would NEED to have a notification for both parties that the corp is now in the process of joining an alliance.

  • Originally dec shield alliances were considered an exploit vetted entirely by GM petitions, which was a slow, expensive, and cumbersome process. The reason they are allowed now is that the GMs simply can't be assed to investigate and punish every instance of disobedience that is judged to be intentional, and I don't blame them. The underlying problem is the mechanics that allow this to happen in the first place; if it isn't even possible for corporations to swap through alliances and scrape off wars, you've solved the problem already.

    • And another question -- which part of these mechanics would prevent Privateer-model alliances from functioning? I don't see...

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
    Requiescat
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #31 - 2012-02-10 05:43:46 UTC
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    And another question -- which part of these mechanics would prevent Privateer-model alliances from functioning? I don't see...


    Making it difficult for corps and alliances who are at war to interface creates a problem for alliances that are constantly at war trying to recruit new corps, corps trying to leave those alliances, or corps already at war attempting to join those alliances

    hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
    Iam Widdershins
    Project Nemesis
    #32 - 2012-02-10 05:48:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
    Requiescat wrote:
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    And another question -- which part of these mechanics would prevent Privateer-model alliances from functioning? I don't see...


    Making it difficult for corps and alliances who are at war to interface creates a problem for alliances that are constantly at war trying to recruit new corps, corps trying to leave those alliances, or corps already at war attempting to join those alliances

    I think wars SHOULD put these things on hold. It needn't do it forever -- just a day or two, as a necessary fix to dec-shields and alliance hopping to save your POS.

    If the alliance is already at war, there's no reason for it to take any longer; if the corporation is at war, there needs to be something in place to prevent this from scraping off their wars.

    If a corporation is in an alliance at war or people are in a corporation at war, they should not be able to just scatter to the wind on a moment's notice to avoid conflict. That's what the timers are for. None of this would prevent you from keeping up a constant raster of wars the same way Privateers, The 0rphanage, and Moar Tears have been doing.

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
    Requiescat
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #33 - 2012-02-10 05:51:54 UTC
    What if a corporation at war joining alliance maintained the dec targeted at that corp?

    What I mean is... say Corp X is dec'd by Corp Y. Corp X joins Alliance A, and now Corp Y has a dec targetted at Alliance A. They can maintain it for the cost of the corp dec, for a short while (a week or two extra, to prevent gaming the system). If Corp X leaves Alliance A, the dec comes with it, and Corp Y immediately gets a full fledged war against them again, no "stasis period" or anything like that, it's just back to business as usual.

    hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
    Iam Widdershins
    Project Nemesis
    #34 - 2012-02-10 06:23:24 UTC
    Requiescat wrote:
    What if a corporation at war joining alliance maintained the dec targeted at that corp?

    What I mean is... say Corp X is dec'd by Corp Y. Corp X joins Alliance A, and now Corp Y has a dec targetted at Alliance A. They can maintain it for the cost of the corp dec, for a short while (a week or two extra, to prevent gaming the system). If Corp X leaves Alliance A, the dec comes with it, and Corp Y immediately gets a full fledged war against them again, no "stasis period" or anything like that, it's just back to business as usual.

    That's what I was thinking. You could have a war dec aimed at "Fidelas Constans (1st Steps Academy)", because you declared war on 1SA while they were out of the alliance. As long as you keep this war alive, 1SA leaving the alliance will transfer the war back to them.

    If you declare war on multiple corporations and they all join the same alliance, they should transfer into a single war -- for instance, "Fidelas Constans (1st Steps Academy, United Amarr Templar Legion)" -- and you only have to pay for it as one war. If any of the corporations leave, they split off into their own war.

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
    Requiescat
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #35 - 2012-02-10 06:47:49 UTC
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    If you declare war on multiple corporations and they all join the same alliance, they should transfer into a single war -- for instance, "Fidelas Constans (1st Steps Academy, United Amarr Templar Legion)" -- and you only have to pay for it as one war. If any of the corporations leave, they split off into their own war.


    I like it, but it still needs some kind of caveat to prevent it from being abused, for what I'll call MNP - Miscellaneous Nefarious Purposes

    hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
    Iam Widdershins
    Project Nemesis
    #36 - 2012-02-10 07:13:42 UTC
    Requiescat wrote:
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    If you declare war on multiple corporations and they all join the same alliance, they should transfer into a single war -- for instance, "Fidelas Constans (1st Steps Academy, United Amarr Templar Legion)" -- and you only have to pay for it as one war. If any of the corporations leave, they split off into their own war.


    I like it, but it still needs some kind of caveat to prevent it from being abused, for what I'll call MNP - Miscellaneous Nefarious Purposes

    If it's possible to abuse the process, then it needs to be changed. I have this in mind at every stage of the process, which is why there are so many aspects to the mechanic: to protect against abuse. I just started from locking people into corps that are war and then developed the idea from there.

    How would YOU abuse this system?

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
    Requiescat
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #37 - 2012-02-10 07:18:16 UTC
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    How would YOU abuse this system?


    At the very minimum, it could be "abused" to make RvB a lot cheaper than it needs to be. Which I suppose is not a terrible thing.

    Wars could be used to lock people into a corp, or to lock corps into an alliance, both of which can be abused for MNP

    Mostly those are just wrinkles, but I've learned that you should never underestimate the EVE community's capacity for mischief

    hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
    Iam Widdershins
    Project Nemesis
    #38 - 2012-02-10 07:24:32 UTC
    Requiescat wrote:
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    How would YOU abuse this system?


    At the very minimum, it could be "abused" to make RvB a lot cheaper than it needs to be. Which I suppose is not a terrible thing.

    Wars could be used to lock people into a corp, or to lock corps into an alliance, both of which can be abused for MNP

    Mostly those are just wrinkles, but I've learned that you should never underestimate the EVE community's capacity for mischief

    Well they aren't locked into the corp, it just takes longer. Locking into the corp/alliance entirely would be oh-so-exploitable.

    RvB is already free; it's a mutual war. That's how it's supposed to work.

    I make it my profession to be one of the chief instigators of mischief in EVE, and I can't think of any particular holes to poke in this one.

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
    Requiescat
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #39 - 2012-02-10 07:33:55 UTC
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    Well they aren't locked into the corp, it just takes longer. Locking into the corp/alliance entirely would be oh-so-exploitable.


    I know, it's just extra time you could be FF'n it up while blue, or green, as the case may be

    hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥
    Iam Widdershins
    Project Nemesis
    #40 - 2012-02-10 07:51:20 UTC
    Requiescat wrote:
    Iam Widdershins wrote:
    Well they aren't locked into the corp, it just takes longer. Locking into the corp/alliance entirely would be oh-so-exploitable.


    I know, it's just extra time you could be FF'n it up while blue, or green, as the case may be

    If by FF'n, you mean AWOXing/Teamkilling/taking candy from babies, that's not really a loophole. That's just good warfare.

    Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
    Previous page123Next page