These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#361 - 2012-06-12 22:40:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are ...


Actually both groups have claimed their motivations are to protect and nurture merc corps. As I reference in the post you quote this will not work and you are doing absolutely nothing to actually boost the merc profession while doing an awful lot to protect large alliances from the Inferno allies system.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.


In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise outcome every independent in this thread thinks it will.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue?


I know you are not listening Hans because at least twice now you've completely missed the point I've been making. Two step didn't even bother reading my proposal before missing the point. Seleene frothed without considering the issue. Elise and Dovonan trolled. The only sensible posts from the CSM in this whole thread came from Alekseyez and Issler.

And one more time. I am saying that if you think these changes will boost the merc profession you are very wrong. The only thing these changes will do is protect large alliances from the consequences of the Inferno allies system. If you've reached this position through genuine ignorance of the war-dec system then fair enough. But its not beyond the grounds of all rational argumentation to assume that a change solely in the benefit of large alliances might somehow somewhere have been the intended outcome on the agenda.

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.
#362 - 2012-06-12 22:41:06 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Two Step - Then push for some changes that revitalize the merc market without tossing a safety blanket over the large alliances. Can you do that??

It doesn't toss a safety blanket over large alliances, since they are
a) not asking for this change and
b) it doesn't benefit them

The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.

The only people whining about this change are the people who were exploiting the system to get an infinite number of free wardecs against people they were at war with.

The more they post, the more they discredit their own position. It's really quite beautiful.

"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,

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#363 - 2012-06-12 22:42:25 UTC
Finde learth wrote:
And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?



Because unlimited free allies might actually let the little guy win for a change :)

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.
#364 - 2012-06-12 22:43:56 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.


In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will.

Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it?

"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,

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#365 - 2012-06-12 22:44:46 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.


And what pray tell happens to those small corps when the targets ask for allies and each one accepts the request from a 1000 man alliance looking for ganks in empire? This change does absolutely nothing to improve the situation of small merc corps or small wardec declarers. It only defends and protects very large alliances.



The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#366 - 2012-06-12 22:45:18 UTC
I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1

it's a bit tiringStraight

here, have this

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#367 - 2012-06-12 22:46:00 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
And one more time. I am saying that if you think these changes will boost the merc profession you are very wrong

Actually, these changes are to stop it from harming the merc outfits, not necessarily boost them. We can discuss how and what would do that in another place but these changes actually suit their aim pretty well.

"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,

Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#368 - 2012-06-12 22:46:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kadl
Jade Constantine wrote:
Kadl wrote:

Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars.

Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered by this CSM (or apparently) team BFF.


Although I appreciate the support, I must disagree with a conspiracy mindset (shocking for an EVE player!) There may be a subtle bias towards seeing war decs on the part of the CSM, but I believe in time they could be convinced. I also think that CCP might be convinced in time. They are focused on possibility of improving merc environment. The argument is quite simple: Fewer allies -> Pick best -> Yay mercs! The problem is that they are not seeing that the mercs they are trying to help are not in the same market as these free allies. An additional problem is that they have rejected and therefore not developed any active targets for defenders. Those targets would be something to hire mercs for to handle. So we have some stumbling around, not a conspiracy. I am not optimistic that enough parties can be convinced in time to change this, but it is worth some reason and effort.

Two step wrote:
If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.


Then the proposed modification of the change will not harm their goals in the least. The first ally would be free for the 5 man corp. Assuming that first ally is at least 15 people the special exception to ally costs is now removed. Any allies above that first group of 15 can cost whatever CCP deems is balanced.

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are, you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.

On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue?


Please listen to Hans in this Jade. No conspiracy just people who we may be able to convince.

Edit: It looks like you replied to him. I guess persuasion through friendship is too much to ask.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#369 - 2012-06-12 22:47:24 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.


In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will.

Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it?


Am I really supposed to be surprised that nobody claimed this change "screws over the fatcats" in Han's internal ccp discussions? What?

You need to go have a cup of tea Khanh'rhh, you really aren't making any sense.

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.
#370 - 2012-06-12 22:48:01 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:

The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.


And what pray tell happens to those small corps when the targets ask for allies and each one accepts the request from a 1000 man alliance looking for ganks in empire? This change does absolutely nothing to improve the situation of small merc corps or small wardec declarers. It only defends and protects very large alliances.

Oh man, you're right.

Also, what happens if 200,000 players all form an alliance and wardec me, and it only costs them 50million ISK?

Luckily neither of us are talking about likely scenarios but extreme edge cases, and I can only say so many times that designing a system around edge cases is a fundamentally bad thing.

"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,

Finde learth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#371 - 2012-06-12 22:48:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Finde learth
Two step wrote:

For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.


but ccp don't want to balance a fight because it never really been the goal in EVE.

so ccp keep allowing unlimited numbers of allies.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#372 - 2012-06-12 22:49:16 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.


In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will.

Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it?


Am I really supposed to be surprised that nobody claimed this change "screws over the fatcats" in Han's internal ccp discussions? What?

You need to go have a cup of tea Khanh'rhh, you really aren't making any sense.

Do you want to play a semantics game or make a point?

I love how you willfully insinuate with absolutely nothing to show for it, whilst brushing aside any logical refute as meaningless because you apparently already know better.

"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,

Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#373 - 2012-06-12 22:49:55 UTC
Finde learth wrote:
And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?


Because its just idiotic on its face?

Parity, equality, level fairness is not a goal. Disallowing free wardecs by all the tradehub and roving gankers against a small corp that wants to wardec someone else is just preserving the mechanic from abuse.

Forget Goonswarm. Consider the vast majority of cases--every single wardec is getting unlimited allies against the aggressor, be it 3 alts or 3000 mains. At that point, wardecs are less a way to put a hurt on a guy who's crossed you/competition, and more a way to get nulsec entities NBSI in empire.

If you can't see how that breaks the mechanic, I can't help you.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#374 - 2012-06-12 22:52:22 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Finde learth wrote:
And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?


Because its just idiotic on its face?

Parity, equality, level fairness is not a goal. Disallowing free wardecs by all the tradehub and roving gankers against a small corp that wants to wardec someone else is just preserving the mechanic from abuse.

Forget Goonswarm. Consider the vast majority of cases--every single wardec is getting unlimited allies against the aggressor, be it 3 alts or 3000 mains. At that point, wardecs are less a way to put a hurt on a guy who's crossed you/competition, and more a way to get nulsec entities NBSI in empire.

If you can't see how that breaks the mechanic, I can't help you.


And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker. This resolves the problem you highlight right?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Kadl
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#375 - 2012-06-12 22:52:49 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies.


The proposal that free allies be allowed to even out the two sides does nothing to hinder this goal.
Finde learth
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#376 - 2012-06-12 22:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Finde learth
Fuujin wrote:
Finde learth wrote:
And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?


Because its just idiotic on its face?

Parity, equality, level fairness is not a goal. Disallowing free wardecs by all the tradehub and roving gankers against a small corp that wants to wardec someone else is just preserving the mechanic from abuse.

Forget Goonswarm. Consider the vast majority of cases--every single wardec is getting unlimited allies against the aggressor, be it 3 alts or 3000 mains. At that point, wardecs are less a way to put a hurt on a guy who's crossed you/competition, and more a way to get nulsec entities NBSI in empire.

If you can't see how that breaks the mechanic, I can't help you.


Yeah, but ccp could have better way to solve this. Jade Constantine have post some good ideas about this.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#377 - 2012-06-12 22:59:32 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker. This resolves the problem you highlight right?

Tell us more about how a hisec entity must have 9000 on their side because a 9000 nullsec entity wardecced them and only a 10-20 man gang bothered to run around in the unwashed masses of hisec to watch the other entity dock up and smacktalk in local until their remaining 8990 pals comes responding to the massive CTA.

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

RIP Vile Rat
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#378 - 2012-06-12 23:01:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Jade Constantine wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
Finde learth wrote:
And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?


Because its just idiotic on its face?

Parity, equality, level fairness is not a goal. Disallowing free wardecs by all the tradehub and roving gankers against a small corp that wants to wardec someone else is just preserving the mechanic from abuse.

Forget Goonswarm. Consider the vast majority of cases--every single wardec is getting unlimited allies against the aggressor, be it 3 alts or 3000 mains. At that point, wardecs are less a way to put a hurt on a guy who's crossed you/competition, and more a way to get nulsec entities NBSI in empire.

If you can't see how that breaks the mechanic, I can't help you.


And the solution I proposed was that these wardec allies should only be "free" if the defender + coalition allies is smaller than the attacker. This resolves the problem you highlight right?

Corp A is a 50man corp attacking Corp B, who is a 49 man corp.

Corp B decides they want help, and Corp C, a one-man wardec group, steps in to help.

Day two of the war and corp B is now a 300 man corp, as it was a shell the whole time. They declared war this way, because that's what they need to do to game the numbers under your system.

By the way - corp A drops 25 members from the corp into NPC corps. What then happens to the allied corps in the war?

Gaming the system and expecting it to work based on static numbers is silly, which is why the wardec fees are capped and run on an inverse logarithmic scale.

Your system is wide open to daily abuse by small entities attacking small entities, which is really what the whole point of wardecs is.

Large alliances don't give a **** about wardecs, Jade. They're only doing this because it's a low effort way of trolling YOU SPECIFICALLY. So, designing a system so that YOU SPECIFICALLY can deal with it is completely absurd.

"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,

corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#379 - 2012-06-12 23:08:31 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1


Here's an issue: Further enabling farming of FW plexes by lone frigates is pretty boring and dilutes FW as a whole, so rather than enabling everyone to do it by simply removing ewar...still remove ewar, as it is a good thing and encourages PvP, but come up with a mechanism to force people to commit to their plexes instead of just doing them in frigate alts.

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

fofofo
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#380 - 2012-06-12 23:09:06 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Corp A is a 50man corp attacking Corp B, who is a 49 man corp.

Corp B decides they want help, and Corp C, a one-man wardec group, steps in to help.

Day two of the war and corp B is now a 300 man corp, as it was a shell the whole time. They declared war this way, because that's what they need to do to game the numbers under your system.

By the way - corp A drops 25 members from the corp into NPC corps. What then happens to the allied corps in the war?


Potentially they start costing. But really there is nothing there that breaks the system - just people playing games in the sandbox.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Gaming the system and expecting it to work based on static numbers is silly, which is why the wardec fees are capped and run on an inverse logarithmic scale. Your system is wide open to daily abuse by small entities attacking small entities, which is really what the whole point of wardecs is.


As long as it allows escalation of the smaller force then there is no problem. Wars expand and people have fun shooting each other.

Khanh'rhh wrote:
Large alliances don't give a **** about wardecs, Jade. They're only doing this because it's a low effort way of trolling YOU SPECIFICALLY. So, designing a system so that YOU SPECIFICALLY can deal with it is completely absurd.


I don't care what their motive is - I wanted to feed them to their own wardec and entertain a couple of thousand people with the new possibilities of Inferno. Frankly I don't see that as a bad thing.

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