These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nomistrav
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#581 - 2012-06-13 21:17:29 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Nomistrav wrote:
That's not a proposal, suggestion, recommendation, alternative, or option toward the solution. That's a statement of knowledge that has already been relayed.

Yes, the part where I said "this isn't a solution" pretty much made that very clear. What is your point?


It wasn't what I originally asked you to do, which was add something effective rather than extending the flame war and making personal remarks, it's contradiction. This is a feedback thread. Offer up something that will suggest that it is good or bad rather than saying that a person is just plain wrong because it's what -you- believe. That person has absolutely nothing to do with your feedback on what is being proposed.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Nomistrav
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#582 - 2012-06-13 21:18:46 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:

Or one corp of 500
Or two of 250
Or three of 166
Or four of 125

All of which are completely reasonable, both with respect to actual sizes of merc outfits available to you today, and your ability to pay for them under 1.1

Are you reaching a point anytime soon?


Believe we're done here based on that last sentence. Thank you for your time.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#583 - 2012-06-13 21:25:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Nomistrav wrote:
This is a feedback thread. Offer up something that will suggest that it is good or bad

I checked, and I have made 42 (heh) posts in this thread supporting this change, as seen on Sisi, as a short term measure to stop the massive problem currently being seen and reported by mercenaries in highsec - with conditional statements that it will need iteration.

How is this not feedback?

You're the one here now claiming .... I don't know what. Which is why I am asking you if you have a point to make?

"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,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#584 - 2012-06-13 21:26:30 UTC
Hint: I know what the point is, but I want to quote you on 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,

Thorvik
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#585 - 2012-06-13 22:07:16 UTC
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
lol ...

Although i do wish there was a way for nullsec alliances to "nullsec only" wardec each other so we could take advantage of the war tracking system, but it would give no low or highsec rights to either side, just would be an active nullsec war for tracking kills and stuff.



I like this. An excellent idea!
Kuroi Hoshi
Ajo Heavy Industries
#586 - 2012-06-13 22:53:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuroi Hoshi
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Kashe Kadeshe wrote:
Spyker Slater wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Decreases the time between modification of resistances.


It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well?
Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful.


No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).


Sorry if this was addressed further in but I'm not rereading 30 pages to check that. It seems a bit of a fringe skill as it doesn't modify the omni tank but having the skill increases defensive cap consumption by 10%+ for dual T2 medium rep + reactive module and almost 20% for single T2 medium rep + reactive module.

It seems a bit harsh to train a tanking skill that could actually reduce your active tanking ability total value due to cap consumption increases. Doubling the chance that you'll hit a cycle when at 0 cap due to neuting and having to start the adjustment over already seems like a big enough tradeoff to me.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#587 - 2012-06-13 23:01:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.

Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.


Wow that sounds great! if only there was a way to make sure the punch actually hits something when the weaker defender and his new allies strike, instead of the attacker simply dropping the war when it gets too hot in the kitchen.

Making the war mutual, locking the attacker into the war, pummeling him with your allies into a 'Treaty of Versailles'-style surrender or into disbandment. Finally! Inferno understands the consequence for war-dec agression!

WRONG!!!

CCP SoniClover's dev blog wrote:

Lets Step Outside and Settle This Like Men

Allies can now no longer be part of mutual wars – mutual wars are now strictly mano-a-mano. This means that when a war is set to mutual, all existing ally contracts are set to end (i.e. their two week timer is adjusted to end immediately), with the usual 24 hour grace period. Furthermore, no new ally contracts can be accepted.


You do realize that misplaced need for 'fair fighting' will make mutual wars as utterly useless as pre-Inferno right?

No weaker defender will EVER declare a war mutual if he can't get allies to help out (yes you can get additional wardecs, but winning mutual wars are too long-winded affairs for mercs, so you need 'free' allies).

No mega-corp entity will ever declare the wardecs of privateers or mercs mutual, being more happy to be rid of these annoying guerilla-style hub campers, forced to retract eventually by the the massive warbill.

Wars in between these situation SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN, so there will be no wars to declared mutual EVER

One exception, as it was pre-Inferno: RvB war-dec and their never-ending gimped form of TF2-PvP. Roll

Congratulations CCP, not only did you make CCP Soundwave's statement look totally ridiculous, with the additional removal of the dogpile consequence, you've managed to completely undo every new emergent gameplay and actual consequences from Inferno's war-dec update.

I guess I was wrong in thinking CCP finally understood high-sec war-dec gameplay.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#588 - 2012-06-13 23:45:17 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
No weaker defender will EVER declare a war mutual if he can't get allies to help out

Well, no. I have done this several times, so I can't really see how you can say this "will never happen" as I can cite precedence.

If you look in the neocom at the active wars you will see there are mutual wars with no allies, also.
Quote:
Wars in between these situation SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN, so there will be no wars to declared mutual EVER

Oh hey look, there's you saying things aren't happening that all the available evidence says actually is. CAPS LOCK DOES NOT MAKE IT RIGHT.
Quote:
Making the war mutual, locking the attacker into the war, pummeling him with your allies into a 'Treaty of Versailles'-style surrender or into disbandment. Finally! Inferno understands the consequence for war-dec agression!

Except, in practice, all that happened was someone pressed two buttons then went and mad-posted on the forums. Elsewhere, "mercs" simply accepted every available wardec going without a care for who it was for or against and did so for no ISK.

That isn't emergent gameplay, it's an emergent problem.

"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,

Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate
Northern Coalition.
#589 - 2012-06-14 00:12:42 UTC
I hate to say it, but this fix is not good.

Firstly it's revealed just after goons get their tails bitten; and we know they petition anything that is ever so slightly unfair (petitioning Thorn Syndicate's totlly legit (later confirmed by CCP) tactic of baiting logis to aggress and killing them, anyone?) Telling the people paying you to make their game (your customers) to basicaly STFU is neither professional nor a good idea, when what you should have said is 'We discovered a loophole a few weeks ago and are fixing it.' which at least would have been some evidence that you started trying to fix the issue before goons declared war.

Look at it from the rest of the playerbase's perception; when Goons exploit (wrong word really because you say exploits are bad - personally I think they are great and show real intelligence) the system and gank freighters with fleets of basically throwaway ships on throwaway characters that cost them about 1 hour of moon mining that's 'emergent content' but when another alliance figures out a way to lock the entire world in a war with the goons it's fixed coincidentally 2 days later.

It's really not a huge leap to make to connect the two.



Secondly (and the really important bit) its the wrong fix to the issue.

The fix should have been something like 'adding allies cannot be free if war is made mutual, making a war mutual will end ally membership of war and offer a reinvite' (minimum price maybe 1mil per member payable to concord?), combined with a 'allies can commit to a war for x days, and drop out after that unless they agree to continue'.

That would have fixed all the issues; and would not have brought CCP into disrepute.
Muul Udonii
THORN Syndicate
Northern Coalition.
#590 - 2012-06-14 00:16:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Muul Udonii
Thorvik wrote:
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:
lol ...

Although i do wish there was a way for nullsec alliances to "nullsec only" wardec each other so we could take advantage of the war tracking system, but it would give no low or highsec rights to either side, just would be an active nullsec war for tracking kills and stuff.



I like this. An excellent idea!



I'd like the original post, but I cant find it :) Brilliant idea. Free 0.0 only wardecs. We can all shoot each other there anyway, and it allows a coalition to be official (share blues / reds that are actively involved etc.
Halstrom Whitestar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#591 - 2012-06-14 03:24:43 UTC
• Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
• Allies can not be part of mutual wars – defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)


So Goon can seek to permanently fund Hulk killing in high sec, and to bully the tiny man with never ending wardecs, but people aren't allowed to band together behind The Star Fracture and hold them to account?????

Goon sponsored CCP nerf???
Damay Aprionati
Bloody Vermin
#592 - 2012-06-14 03:28:32 UTC
I hope the Mittani's pocket is warm enough for you CCP.

Dead men can't pay.

michael boltonIII
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#593 - 2012-06-14 03:52:13 UTC
Halstrom Whitestar wrote:
• Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
• Allies can not be part of mutual wars – defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)


So Goon can seek to permanently fund Hulk killing in high sec, and to bully the tiny man with never ending wardecs, but people aren't allowed to band together behind The Star Fracture and hold them to account?????

Goon sponsored CCP nerf???


NC. Ladies and Gentleman. You realize that this has nothing to do with suicide ganking and the people who are doing the majority of the ganking aren't even in goons. It's almost like goons have unlimited money because of a mutually profitable cartel between several large 0.0 alliances, but NC. wouldn't have anything to do with that would they?

Also, "Goon sponsored CCP nerf?" would mean that Goons just nerfed CCP. English is a hard language.
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#594 - 2012-06-14 03:56:46 UTC
Muul Udonii wrote:
Baaa



You are you?

 Though All Men Do Despise Us

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#595 - 2012-06-14 04:07:54 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:

Five-0

• Rollback of lowering the reward for vanguard sites by 10%
• Rollback of changes to system influence
Devblog here - http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=72880

I would also like to add that I will be actively moderating this thread so keep the feedback constructive and keep ranting to a minimum.


I don't forsee any of the above changes affecting he REAL problem of why Vanguard participation. The Override Transfer Array's (OTA's) are the real issue now and end up stacking like pancakes like the NCN do in Assaults. This is true in lo,null, and hi SEC. The Sansha Inluence bar change will go towards helping null&lo especially but not until after something is done with the OTA's.
Also the Assaults in Escalation were promised to be sped up but only were in the NCNs (slightly) he OCDs were actually lengthened due to the addition of Augas and more Romi's. The NCS's times were actually lengthened due to the delay of waiting for all the triggers to be destroyed between each spawn causing the close range ships o wait for the long range ships to kill of every spawn ( evbenthough like right now every ship had to be destroyed this also has made the NCS's considerably more safer becausethey are not able to become 'pre-spawned' by griefers )

My last 0.02 ISK before UNSUBBing in protest of the Incursion Esclation NERF's destruction of so many communities and the lack of listening to the feedback by DEVs in the forums by people that actually do Incursions.
The 2 rollbacks are a slap in the ace DEVs Sad
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Tolmar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#596 - 2012-06-14 05:22:58 UTC
Ok why did you even bother with the wardec system if you were going to cap it... It is ******** to think 500 mil is a deterent for gank corps/alliance... People dont seem to have a problem paying the isk since they are still wardeccing 2k+ member alliances... This is a move in wrong direction...
Nomistrav
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#597 - 2012-06-14 07:33:28 UTC
Feedback is only as good as the most vocal in the community. Hundreds, if not thousands, don't even browse the forums and don't have any clue as to what is going on in this discussion. Might like the changes, might not. I don't have a CSM representative from my alliance and am still waiting on a response to speak with -someone- about certain issues, so my voice isn't as privy here on the forums, it seems.

I think we should honestly just get a survey going and vote on these things. People throw out quotes like "the majority of people aren't going to like this" or "the majority of people -are- going to like this", but the simple fact of the matter is: The majority of the people are not -YOU-. Let statistics prove what's really going on.

I'm not one to seek validation from strangers to see whether or not I'm right or wrong, though. Despite disagreeing with the views, they don't even affect me what-so-ever. Watching from the side-lines, however, I'm still seeking an answer as to why we're implementing changes so quickly to a such a new feature other than 'x' amount of people (which are not the 250,000+ subscribers as a whole) complained.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#598 - 2012-06-14 09:44:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
I'm not going to get into a "referendum vs democratically elected representative" debate, but I would suggest that if your concerns are:

a) Goon influence
b) Misrepresentation of people who don't come to the forums

Then you'd be naive to think asking people to vote on issues would be conducive to that aim. If you don't think GSF could get a landslide victory on every vote they want pushed then you need to look at the CSM elections.

"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,

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#599 - 2012-06-14 09:48:40 UTC
I'll also point out that majority votes supported segregation, slavery, anti-women voting and just about everything else you can name before it got changed.

Statistics can only show you what the masses think and should never form policy directly.

"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,

Nomistrav
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#600 - 2012-06-14 10:44:02 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
I'm not going to get into a "referendum vs democratically elected representative" debate, but I would suggest that if your concerns are:

a) Goon influence
b) Misrepresentation of people who don't come to the forums

Then you'd be naive to think asking people to vote on issues would be conducive to that aim. If you don't think GSF could get a landslide victory on every vote they want pushed then you need to look at the CSM elections.


While I previously stated that I was no longer speaking with you, this sort of over-rides that. I never once said anything about Goonswarm. You assumed that much, and by doing so I've a clear idea that you're basing your ideals solely on that aspect; to the point of not being able to see past the veil of your own closed argument. This has nothing to do with Goonswarm, what-so-ever.

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama