These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Fuujin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#201 - 2012-06-12 14:35:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Fuujin
Jade Constantine wrote:


Come on Paradox ... when we wardec the 5000 person alliance we have to pay ISK for EVERY MEMBER of the that organization regardless of how many of them come into HISEC. They all factor into the calculation that decides the wardec fee.



And when the aggressor gets to get allies, then your argument is valid.

The fact remains that life and eve do share one thing in common: they aren't fair. Previous to the Ally system, if a more powerful group wardec'd you, you could either fight back and possibly get turned into a grease spot on the sidewalk, or run away.

Now you have the opportunity to get allies involved that can help tip the balance some, likely make them pay in blood. That said, allowing for allies is not a guarantor of equality. Unlimited allies are stupid, and everyone not named Jade or Issler agrees to that point.

As for the argument that larger alliances have deeper pockets--what, do you want a free r64 moon or personal instanced crokite belt too? This is eve, where economic disparity defines your playstyle. I'm sorry you can't fly a supercarrier or blinged out mach, or fit a doomsday on your freighter. Deal with it.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#202 - 2012-06-12 14:39:45 UTC
Lallante wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrence of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.


We've been talking to some of the merc corps/alliances and having no meaningful choice in terms of picking a defender basically nullifies their business. What we wanted to do was put in an incentive to look harder at exactly who you ally with, meaning that successful merc corps would be able to market themselves better.

I agree that in an isolated sense, the 4500 vs 9x 500 people is a bit silly, but at the end of the day, making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. We can evaluate that later, but I'd really like to see how people who do this for a living fare with the changes.

Regarding the recurrence, we're definitely looking at that.


Thanks for the quick response SW.

I understand your thought process but I think you are prioritising addressing the wrong problems. You need to address the "massive group vs tiny group" imbalance that currently exists first before you worry about mercenaries.

If you nevertheless decide to stick to your current route vis-a-vis allies, you should instead re-visit the cost associated with wardeccing a 500 man alliance with a 5000 man one. The imbalance should have a cost associated with it, one that makes it very expensive to do.

Another, more nuanced mechanic might be to have the game identify aggressor entities that outnumber their targets significantly, and reduce the war cost against that aggressor for third party entities as a result until the number of "enemies" of the aggressor matched its own headcount. This would mean an entity could wardec who it liked as currently but if it was in highly imbalanced wars it would be opening itself up to cheaper counter-wardecs.





I personally think it would be a great shame if the allied system was thrown under a bus at this point - effectively making it financially impossible to add enough allies to content with a 9000 vs 100 dec. But if it is going to be then yes, the imbalance in wardec fees will need to be dealt with and the whole cost of declarations will need to be looked at. It is not good game balance that a 9000 strong entity pays 50m isk to dec a tiny one but the tiny one pays 500m isk to dec back.

But I do repeat - I think it would be a very bad development for Eve if rather than coming to a sensible compromise on the allied situation (ie allies+defenders smaller than attacker numbers = allies are free of concord fees) instead we got involved on chasing higher wardec fees in general simply to address the imbalance in the current system with declaration charges.




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
#203 - 2012-06-12 14:42:25 UTC
Fuujin wrote:

The fact remains that life and eve do share one thing in common: they aren't fair. Previous to the Ally system, if a more powerful group wardec'd you, you could either fight back and possibly get turned into a grease spot on the sidewalk, or run away.


You could also dec them back for 50m isk.
Now it costs 500m

You have already received a tenfold defense from hostile decs in the Inferno wardec system.
Adding more concord charges to the cost of bringing allies to fight a much larger foe is pretty broken in favour of one side over another.

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
#204 - 2012-06-12 14:48:06 UTC
Haquer wrote:

It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate).


Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity.

With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec.

Fair enough?

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

Fuujin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#205 - 2012-06-12 14:53:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Fuujin
It's like you said, you're paying for the right to shoot 9000+ people in that case. It SHOULD be expensive. And most will cycle through hisec at least periodically for shopping trips (though the smarter ones use alts).

500M is also peanuts for access to the potential loot pinatas our ******** members provide. Or put another way, if you can't afford 500M for the dec, you probably couldn't afford your potential losses; hell, a neutral fleetbooster T3 runs that much.

The numbers argument is incredibly disingenuous. Prove to me that more than even 1% of those numbers are actual combatants and you'll have made your argument. Otherwise you're just looking to salve your wounded ego through numbers compensation as opposed to quality, will-fight-and-fight-hard merc forces.

Why do you want to destroy merc corps so badly, Jade?
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#206 - 2012-06-12 14:53:30 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Haquer wrote:

It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate).


Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity.

With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec.

Fair enough?


What would then stop an alliance from padding their ranks with hi-sec home dwelling alts?

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#207 - 2012-06-12 14:58:26 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Haquer wrote:

It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate).


Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity.

With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec.

Fair enough?


What would then stop an alliance from padding their ranks with hi-sec home dwelling alts?


Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.

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

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#208 - 2012-06-12 14:59:03 UTC
When did drones start gettting fitted when you auto fit. Was that the last patch?

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Daddy Thundercock
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#209 - 2012-06-12 15:00:49 UTC
just my two cents on the wardec system:

it does appear, upon looking at it, that is does greatly benefit the larger entities. Now I'm not here to pick on goons or anyone else for that matter. However it does seem more logical and rational to me that the a larger entity wardeccing a smaller one would pay 500m isk rather than 50 m. I mean....a small corp/alliance paying 500m isk to wardec a huge one? as if being at war with an entity that could outnumber you 100:1 isn't bad enough, you have to spend a plex on wardeccing them too. Now, i realize that 500 m isk is toilet paper to some people, but for my corp, for example, it's a fortune.

Just saying, if a large entity wants to wardec a small one, they should have to pay the 500m isk, not 50m isk, simply for wardeccing an entity that they outnumber by as much as 100:1 (think of it as a griefing tax...or something.). With the current system as it stands, it opens the door to allow large corps/ alliances to wardec small ones indefinitely and small entities would simply be unable to fight back (without draining their bank accounts on buying PLEX, but then again maybe that's what ccp wants....)

Just sayin, yeah, maybe the system was broke with allies, that I can't say for sure as I haven't dealt with the wardec system first hand. I mean, yes, being able to hire an infinite number of free allies is stupid, but it's even stupider to allow large entities to effectively grief smaller ones with no real consequences.

As for not seeing nullsec players in empire.......uhmmm....have you heard of burn jita? On top of which, I know i've seen a few null players here and there....not saying they live in empire, but they do come up here. as I will once i get to null, which will happen after my corp recruits about 200 more players....

Anyway, not picking on anyone or anything in particular, actually have alot of repect for goonswarm being the only alliance in the game with enough stones to pull off something like burn jita......no tinfoil hat here. Just some feedback from a smaller entity with very little isk to spare.
Cheekything
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2012-06-12 15:01:35 UTC
I think the war changes are completely wrong and do not serve EVE well.

I actually think that money should be removed out of the equation with the cost of creating a war.

I also think that there should be a 3rd/4th currency (sorry but it's come to this) that is used solely for creating wars, that way it can still cost isk but you can limit the amount a alliance/corp can have and can use, I'm not going to explain how it should work quite frankly the devs should be thinking about this sort of thing.

I am still a big supporter of small corps declaring war on big alliances because they have always worked at keeping most big alliances in null sec which means the smaller players are free to roam low and high sec to explore eve before they get mixed up in the drama that is null sec.

However you should be looking to achieve the following for wars:

The cost for multiple people in the same war should be cheap/free so long as their total number of people does not exceed half of the target corp/alliance.

Small waring big should be cheap.

Big waring small should be expensive.

Also the length should be determined by how many people are involved in the war including allies.

I.e. 5000 v 100 it should be a 24 hour war, 100 v 5000 it should be 24 hours again.
If it's even with some margin of error say 50% then it should be the full length.

This way if people who are wardeccing the same person can ally up and make it last longer and single man corp who are waring just to raise the price of people declaring war will be kick out within 24 hours.
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#211 - 2012-06-12 15:05:12 UTC  |  Edited by: corestwo
CCP Paradox wrote:
You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?


/clap

Jade Constantine wrote:
Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.

I would like to point out that even you acknowledged that the actual fraction of our players shooting back at you in highsec is very low, which means that at its core, you're complaining that CCP is nerfing your ability to at 20 or 50 players who are actively shooting back, or lone haulers and such that aren't, with unlimited allies. Who's blobbing now?


Anyway, I'm back to address a different topic this time, namely the FW. I've gotten into it on an alt a little bit and I have to say that the proposed changes are pretty unsatisfactory. I don't think allowing everyone to so easily solo plexes (namely, having them be something that can be captured by day old frigate afterburner alts) is healthy for the system - this merely encourages farming LP with cheap alts rather than fighting it out for a system, which doesn't feel very "faction warfare-y" to me.

I would suggest at least an interim solution of perhaps a few webbing towers in each complex for every race to dissuade this sort of behavior, or at least force people intent on soloing plexes to commit larger, more capable ships. That would buy time to implement a more thorough and engaging solution - people in this thread have many ideas.

Regardless of what solution you pick in the end, the overall feeling is that it should be one that encourages players to shoot it out in complexes if necessary, as opposed to running their frigate alts away to another system.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

Fuujin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#212 - 2012-06-12 15:06:37 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.



Two different scenarios.

One is the large alliance as an aggressor. You are not an existential (or even tangible) threat to their home, so a fraction of a fraction will likely form up. Possibly with occasional spikes for a specific op (people love killing POS).

The other is the large alliance as the "Defender". Again, you aren't a threat to their holdings in any means. You will never threaten their livelihood. You're realistically paying to pick off lone members and dumb haulers, with little/no risk of repercussion. Paying for this privilege makes sense; its basically consequence-free (non)suicide ganking.


I mean, if you really want to descend into endless semantics and deconstruction, we should get a discount on wardeccing you based on how many of your people actually undock.

Hell, our honda war would be free then Lol
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#213 - 2012-06-12 15:17:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Incidently I've just been on the test server and wardecced my own alliance with an alt corp and then added some allies.

The proposed system on the test server for Inferno 1.1 is currently.

First Ally is Free.
Second Ally is 10m isk
Third Ally is 20m Isk
Fourth Ally is 40m Isk

So yes its exponential.

To illustrate the likely costs ...

9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.

100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.

This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.

So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.

Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.

Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!


And to quote a player from Failheap who responds quite pertinently I think.

Quote:
I'm so dissapointed on the outcome of this...

large player bloc says -> we will make high-sec a living hell, therefore we will wardc or gank everyone there
small player bloc says -> i'll use the tools at my disposal to fight back

CCP sees a problem there and "fixes" it..

i mean, these were wardec people were paying, let them cut their throats if they so want to

So many options to make wardecs meaningful and CCP chose the less interesting options....


I think thats pretty much the point right there.

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

Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#214 - 2012-06-12 15:17:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Callidus Dux
Lallante wrote:
Callidus Dux wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).


In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Roll



You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam.

I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself.

A good suggestion to address what I translate your main issue to be could be as follows:

1) Create a "stripped down mode" that can be switched to in any inventory window in the same way chat windows can be switched to "condensed mode", which unexpands the tree panel.

2) Allow any number of instances of the new inventory screen. Allow the instances to be 'saved' which stores their location, size, and "stripped down or full toggle" value against a custom chosen name. Make these saves bindable to hotkeys (so "Ctrl C" could pop open a small inventory window focused on your current ship cargohold in the bottom right corner of the screen in stripped down mode).

That would give you back all the old functionality but be much, much more powerful and use the new system.

Constructive feedback - this is how it is done.


Sorry but you are a little bit wrong. Any kind of Hotkey/ shortcut is IN ABSOLUTE NO WAY acceptable. The function, to doubleclick and/or rightclick at the icons, to pop up the independent windows MUST be restored. Why does someone want a hotkey when it once was fine to just doublecklick. I hate the idea to have hundreds of shortcuts to load my hundreds of windows again. Why not just a doublecklick at a icon? Why should I play a text controlled game with this crap shortcuts, when I have a mouse and double- rightclicks? Really.. Who loves all this shortcuts? I use 3 different shortcuts currently. All for drone control. I do not want further shortcuts to control a game which was playable with a mouse till 22.05.2012!

What feature rich function Do you mean? The Tree view - No one likes? The estimated price that is always wrong and not useable but laggy? The circles which you can see till the server loads the WHOLE inventory? ... I can not find ANY improvement, compared to the old UI, which would make this unified crap useful.

And why is the demand to absolute rebuild the old UI with the new code not a constructive feedback? The few lovers of this unified UI always say: "Give 'constructive feedback' as long as it don't include ANY functionality from the old UI." ? Roll
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#215 - 2012-06-12 15:20:55 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.

100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.

This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.

So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.

Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.

Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!


It's almost like it's designed to make you think about who you ally with, to gauge the actual force you're fighting (i.e. not just looking at how many members are in the alliance and throwing a tantrum from there) and to hire accordingly. Funny 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["

MailDeadDrop
Archon Industries
#216 - 2012-06-12 15:23:30 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


Well mainly I was responding to the Goonswarm poster to illustrate that his argument about disregarding the 9000 person number because most don't live in hisec was a bit specious at best. I think we have to accept that the number of people on the corp/alliance roster is the number of people on the corp/alliance roster and balance the war system on that.
Fuujin wrote:
Two different scenarios.

One is the large alliance as an aggressor. You are not an existential (or even tangible) threat to their home, so a fraction of a fraction will likely form up. Possibly with occasional spikes for a specific op (people love killing POS).

The other is the large alliance as the "Defender". Again, you aren't a threat to their holdings in any means. You will never threaten their livelihood. You're realistically paying to pick off lone members and dumb haulers, with little/no risk of repercussion. Paying for this privilege makes sense; its basically consequence-free (non)suicide ganking.


I mean, if you really want to descend into endless semantics and deconstruction, we should get a discount on wardeccing you based on how many of your people actually undock.

Hell, our honda war would be free then Lol


Well, then would an after-the-fact wardec fee/tax be more appropriate? That is, to declare war, some amount of ISK is deposited (like a retainer), then at set times (daily downtime? weekly?) the system examines actual highsec combats for combatants, and calculates the appropriate fee/tax at that time, then deducts it from the retainer.

I've no dog in this hunt, just musing about possible outside-the-box solutions.

MDD
Ponder Yonder
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc.
Illusion of Solitude
#217 - 2012-06-12 15:23:33 UTC
Callidus Dux wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Callidus Dux wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).


In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Roll



You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam.

I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself.

A good suggestion to address what I translate your main issue to be could be as follows:

1) Create a "stripped down mode" that can be switched to in any inventory window in the same way chat windows can be switched to "condensed mode", which unexpands the tree panel.

2) Allow any number of instances of the new inventory screen. Allow the instances to be 'saved' which stores their location, size, and "stripped down or full toggle" value against a custom chosen name. Make these saves bindable to hotkeys (so "Ctrl C" could pop open a small inventory window focused on your current ship cargohold in the bottom right corner of the screen in stripped down mode).

That would give you back all the old functionality but be much, much more powerful and use the new system.

Constructive feedback - this is how it is done.


Sorry but you are a little bit wrong. Any kind of Hotkey/ shortcut is IN ABSOLUTE NO WAY acceptable. The function, to doubleclick and/or rightclick at the icons, to pop up the independent windows MUST be restored. Why does someone want a hotkey when it once was fine to just doublecklick. I hate the idea to have hundreds of shortcuts to load my hundreds of windows again. Why not just a doublecklick at a icon? Why should I play a text controlled game with this crap shortcuts, when I have a mouse and double- rightclicks? Really.. Who loves all this shortcuts? I use 3 different shortcuts currently. All for drone control. I do not want further shortcuts to control a game which was playable with a mouse till 22.05.2012!

And why is the demand to absolute rebuild the old UI with the new code not a constructive feedback? The few lovers of this unified UI just say: "Give 'constructive feedback' as long as it don't include ANY functionality from the old UI." ? Roll


Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?
Tlat Ij
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#218 - 2012-06-12 15:26:21 UTC
Hooray! You guys finally fixed the logos on the Carthum ships! Although, the red parts look a bit too dark tbh, looks like a color you would expect on rusty old minmatar ships.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#219 - 2012-06-12 15:28:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Snow Axe wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:

9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 person alliance. It costs 9000 man alliance 50m ISK per week.

100 person alliance brings in 9 different 1000 person alliances to balance the numbers of combatents.

This will cost the defender 5 BILLION ISK every 2 weeks.

So for every week the war runs the Attacker will be automatically gaining a massive 4.95 billion isk advantage over a defender that is just about keeping parity with numbers.

Of course if you map current wardecs onto this situation the numbers become completely crazy. To do 20 allies of 500 people each is costing around 20 trillion.

Yesterday I estimated that for our alliance to keep its 33 allies in a defensive wardec vs Goonswarm would cost more ISK than existed in the Eve Universe. I don't think I was far off!


It's almost like it's designed to make you think about who you ally with, to gauge the actual force you're fighting (i.e. not just looking at how many members are in the alliance and throwing a tantrum from there) and to hire accordingly. Funny that!


Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.

Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.

This is not a complex argument surely ?

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

Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#220 - 2012-06-12 15:30:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Callidus Dux
Ponder Yonder wrote:

Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?


Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue

CCP is near to a point where I could live with this unified Crap UI. But they absolute deny the last necessary step to be able to avoid this SHIFT-sh!t. Implement a checkbox in the ESC-menue which set this mysterious SHIFT thing as default to open my independent windows. Do this and I will be much quieter / happier and I have no big need to cancel my subscription!