These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Warfare & Tactics

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Destruction Testing the New Wardec System (Ganks Included - Free wardec inside)

First post
Author
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#401 - 2012-07-12 08:48:39 UTC
Krystalline Meth wrote:
u don't read too well yourself mate. Most of your posting is like you have your hands over your ears not listening to anyone else.

I'm not going to start agreeing with people who keep insisting a green ball is actually red just because they keep claiming this, just like I'm not going to start agreeing with people who keep insisting the 1.1 wardec system is worse than 1.0, no matter how blue in the face they get.

1.0 fixed various small things like shedding wardecs etc and upped the minimum payment required for declaring any war to 50m. It also added a scale to declaring against bigger alliances, and I'm not in agreement with that mechanic, but the only place where this affects me is I get less evemail spam; I give no fucks. As for normal hisec wars, all of them'll be less than 200m/week and most of them'll be less than 100m/week. This isn't the end of the world some people wants to portray it as, but it's not optimal either. I'll leave it to the wardec nerds to browbeat CCP into changing this. It also added the possibility for the defender to add unlimited allies, which basically made any wars being declared a war which most likely would've been declared mutual and available to the general public, meaning any merc corp trying to take out a hisec POS or perform any sort of harassment were more or less guarranteed to get dumpstered on.

1.1 fixed the last loophole by removing allies from wars which are declared mutual, and by setting the number of free allies to 1. Further allies would cost money to hire, which still lets the defender get help, but at a price. This is a good thing, and whomever is saying this is a "bad thing" are either lying through their teeth, or actually thinks hisec should be completely safe. As to the maximum of 2 weeks ally contracts, I see it can be annoying, but I also see this as something which means the defender has to do some work to keep themselves defended. It certainly isn't enough to deem 1.1 "worse than 1.0", in any way, shape or form, and anyone saying differently has an axe to grind.

Krystalline Meth wrote:
Quote:
See, this is exactly the "regurgitated facts" I'm talking about. This has been debunked by CCP, repeatedly.

:CCP: lol

So I guess you're trying to say CCP is lying?

Krystalline Meth wrote:
Quote:
Also :laffo: like we need protection from hisec.

Surely looks like you called the wambulance when it wasn't going your way v0v

You seeing things which aren't there isn't my problem, it's your problem.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Cynthia Nezmor
Nezmor's Golden Griffins
#402 - 2012-07-12 12:45:06 UTC
Werst Dendenahzees wrote:
Arcturus Archangel wrote:
Thanks for the opportunity Jade. A war against the goons will look nice on my war history.

Cheers,
AA


It will not, because real wars are fought in nullsec, and thus absent from the war history page.


Best joke of the day. Lol
Krystalline Meth
Doomheim
#403 - 2012-07-12 13:10:50 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm not going to start agreeing with people who keep insisting a green ball is actually red just because they keep claiming this


u are the only dude doing that.

Lord Zim wrote:
1.0 fixed various small things like shedding wardecs etc and upped the minimum payment required for declaring any war to 50m. It also added a scale to declaring against bigger alliances, and I'm not in agreement with that mechanic, but the only place where this affects me is I get less evemail spam; I give no fucks.


So it hurts small guy you don't care :right:

Quote:
As for normal hisec wars, all of them'll be less than 200m/week and most of them'll be less than 100m/week. This isn't the end of the world some people wants to portray it as, but it's not optimal either. I'll leave it to the wardec nerds to browbeat CCP into changing this.


It hurts small guy you don't care :right: again.

Quote:
It also added the possibility for the defender to add unlimited allies, which basically made any wars being declared a war which most likely would've been declared mutual and available to the general public, meaning any merc corp trying to take out a hisec POS or perform any sort of harassment were more or less guarranteed to get dumpstered on.


Lots of different people already said how that could be fixed u ignoring them.

Quote:

*1 1.1 fixed the last loophole by removing allies from wars which are declared mutual,

*2 and by setting the number of free allies to 1. Further allies would cost money to hire, which still lets the defender get help, but at a price. This is a good thing, and whomever is saying this is a "bad thing" are either lying through their teeth, or actually thinks hisec should be completely safe

*3 As to the maximum of 2 weeks ally contracts, I see it can be annoying, but I also see this as something which means the defender has to do some work to keep themselves defended. It certainly isn't enough to deem 1.1 "worse than 1.0", in any way, shape or form, and anyone saying differently has an axe to grind.


*1Why is that a loophole dude? Many thought it was about making the big guy take a risk.

*2That is a bad thing so I guess you think I lying too. Hisec should not be safe for goons lol.

*3So anyone disagreeing with you is wrong. lol dude you are mad!
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#404 - 2012-07-12 13:44:21 UTC
Ben Youssef Noban wrote:

I see now yes indeed. Thank you for detailed reply most enlightening; does seem shame such a problem comes because the bigger power doesn't like results of war. I find it hard to belief that Goons cannot win empire war though were they trying or did they maybe do stunt to remove Inferno war from the game itself?

I mean maybe you made mistake to taken them serious and fight so they could get wardec system removed from game (pardon my language if clumsy please)


Its possible I guess but I'm not sure it was organised enough. Really when all is said and done the "ministry of war" stuff was Mittani emo-raging against people that criticized his bad drunken behavior on stage at fanfest this year. He targeted bloggers, forum posters, generally anyone he fought would be "terrified" by the mighty goon stealth bomber assault wing (all 3 of them) and expected to harvest some tears and gnashing of teeth.

What happened is that we used the Inferno wardec system as it was intended to be used (from the devblogs released in advantage of Inferno) and rapidly built a defensive coalition capable of kicking his troops down the stairs. This happened, some embarrassing industrial kills were suffered from goons and rapidly the messaging from goon-central changed to how terrible the 1.0 wardec system was an how very "unfair" it was for mercs that the goons were getting their faces kicked in (I know right).

Speedily changes were rushed through that even broke the principle of paid defensive allying (the mandatory two week cool down between defensive ally decs means that no professional merc could use it because it would be all to possible for targets to game their logistics and timers between the gaps in war coverage).

Ultimately its clear the 1.1 changes WERE purely to prevent big alliances getting faced with significant defensive coalitions and all other words to the contrary are simply spin-control and evasive posturing. The 1.1 reality we live in now is one where large alliances can wardec cheaply, with impunity and defenders don't have an allied system worth a damn as any kind of counter-measure.

This is justified by CCP Soundwave saying "war isn't fair."

Well its certainly a lot fairer if you are the largest alliance in the game with the Inferno 1.1 defensive-ally shield mechanic in place.


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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#405 - 2012-07-12 13:47:54 UTC
Krystalline Meth wrote:
u are the only dude doing that.

Nope.

Krystalline Meth wrote:
So it hurts small guy you don't care :right:

Krystalline Meth wrote:
It hurts small guy you don't care :right: again.

Nope.

If the mechanic had been so a 1000 man alliance had cost 500m then I would be more vocal, because that would make hisec wars unsustainably expensive, but 100m/week or even 200m/week isn't that unsustainable. Expensive, yes, but not gamebreakingly so, hence I'll let those who actually have to deal with it, deal with it.

And I wouldn't be surprised if even a majority of what will be wardecced in hisec is well below the 50m cutoff limit, which means that a large portion of wars will be around the 50m/week mark. This isn't expensive, and it won't hurt anyone.

Krystalline Meth wrote:
Lots of different people already said how that could be fixed u ignoring them.

Really? All I've seen is "TEE HEE HEE YOU GOONIES ARE SCREWED NOW", and absolutely nothing about how to fix this problem (in fact, you seem to refuse to see this as a problem).

You also seem to forget, in your goonhate, that there are other alliances and corps in this game who do wardecs, and with 1.0 mechanics, all they would have to look forward to is wars being set mutual + tons of allies being pulled in, and there's nothing they can do to stop this. Which means that effectively speaking, hisec POS removal through mercs would've more or less have been a thing of the past, if CCP hadn't rolled out 1.1 with limits such as no allies in a mutual war, and an increasing cost pr ally (meaning, you have to actually think about who you let in as allies, instead of just blindly accepting every chucklefuck which sends you an ally request for 0 isk). So you'll have to excuse me if I giggle at your hate-filled froth, because you'd actually ruin hisec just to "hurt the goonies" (and you'd of course completely miss the fact we're not being hurt one whit).

Krystalline Meth wrote:
*1 Why is that a loophole dude? Many thought it was about making the big guy take a risk.


*2 That is a bad thing so I guess you think I lying too. Hisec should not be safe for goons lol.[/quote]

*3 So anyone disagreeing with you is wrong. lol dude you are mad![/quote]
1) See above.
2) We don't care. I do tons of **** in hisec all the time, and nobody's any the wiser, because I use this concept called neutral alts. You might have heard of it?
3) If you're saying 1.1 is worse than 1.0, then yes, you're either lying through your teeth (because you wanted to exploit the ally loophole to dumpster whomever wardecced you), or you have an axe to grind (because you wanted to exploit the ally loophole to dumpster whomever wardeccedd you).

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#406 - 2012-07-12 13:50:42 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
What happened is that we used the Inferno wardec system as it was intended to be used (from the devblogs released in advantage of Inferno) and rapidly built a defensive coalition capable of kicking his troops down the stairs. This happened, some embarrassing industrial kills were suffered from goons and rapidly the messaging from goon-central changed to how terrible the 1.0 wardec system was an how very "unfair" it was for mercs that the goons were getting their faces kicked in (I know right).

And as usual, completely ignoring the fact that CCP initiated the changes well before even the honda accord had a chance to score many kills, and that 1.0 would hurt normal mercs a lot more than it would hurt us goons.

And of course, :laffo: at your assumption that we care about a few minor losses in hisec. If we could, we would have all of hisec permanently wardecced.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#407 - 2012-07-12 14:03:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Lord Zim wrote:
And as usual, completely ignoring the fact that CCP initiated the changes well before even the honda accord had a chance to score many kills


I don't think you can possibly know when CCP "initiated" these changes any better than the rest of us did (unless you have some kind of inside track) but as I pointed out to SoniClover on the original thread Honda Accord had been kicking goonswarm in the face for almost a month when the 1.1 changes were announced and your tame CSMs had been bleating about the problem of large alliances getting beaten up prior the Iceland summit. The logical sequence of events is that CCP rushed through these changes due to the impact of defensive ally coalitions. You need to be pretty blinkered to think otherwise.

Lord Zim wrote:
And of course, :laffo: at your assumption that we care about a few minor losses in hisec. If we could, we would have all of hisec permanently wardecced.


The sense of relief coming out of your forum crew when CCP bailed you out of the Inferno wardec hole you'd dug yourselves into was palpable so I seriously doubt you are telling the truth.

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#408 - 2012-07-12 14:14:09 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
I don't think you can possibly know when CCP "initiated" these changes any better than the rest of us did (unless you have some kind of inside track) but as I pointed out to SoniClover on the original thread Honda Accord had been kicking goonswarm in the face for almost a month when the 1.1 changes were announced and your tame CSMs had been bleating about the problem of large alliances getting beaten up prior the Iceland summit. The logical sequence of events is that CCP rushed through these changes due to the impact of defensive ally coalitions. You need to be pretty blinkered to think otherwise.

I see you've conveniently forgotten the podcast which was posted 2 days after inferno 1.0 was launched, which meant within a maximum of 24 hours of the honda accord's war even having the possibility of its allies shooting anyone, which you've used as "evidence" that we'd gotten so scurrd that goons whined to CCP.

And I see you've conveniently forgotten, again, the fact CCP have repeatedly and blatantly refuted that goons requested the changes, and the fact that they also said that these change were in conjunction with actual mercs.

Jade Constantine wrote:
Liar. The sense of relief coming out of your forum crew when CCP bailed you out of the Inferno wardec hole you'd dug yourselves into was palpable.

That's why mittani tweeted that he would've wished he could've gotten all of hisec wardecced if he could've, I guess. That's also why I didn't notice we even had a war against you or honda accord before you started bawling your eyes out over how your loophole was being closed.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#409 - 2012-07-12 14:26:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Lord Zim wrote:
And I see you've conveniently forgotten, again, the fact CCP have repeatedly and blatantly refuted that goons requested the changes, and the fact that they also said that these change were in conjunction with actual mercs.


I don't think many people actually believe them (certainly not the "mercs")

As for Mittani twitter. Seriously. He's your cult leader not ours. Don't expect other people to worship at font of the chubby spy master.

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

Krystalline Meth
Doomheim
#410 - 2012-07-12 14:34:33 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Really? All I've seen is "TEE HEE HEE YOU GOONIES ARE SCREWED NOW", and absolutely nothing about how to fix this problem (in fact, you seem to refuse to see this as a problem).


u aren't reading what anyone else says dude.

Quote:
You also seem to forget, in your goonhate, that there are other alliances and corps in this game who do wardecs, and with 1.0 mechanics, all they would have to look forward to is wars being set mutual + tons of allies being pulled in,


u even ignoring me now lol. that prob you talking of was proposed to fix by loads of peeps. u ignored them all.

Quote:
3) If you're saying 1.1 is worse than 1.0, then yes, you're either lying through your teeth (because you wanted to exploit the ally loophole to dumpster whomever wardecced you), or you have an axe to grind (because you wanted to exploit the ally loophole to dumpster whomever wardeccedd you).
[/quote]

yes changes are worse than the original only reason u say otherwise is u are helped by the changes lol. Like a banker voting for bonuses after stealing from the bank!


Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#411 - 2012-07-12 14:54:16 UTC
Krystalline Meth wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Really? All I've seen is "TEE HEE HEE YOU GOONIES ARE SCREWED NOW", and absolutely nothing about how to fix this problem (in fact, you seem to refuse to see this as a problem).


u aren't reading what anyone else says dude.


That's the thing really. In all the discussion threads on the proposed 1.1 changes plenty of people proposed alternatives to the rushed wardec allies nerf that made an awful lot of sense. When "zim" says nobody said anything about how to fix the problem he's simply lying. In my first responses to the developers in question I proposed an alternative system that would resolve concerns about small wardeccers being "dogpiled" while nonetheless allowing small target corps to raise significant allied coalitions against much larger attackers. This proposal was ultimately dismissed by CCP soundwave on the somewhat spurious grounds that "wars in eve aren't meant to be fair."

Point being, "zim" is outright lying to say that nobody else proposed a better solution to problems with the 1.0 system.

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#412 - 2012-07-12 16:20:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
Jade Constantine wrote:
I don't think many people actually believe them (certainly not the "mercs")

So you're once again saying CCP lied, then?

Krystalline Meth wrote:
u even ignoring me now lol. that prob you talking of was proposed to fix by loads of peeps. u ignored them all.

Oh, right, I remember now, the feedback thread where jade took a one-way trip to mount tinfoil and accused CCP of favoritism. Always a productive way of starting a conversation.

Jade Constantine wrote:
yes changes are worse than the original only reason u say otherwise is u are helped by the changes lol. Like a banker voting for bonuses after stealing from the bank!

They're worse than the changes you buried in tinfoil, but they're better than 1.0.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#413 - 2012-07-12 17:00:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Lord Zim wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
I don't think many people actually believe them (certainly not the "mercs")

So you're once again saying CCP lied, then?



I'm saying I don't think many people believe them (on the rationale for the 1.1 wardec changes - certainly not the "merc profession" who we are told these changes are supposed to protect and foster). You should really try to read what people post on threads rather than trying to bait your opponents into verbalizing forum thought-crimes they can be banned for.

But I am certainly saying that you are being less than truthful in your claim that nobody proposed rational alternatives to the rushed kneejerk 1.1 patch we got. (Many many people did, not just me - all were ignored.)

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#414 - 2012-07-12 18:18:44 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
I'm saying I don't think many people believe them (on the rationale for the 1.1 wardec changes - certainly not the "merc profession" who we are told these changes are supposed to protect and foster). You should really try to read what people post on threads rather than trying to bait your opponents into verbalizing forum thought-crimes they can be banned for.

Except CCP and the CSM have given comments such as these:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
The biggest issue was that being able to invite everyone and the kitchen sink to your war meant that hiring a merc became completely irrelevant. Hopefully limiting the options slightly will provide people with more incentives to hire mercs (but still let you throw a ton of money at allies).

CCP Soundwave wrote:
Limiting the number of allies is feedback we've gotten from the merc industry, I'm not sure Goons care. If they do, they haven't voiced it to us vOv.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Once again though, your argument assumes that this was a knee-jerk response to Goonswarm's plight, an idea which has zero basis in reality whatsoever. Goonswarm never came up once in any of the CCP / CSM talks about the war dec issue, despite all the loonies trying to suggest as much.

continuing to harp on about how the changes are made by CCP "because goons whined to CCP/the CSM", it's done either through ignorance, or they're implying CCP/the CSM are lying.

As to mercs, the only way I can really see the merc profession "not believing them" is if CCP didn't talk to them, and given that soundwave is saying it is based on feedback from the merc industry, he either lied or you're wrong.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#415 - 2012-07-12 19:48:37 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Except CCP and the CSM have given comments such as these:


There is no "except" - people either believe these things or they don't. Soundwave's comment simply shows he doesn't understand the dynamics of merc work in new eden. Han's was being knee-jerk CSM defensive mode and he was writing in complete ignorance of the Seleene/Two Step podcast that put the lie to his statement - whatever really, you can construct all the flimsy defense you like "zim" but the reality is people just don't believe you.

Quote:
As to mercs, the only way I can really see the merc profession "not believing them" is if CCP didn't talk to them, and given that soundwave is saying it is based on feedback from the merc industry, he either lied or you're wrong.


Or alternatively he talked to their CSM reps and disregarded everything they had to say. Here's the thing, I personally have no real sympathy for current representatives of the "merc industry" in new eden. I think they are generally whiny entitled people trying to argue a case for being paid to have fun (in the new eden context.) But arguing that the 1.1 changes were made to benefit mercs somehow is just nonsense on stilts - what would have benefited a merc industry would have been to deliver a merc marketplace that allowed people to post contracts with achievable goals for ISK (and have completing these goals listed on mercs permanent record.) That didn't happen in Inferno and it sure as heck didn't happen in 1.1 - and all that did happen was that large alliances got protected from the social consequences of bullying smaller entities and getting "dogpiled" in turn.

Everything else you say is simply PR spin "zim" and I think people are getting tired of it.

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

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#416 - 2012-07-12 23:13:33 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
There is no "except" - people either believe these things or they don't.

Oh hey look, what's this?
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Hey guys

We're looking at ways to iterate on the system post release. Contract length and allies in mutual wars are pretty high on the list, as well as changes that will inevitably emergence once we see the system used. Once Inferno goes out it will be easier to start putting a date on some of these things.

This was a quote from before inferno 1.0 even went live. He's basically going into a thread where there's been tons of "we'll abuse the **** out of unlimited allies" and saying "we're going to make changes after launch" and mentioning contract length (at least noir feedback), allies in mutual wars, and he's also basically eluding to them monitoring how the system is going to be used to see if there's any usage pattern they don't like emerging. Given the fact the players were basically bragging about how they'd abuse the **** out of the ally system and the mutual war system etc, this was prudent (although even more prudent would've been to postpone the launch when players have been as vocal about abusing serious holes as they were, but there you go).

We didn't whine to CCP about the wardec changes in 1.0, CCP were monitoring the usage pattern themselves.

Jade Constantine wrote:
Han's was being knee-jerk CSM defensive mode and he was writing in complete ignorance of the Seleene/Two Step podcast that put the lie to his statement - whatever really, you can construct all the flimsy defense you like "zim" but the reality is people just don't believe you.

That wasn't a "this has happened", conversation, that was a "this will happen" conversation between seleene and two step, i.e. they were predicting, not describing. They also mentioned issues such as mercs being locked in a war for 3 years, mercs getting dogpiled etc, basically what Alekseyev and a huge amount of various people have pointed out would happen the instant 1.0 was released.

We didn't whine to CSM about the wardec changes, the CSM did this all on their own.

Jade Constantine wrote:
Or alternatively he talked to their CSM reps and disregarded everything they had to say.

Noir said that the inability for them to limit the timeframe of a job put a serious dampener on their ability to accpet further jobs, and with the 1.0 mechanics they could potentially be locked in there for years. Alekseyev mentioned 1-2 weeks, CCP added a maximum timelimit of 2 weeks.

Noir specifically said the unlimited ally system would be a major hindrance to mercs looking to get paid, because it would be just as effective (and a lot cheaper) for the defender to just open up the wardec and accept every chucklefuck who offers to help. They also said that this aspect of the wardec mechanism, unlimited defender allies, would make it "unthinkably risky" for anyone but hardcore PVP corp to declare war, because they'd just get outblobbed by free allies. CCP added incentives for defenders to be choosy about who they pick as allies.

CCP listened (at least in part) to what Alekseyev had to say, which means they haven't "disregarded everything [they] had to say".

You can argue whether or not CCP chose the right changes, but what you can't claim is that CCP didn't at least partially listen to mercs, you can't argue that 1.1 wasn't an improvement for most normal mercs over 1.0, and you can't claim that goons whined to CCP and/or the CSM about the 1.0 mechanics, not unless you're going to claim that you're either ignorant of the situation (and are just assuming), or you're going to claim that CCP and the CSM also lied when they said we gave no feedback on the number of allies a defender had or that we ever came up as a source of topic in the talks between CCP and the CSM.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#417 - 2012-07-13 00:07:55 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
You can argue whether or not CCP chose the right changes, but what you can't claim is that CCP didn't at least partially listen to mercs, you can't argue that 1.1 wasn't an improvement for most normal mercs over 1.0


Given that 1.1 introduced the mandatory interruption in defensive ally participation I certainly can. 1.1 is a rushed mess of a patch that does nothing except protect large alliances from the consequences of their wardecs.

Lord Zim wrote:
... or you're going to claim that CCP and the CSM also lied when they said we gave no feedback on the number of allies a defender had or that we ever came up as a source of topic in the talks between CCP and the CSM.


There are things its not possible to say on these forums. I have already said I doubt the CSM's integrity on these matters - we've been over this many many times before.

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

Kyle Myr
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#418 - 2012-07-13 00:30:53 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

Given that 1.1 introduced the mandatory interruption in defensive ally participation I certainly can. 1.1 is a rushed mess of a patch that does nothing except protect large alliances from the consequences of their wardecs.


So you believe game mechanics should be grandfathered in? Maybe that titans built during the remote AOE doomsday era should be capable of that mechanic still? If we're going to take this to illogical extremes, might as well go whole hog.

Anyway, you keep posting that I'm accusing you of being a rebel that's a thorn in the side of larger power structures. That's not really true, and if you want an example of people I actually respect for that sort of thing, I'll bring up a group that's a good example of everything I've been talking up (organization, tactics, not posting terribly):

Walltreipiers: the last Bastion of SoCo Delve: http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Delve/T-IPZB . As of this post, it's the one system in Delve that hasn't flipped in a 25000+ v 25000+ bloc war that has been, thus far, mostly one sided. There are a few smaller, newer organizations on both sides of the war - 99% and TASHA both on the northern side, and Walltreipiers being a key example on the other side. 99% and TASHA have been fighting for their side, and thus earning their space. Walltreipiers hasn't been so lucky. They've had to do everything they can with their 350 man alliance that's just a bit over a year old to hold on to their station, without much (any?) coordination with their side in a bloc war, but through careful tactics, a lot of organization, and a ton of balls, they've done it so far.

I respect these pilots because they're actually putting up a very good fight, and even some bits of propaganda to go with it. They have organization at an alliance level to hold their own under extreme adversity, and I suspect that when the dust settles here, they'll all do fine, as they have their act together, even though they've been on the wrong side of the war. I suspect that if a group like this decided the next best thing for them to do would be to cause problems for GSF on our home turf, or by helping whoever we're at war with at a given time, they'd be able to actually cause some damage.

When you do something on that level, then you'll have bragging rights. Until then, please enjoy your new career in FW - it seems you're much better at it than your old one.
Ben Youssef Noban
Doomheim
#419 - 2012-07-13 00:37:16 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:

Krystalline Meth wrote:
Lots of different people already said how that could be fixed u ignoring them.

Really? All I've seen is "TEE HEE HEE YOU GOONIES ARE SCREWED NOW", and absolutely nothing about how to fix this problem (in fact, you seem to refuse to see this as a problem).
[/quote]

I am upset to see that Lord Zim has told untruth here to try to win argument. What say you to allegation that fixes were actually proposed to this mechanic that you said were not made?

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#420 - 2012-07-13 01:12:23 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Given that 1.1 introduced the mandatory interruption in defensive ally participation I certainly can.

A 24 hour interruption every 2 weeks doesn't even come close to being an issue in comparison with the issues fixed by going from 1.0 to 1.1.

Jade Constantine wrote:
1.1 is a rushed mess of a patch that does nothing except protect large alliances from the consequences of their wardecs.

Wrong. Going from 1.0 to 1.1 fixed a lot of large loopholes which made being a merc untenable. It also made it cheaper to wardec the same large alliance, and if you're even remotely discerning in your choice of allies you can easily get 500+ defenders for 150m/2 weeks, which is similar numbers to what you got using your "accept every chucklefuck" method available in 1.0.

Jade Constantine wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
... or you're going to claim that CCP and the CSM also lied when they said we gave no feedback on the number of allies a defender had or that we ever came up as a source of topic in the talks between CCP and the CSM.

There are things its not possible to say on these forums. I have already said I doubt the CSM's integrity on these matters - we've been over this many many times before.

And by doubting the CSM's integrity on these matters, you by inference essentially doubt CCP's integrity on these matters, since they both say more or less the same thing.

Ben Youssef Noban wrote:
I am upset to see that Lord Zim has told untruth here to try to win argument. What say you to allegation that fixes were actually proposed to this mechanic that you said were not made?

I've already said I was wrong, I'd forgotten about a few suggestions which were hidden amongst posts of people (like jade) taking the express train to mount tinfoil and then actually start making suggestions.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat