These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#101 - 2012-06-11 18:15:55 UTC
GokuZWar wrote:
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.


Huh? Where on earth did you get the "CCP doesn't listen to the CSM" thing from what I posted. In this case, CCP is listening to both the CSM and to the players who have been complaining about the issues I mentioned and are working to fix them. This is a perfect example of the CSM process working *exactly* the way it is supposed to work.

Since you are accusing me (and the other members of CSM 7) of not doing our jobs, would you be kind enough to fill me in on what exactly you think our job *is*?

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#102 - 2012-06-11 18:16:14 UTC
Kuroi Hoshi wrote:
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.


Yeah its currently the defender size only hence the situation where a 9000 man alliance can wardec a 100 man alliance for 50m isk but in order to get parity in numbers (in the proposed 1.1 inferno patch) it will cost the defender a near infinite amount of isk in concord fees to get to a fraction of the aggressor's size.

This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#103 - 2012-06-11 18:20:39 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.


This won't be abused.

At all.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-06-11 18:20:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
Jade Constantine wrote:
Kuroi Hoshi wrote:
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.


Yeah its currently the defender size only hence the situation where a 9000 man alliance can wardec a 100 man alliance for 50m isk but in order to get parity in numbers (in the proposed 1.1 inferno patch) it will cost the defender a near infinite amount of isk in concord fees to get to a fraction of the aggressor's size.

This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.


This is not a terrible idea. However, war dec abuse went from bad to worse with the current war dec system imho. Hopefully CCP is committed it tweaking the war dec system for quite some time, or they might as well not have touched it.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#105 - 2012-06-11 18:23:44 UTC
GokuZWar wrote:
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.



I think the point is Two Step. Its fairly clear that a lot of eve developers lack actual gameplay experience with some of the systems they are designing and refining. This current wardec mechanism change indicates a startling lack of knowledge and understanding really - while sure, you guys on the CSM isn't game design - that doesn't mean you can't actually make some good suggestions and act as a sanity check on some of the craziest nonsense that comes out.

Would it have been that difficult to look at a couple of better suggestions for how to handle the problem of a small merc corp getting blobbed by a world of free allied decs ?

It took me 10secs to solve that problem for you on this thread.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Fuujin
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#106 - 2012-06-11 18:25:08 UTC
Jade, why are you so preoccupied with size and growing it? I know you keep going "...vs 100" but lets be real, The Star Fraction is a turgid 74 members so its not even that. I know it's natural to want to compensate, but you could be less obvious about it.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#107 - 2012-06-11 18:25:16 UTC
Haquer wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.


This won't be abused.

At all.


Okay so put aside the trolly meme nonsense for a moment and lets talk like adults .... how do you think this will be abused and what is the problem with it ?

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.
#108 - 2012-06-11 18:26:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Jade Constantine wrote:
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.


It's exactly on point. You raised it. It was you who came into this thread with the notion of what type of wardecs are valid or not. Heck, I even quoted one such instance of it.

Here's another
Quote:
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

It really shouldn't matter if you're winning or losing a war or by what ratio. The aggressor should be free to aggress as much as he wants to. You only need to look at examples like Stalingrad in WWII to realise that these scenarios play out in real war all the time, limiting them is pointless and counterproductive.

The CFC's casus beli is your bad posting, and they should be free to wardec you forever and a day at whatever cost it incurs on them, if they wish to.

"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,

Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#109 - 2012-06-11 18:27:13 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Haquer wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.


This won't be abused.

At all.


Okay so put aside the trolly meme nonsense for a moment and lets talk like adults .... how do you think this will be abused and what is the problem with it ?


The problem is exactly how you're abusing it right now and whining that it's going to be nerfed.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#110 - 2012-06-11 18:43:00 UTC
Haquer wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Haquer wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
This is why I've proposed (but the developers have not yet responded) that the concord fee for allies should not begin unless the collective number of defender + allies is greater than the headcount of the aggressor alliance.


This won't be abused.

At all.


Okay so put aside the trolly meme nonsense for a moment and lets talk like adults .... how do you think this will be abused and what is the problem with it ?


The problem is exactly how you're abusing it right now and whining that it's going to be nerfed.




So you don't believe that an offensive power with 9000 people should produce a war that a defender with 100 should be able to enlarge for free to become 9000 vs 9000 through the wardec system if they can attract enough allies?

Why is that might I ask?

Could it be that you are the dog-in-the-manger with the 9000 person alliance and you want game changes made purely to your advantage?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Synthetic Cultist
Church of The Crimson Saviour
#111 - 2012-06-11 18:43:06 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:

• Adding some new items to FW LP stores.


I don't see any change in the minmatar lp store, perhaps I am missing it ? where should I be looking ?

Synthia 1, Empress of Kaztropol.

It is Written.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#112 - 2012-06-11 18:56:58 UTC
Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.

Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.

Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen.

"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,

Addrake
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#113 - 2012-06-11 19:02:42 UTC
You guys get fireline fixed yet? Gonna make me a sad panda if you don't get that **** sorted.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#114 - 2012-06-11 19:04:14 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.

Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.

Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen.


As long as the target can request allies and turn hisec into a maelstrom of chaos and mayhem and carnage then I don't really have a problem with that :)

Good we agree on something at least.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Tithi
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2012-06-11 19:08:43 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.

Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.

Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen.


As long as the target can request allies and turn hisec into a maelstrom of chaos and mayhem and carnage then I don't really have a problem with that :)

Good we agree on something at least.


I still want you to explain how it makes sense that the goons would want LESS people to shoot at...
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#116 - 2012-06-11 19:14:19 UTC
Tithi wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Incidentally I think the notion of paying magic sky people to wardec at all is completely stupid. If you have a reason to go and shoot someone in the face then you should just press "I hate this corp of idiots" in your neocom and have them show up red 24 hours later.

Anything else is just checks and balances in a sandbox, which is never useful.

Let the weak die, it's what is meant to happen.


As long as the target can request allies and turn hisec into a maelstrom of chaos and mayhem and carnage then I don't really have a problem with that :)

Good we agree on something at least.


I still want you to explain how it makes sense that the goons would want LESS people to shoot at...


Perhaps you should write to the Test Alliance CSM rep and ask him what he thinks of the wardec changes.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#117 - 2012-06-11 19:37:32 UTC
While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system:

Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here.

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#118 - 2012-06-11 19:44:39 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system:

Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here.


Yeah, it's still not listed anywhere who declared war. It's something that would be really cool to get in, along with putting names to other actions in the war, but we didn't have time to do it for Inferno 1.1.

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings
#119 - 2012-06-11 19:48:07 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system:

Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here.


Yeah, it's still not listed anywhere who declared war. It's something that would be really cool to get in, along with putting names to other actions in the war, but we didn't have time to do it for Inferno 1.1.

Awesome! That would be great. Looking forward to it!

Accidentally The Whole Frigate - For-newbies blog (currently on pause)
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2012-06-11 19:48:23 UTC
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system:

Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here.

Sounds more like a "worst case scenario" than something which'll actually become a real problem, since you'll probably know ahead of time if a CEO or director would do something like this.

Nothing wrong with naming and shaming though.

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

RIP Vile Rat