These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harold Tuphlos
The Dark Space Initiative
Scary Wormhole People
#81 - 2012-06-11 16:39:42 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
I hear wardecs make it hard to shoot a ship once with a full rack of 1400s


They make it an awful lot easier to pod the ex tornado pilots with fast lock rifters post gank though - especially when said pods are not going properly gcc due to bizzaro inexplicable bugs.



I hear most bugs are normal gameplay features and are easily explained.
space chikun
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2012-06-11 16:41:30 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using itSmile

it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking.


I just noticed these and well done! All we need now is corpse dressing!
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
#83 - 2012-06-11 16:42:40 UTC
Green around active ship niceLol

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

See you around the universe.

space chikun
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#84 - 2012-06-11 16:59:27 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


So.

1. Concord fee for allies only kicks in if the Defender + allies headcount is greater than the aggressor headcount.
2. For every defender ally that joins when their headcount is larger than aggressor headcount, the aggressors can add an ally too.
3. Ally contracts come up for renewal each 2 weeks, can be set to autorenewal and these don't cost concord fee unless defender outnumbers aggressor.
4. Mutual system contains as is and does not exclude allies.

Do you have a problem with that?


Sound reasoning? From Jade Constantine?

It must be a trap.

#4 is excluded from from the aforementioned sound reasoning.

If you mutual declare a war, you're not defending any more. You are saying you are not helpless and you will fight back. If you're needing allies to take the fight to them, that isn't necessarily true, is it?
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#85 - 2012-06-11 16:59:34 UTC
Elijah Craig wrote:
I appreciate your frustration at feeling like your gameplan has been nerfed, I really do, but at the same time your plan was to just have ~everyone~ in high sec join certain wardecs? Do you think all those folks would ~actively~ fight the aggressor on your behalf? In reality, they won't. In fact, the emergent gameplay here is that you now need to choose and prioritise your Allies and work with those that are most effective.


It really won't work that way.

What these changes will do is give people who have been wardecced by large alliances a limited commodity that can be resold to trade hub camping outfits so they get a discount on their normal business. Our wardec from goons for example is worth 500m - (whatever the ally escalation cost multiplier is x number of allies) and that means we could offer a service to Privateers, Orphanage etc to allow them to gain access to cheap 2 week cycle wardecs by paying us the concord escalator rather than wardeccing directly.

There will be no choosing of "serious mercs" because its literally impossible to win a serious empire war against a bunch of people whose income is not based in hisec anyway.

Elijah Craig wrote:
Rather than going "Hey! Everyone pile on for free wardecs!", you are now going to have to consider who are the best partners to have in the war and, every two weeks, you can look at their effectiveness and reward those that are actually helping you and extend the deal, whilst weeding out the time wasters.


Unfortunately it'll be as described above. We'll sell slots to people who want a wardec discount and completely ignore it because the system CCP have foisted on us makes it fiscally impractical to add enough allies to make a difference. Nobody with any sense will throw money at concord to bring people into a war of this kind.

Elijah Craig wrote:
Imagine being a tight, well skilled Merc corp and seeing your entire business model be flooded by jokers looking to pile in on wardecs? How can you make a living when everyone is giving it away for free?


Now it won't be given away for free - it'll be sold to you as a discount option.

Elijah Craig wrote:
I figure that a single professional motivated Marc corp would do more harm to a large alliance than a huge bunch of dudes who don't do anything and dock up when it comes time to fight (see: Noir during Burn Jita). And one motivated corp defending his home, or being paid to do so, is more powerful than a 100 empty wardecs.


See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time the only people who would ever be interested will be those whose interest is in trade hub ganking and only because allying will give the possibility of a discount access to a wardec.



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

Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#86 - 2012-06-11 17:01:42 UTC
Two step wrote:
Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.

Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.


And yet CCP took the one fix that caters solely to large alliances instead of a real fix. Care to explain that Mr. CSM guy?
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#87 - 2012-06-11 17:03:21 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time

War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"?

Oh, christ.

No, just no so many times.

"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
#88 - 2012-06-11 17:05:15 UTC
space chikun wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:


So.

1. Concord fee for allies only kicks in if the Defender + allies headcount is greater than the aggressor headcount.
2. For every defender ally that joins when their headcount is larger than aggressor headcount, the aggressors can add an ally too.
3. Ally contracts come up for renewal each 2 weeks, can be set to autorenewal and these don't cost concord fee unless defender outnumbers aggressor.
4. Mutual system contains as is and does not exclude allies.

Do you have a problem with that?


Sound reasoning? From Jade Constantine?

It must be a trap.

#4 is excluded from from the aforementioned sound reasoning.

If you mutual declare a war, you're not defending any more. You are saying you are not helpless and you will fight back. If you're needing allies to take the fight to them, that isn't necessarily true, is it?



well its a bit of a "making the best of a dogs dinner" option is number 4. What the mutual is making up for is the inability to force a failed attacker to actually pay a penalty for losing a war. Currently there is no option. Its consequence-free. But it appeared with Inferno that since a war continues as long as you pay - making the pay free *should* take away the easy escape from the attacker. But whats really needed is a way for an attacker to lose the war.

For example ... the goonswarm vs SF war they are currently losing 10billion isk to 1billion isk. But there is no penalty if they just let it drop. If we could work out a system that would penalize the attacker for declaring a nonsense war and losing it then that would take away the need for mutual shenanigans.

But I do take your point ... mutual mechanic is not really a good fit for bringing consequence to outcomes.

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
#89 - 2012-06-11 17:09:21 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time

War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"?

Oh, christ.

No, just no so many times.


Well, war to a purpose. Thats a different matter.
War to destroy a control tower, to take an outpost, to blow up a customs office, to drive a corp/alliance from their home, to grief them to non existence etc etc - all these things have a dynamic of their own and make the war interesting. Its why Faction Warfare is so good right now - there is a reason to fight, something to lose, something to win and it drives the narrative of the combat game.

Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it.

Thats the difference.

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
#90 - 2012-06-11 17:14:06 UTC
space chikun wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using itSmile

it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking.


I just noticed these and well done! All we need now is corpse dressing!


Thanks! Big smile

(I'm going to read that corpse dressing thread again, best thread on eve-o today!)

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#91 - 2012-06-11 17:14:53 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Two step wrote:
Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.

Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.


And yet CCP took the one fix that caters solely to large alliances instead of a real fix. Care to explain that Mr. CSM guy?


This isn't the fix I would have chosen. Once again, the CSM is not in charge of what CCP does. Our feedback (which you will see when the summit minutes come out), was that unlimited free allies was dumb, and locking people into being allies forever was also dumb. Our role isn't to do game design, so it is up to CCP how they want to fix those issues.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Lord Helghast
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#92 - 2012-06-11 17:26:40 UTC
no new mods :( was so looking forward to seeing the extreme rigs for frigates, or the micro jump drive get introduced, 1.1 seems a bit lackluster :(, i mean the v3 is pretty but :( still a sad panda
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#93 - 2012-06-11 17:28:00 UTC
Lord Helghast wrote:
no new mods :( was so looking forward to seeing the extreme rigs for frigates, or the micro jump drive get introduced, 1.1 seems a bit lackluster :(, i mean the v3 is pretty but :( still a sad panda

Well, we're still waiting on what these new FW items are.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#94 - 2012-06-11 17:38:44 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time

War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"?

Oh, christ.

No, just no so many times.


Well, war to a purpose. Thats a different matter.
War to destroy a control tower, to take an outpost, to blow up a customs office, to drive a corp/alliance from their home, to grief them to non existence etc etc - all these things have a dynamic of their own and make the war interesting. Its why Faction Warfare is so good right now - there is a reason to fight, something to lose, something to win and it drives the narrative of the combat game.

Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it.

Thats the difference.



The difference is you don't get to say what makes a valid "war."

Historically more people have died in more wars fought over grudges (be it racial, ethical, religious or for holy land, etc) than any idea of having a conflict with a positive aim.

You're literally saying "my version of a war is X and anything else is meany pants"

Grow up, or see reason, whichever works.

"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,

GokuZWar
Perkone
Caldari State
#95 - 2012-06-11 17:52:22 UTC  |  Edited by: GokuZWar
Would be nice if you guys could fix the lag when you get blown up by a fleet of ships the delay it takes between actually allowing yourself to control your ship again to warp off before podded. Several times I find myself frozen after a ship kill and by the time i have control back on my computer, i'm back in my med clone with no chance to get out. Either enable an auto warp feature for your pod to engage after a 5 second delay if no actions are received or fix graphics, cuz I always turn down graphics to a minimum during fights but even with that it doesn't help much.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#96 - 2012-06-11 17:59:23 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
See the thing is this kind of wardec has no objective, no purpose, no win conditions and now no surrender penalty for the attacker. Because its a pointless vapid waste-of-time

War and PVP in an MMO built to be a huge open War PVP simulator is a "waste of time"?

Oh, christ.

No, just no so many times.


Well, war to a purpose. Thats a different matter.
War to destroy a control tower, to take an outpost, to blow up a customs office, to drive a corp/alliance from their home, to grief them to non existence etc etc - all these things have a dynamic of their own and make the war interesting. Its why Faction Warfare is so good right now - there is a reason to fight, something to lose, something to win and it drives the narrative of the combat game.

Now random wardec for the sake of it in highsec by a huge alliance who can't really be bothered to fight and will never be impacted by the opposition because the mechanics ensure its impossible to assemble a force large enough to actually hurt them. There is no real narrative or drive to that war. End of the day the only sensible thing to do is to outsource ganking opportunities to hisec trade hub campers and ignore it.

Thats the difference.



The difference is you don't get to say what makes a valid "war."

Historically more people have died in more wars fought over grudges (be it racial, ethical, religious or for holy land, etc) than any idea of having a conflict with a positive aim.

You're literally saying "my version of a war is X and anything else is meany pants"

Grow up, or see reason, whichever works.


I think you are stretching things there.

Very few serious wars ever got started without there being some kind of casus beli or material motive. Even the crusades had a fair quanity of filthy lucre dangling in the sight of the holy warriors. But I'm not really sure what you are arguing about truth be told. I've told you that my preference when faced by a large alliance nonsense dec is generally to outsource it to the trade hub gankers. If it was a more serious dec - ie an attack on something I cared about then sure I'd look at finding some proper allies - but then thats not really what we're talking about.

Bah really, I think we've wandered too far from the point.

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

Kuroi Hoshi
Ajo Heavy Industries
#97 - 2012-06-11 17:59:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuroi Hoshi
Question from my last read through on the wardec cost system:
Currently is only the defender's size considered for the war dec cost and not the attacker's?

If so may I recommend the formula instead being (attacker pilot count + defender pilot count)/2 being the new way to determine weekly wardec price.
Mirrodin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2012-06-11 18:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirrodin
Why do you need the allies system? Why don't the so-called smaller entities take a page from the books of the larger, nullsec blocks and make allies. Like. Real allies. Recruit corps into their alliance until you're of equal size to fight them legitimately? Why not just start camping them in the 0.0 entrances? Why not use the sandbox as a sandbox instead of relying on the game mechanics of a system you're complaining about?

Everyone but goons are worried/annoyed with these changes, that they will impact the "Small alliance's ability to field equal numbers"

Get the ******* equal numbers without the wardec ally system. Jesus.
GokuZWar
Perkone
Caldari State
#99 - 2012-06-11 18:05:58 UTC
Two step wrote:

This isn't the fix I would have chosen. Once again, the CSM is not in charge of what CCP does. Our feedback (which you will see when the summit minutes come out), was that unlimited free allies was dumb, and locking people into being allies forever was also dumb. Our role isn't to do game design, so it is up to CCP how they want to fix those issues.


So what you're saying is, being on the CSM you have no real power...why bother being a CSM then? What's the real point of it if they don't listen to you? Aren't you supposed to listen to us, and tell them what we say so we have a voice THROUGH you to the developers? Seems to me the CSM is rather pointless to have if they won't listen to the CSM. It's either that or the CSM isn't doing their part but is now saying this just because it's what we want to hear. Just my two cents on that. Not saying you guys are doing a bad job, but this just sounds like a cop out to me.
Aethlyn
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2012-06-11 18:12:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Aethlyn
Jade Constantine wrote:
Okay so lets make another small change instead.

If aggressing entity has a membership larger than the defending entity (+all their allies) then the defending entity can call allies exactly as the system works now.

If the aggressing entity has a membership smaller than the defending entity then the defender can still call allies but for every ally who is added the attacker can also add an ally.

This allows escalation on both sides and will lead to a more dynamic and evolving war environment.

I like this idea. Sounds more fair and interesting than simply adding lots of money involved.

As an alternative, I could think about a system defining the costs dynamically based on the ratio aggressors to defenders (with 20 aggressors and 10 defenders you pay a maximum of 50% of the standard fee; with 20 aggressors and 20 defenders you pay 100%; with 20 aggressors and 40 defenders you pay 200%).

Looking for more thoughts? Follow me on Twitter.