These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Inferno 1.1 Changes To the War Dec System

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#401 - 2012-06-20 00:42:42 UTC
Nikon Nip wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
where is that popcorn I asked for????


On sale in the mercenary marketplace Cool


I thought I'd get as many free as you had?


well 50 takes quite a lot of work you know - its not easy driving the largest alliance in the game to a foot-stamping apoplexy of impotent rage - and you need to be able to offer interesting ganks to attract the "popcorn" Blink



And interesting ganks have been provided, ty Jade and your forever war. I have had the time of my life blowing up goons, something that was very difficult for me before without literally emptying my corporate coffers.



You are quite welcome! Its been a fun experiment. Sadly the "forever" part of the description going to fall off with the 1.1 patch and we'll have about 2 weeks left to punish the goons before war is over and the bad guys can go back to their missioning in peace.

That said, I must confess I'm curious to see what the dialogue box is going to look like when my 51st ally offers to join the war post 1.1 patch (looks sideways at Punkturis) by current calculations it *should* ask for an addition 10 Sextillion ISK as a concord bribe ...
thats quite a number and I'm wondering if the user inferface is going to handle it so I can screenshot for historical record!

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
#402 - 2012-06-20 00:43:42 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Two step wrote:
I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended.


Wardecs should be risky, but all the risk should be on the defender's side? WTF?

You want to be a flaccid-phallus and wardec corps in hisec, then you want the poor fools you're wardeccing to stump the costs for defending a war they didn't want?

If wars are supposed to be risky, the defender should at the very least be allowed free allies up to the point that the defending team outnumbers the attacking team. Making a war mutual should not preclude the defenders having allies. You started the war, you wear the cost. The defender goes mutual, you're stuck in the war that you started. That's your risk.



Please listen to this player CCP ... she gets it!

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
#403 - 2012-06-20 00:54:08 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Nikon Nip wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
where is that popcorn I asked for????


On sale in the mercenary marketplace Cool


I thought I'd get as many free as you had?


well 50 takes quite a lot of work you know - its not easy driving the largest alliance in the game to a foot-stamping apoplexy of impotent rage - and you need to be able to offer interesting ganks to attract the "popcorn" Blink



And interesting ganks have been provided, ty Jade and your forever war. I have had the time of my life blowing up goons, something that was very difficult for me before without literally emptying my corporate coffers.



You are quite welcome! Its been a fun experiment. Sadly the "forever" part of the description going to fall off with the 1.1 patch and we'll have about 2 weeks left to punish the goons before war is over and the bad guys can go back to their missioning in peace.

That said, I must confess I'm curious to see what the dialogue box is going to look like when my 51st ally offers to join the war post 1.1 patch (looks sideways at Punkturis) by current calculations it *should* ask for an addition 10 Sextillion ISK as a concord bribe ...
thats quite a number and I'm wondering if the user inferface is going to handle it so I can screenshot for historical record!


Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Nikon Nip
Doomheim
#404 - 2012-06-20 00:55:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Caldari Citizen 189728976979
Mara Rinn wrote:
Two step wrote:
I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended.


Wardecs should be risky, but all the risk should be on the defender's side? WTF?

You want to be a flaccid-phallus and wardec corps in hisec, then you want the poor fools you're wardeccing to stump the costs for defending a war they didn't want?

If wars are supposed to be risky, the defender should at the very least be allowed free allies up to the point that the defending team outnumbers the attacking team. Making a war mutual should not preclude the defenders having allies. You started the war, you wear the cost. The defender goes mutual, you're stuck in the war that you started. That's your risk.



Which is exactly what has happened, only the Goons thought we would just bend over and take the abuse. Oh how wrong they were. After the 1.1 crap patch hits, what we're really gonna need to do is keep supporting each other. If this means forming 1 large alliance (or a few smaller ones) and declaring war on goons then so be it. I for one am tired of being the highsec target that goons think we are.

As a side note, I find it laughable that the null people cry carebear/htfu/etc to us, while at the same time they have their alt corps/alts sitting in a highsec system reaping the same benefits we enjoy. I say, stfu and leave us be or gtfo of highsec. For too long have nullers dictated my choice of playstyle, I say no more.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#405 - 2012-06-20 01:12:05 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:

Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)


Does that mean its going to trim the number of allies down to the cap when 1.1 comes out? Or will it just refuse to let me add new allies up until the renewal 2 weeks? (+ if it does auto trim how is it going to decide which allies to lose?)

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom
None ofthe Above
#406 - 2012-06-20 01:12:40 UTC  |  Edited by: None ofthe Above
CCP Punkturis wrote:

Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)


20 for 5 Trillion ISK.

(I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?)

EDITED TO ADD CITATION: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1473485#post1473485

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Nikon Nip
Doomheim
#407 - 2012-06-20 01:17:17 UTC
None ofthe Above wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:

Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)


20 for 5 Trillion ISK.

(I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?)



I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have. I've been a high sec carebear now for a few years and know most of the tricks for making money, but that does not mean I have a lot of isk. Even just the fee to wardec goons for my corp is prohibitively expensive, not including merc price and now the cost of having alies. Basically, we're gonna go back to just letting our accounts expire when we get wardecced and then come back after a few months.
None ofthe Above
#408 - 2012-06-20 01:20:31 UTC
Nikon Nip wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:

Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)


20 for 5 Trillion ISK.

(I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?)



I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have. I've been a high sec carebear now for a few years and know most of the tricks for making money, but that does not mean I have a lot of isk. Even just the fee to wardec goons for my corp is prohibitively expensive, not including merc price and now the cost of having alies. Basically, we're gonna go back to just letting our accounts expire when we get wardecced and then come back after a few months.


Oh they don't seriously expect you to pay that. The intent is a somewhat soft cap and an ISK sink. I think they want you to stop somewhere around 5 allies, smaller for poorer corps.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Nikon Nip
Doomheim
#409 - 2012-06-20 01:29:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Caldari Citizen 189728976979
None ofthe Above wrote:
Nikon Nip wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:

Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)


20 for 5 Trillion ISK.

(I so feel like Dr. Evil just typing that. Where is my mini-me?)



I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have. I've been a high sec carebear now for a few years and know most of the tricks for making money, but that does not mean I have a lot of isk. Even just the fee to wardec goons for my corp is prohibitively expensive, not including merc price and now the cost of having alies. Basically, we're gonna go back to just letting our accounts expire when we get wardecced and then come back after a few months.


Oh they don't seriously expect you to pay that. The intent is a somewhat soft cap and an ISK sink. I think they want you to stop somewhere around 5 allies, smaller for poorer corps.



If they want a fraking isk sink, why not an isk sink for those who actually have the damned isk.....I.E. nullers and not the carebears who they have nerfed into the damned ground for the last few years. What they need to do is get a few developers who are carebears instead of the nullers they have now. AND, reliaze that a good portion of their subscribers dwell in highsec.
Molic Blackbird
Orion Faction Industries
Orion Consortium
#410 - 2012-06-20 02:42:12 UTC
Two step wrote:
3) The mercenary profession should be viable in EVE. Ideally, a revised wardec system should make their life easier, not harder.


Without changes to make wars have something meaningful to fight over, I don't expect any change to make the Mercenary profession viable. Just because a corp gets war decced, doesn't mean that corp has an incentive to hire a mercenary corp. Since the war dec system has never provided any incentive to fight, I don't think the merc profession in Eve was ever all that viable. Prior to Inferno 1.0, there were lots of corps willing to issue war decs for merely the cost they incur to issue the war dec. Basically, Mercs have been free for a very long time.

The only time hiring a Merc corp would cost something is when there are objectives laid out for the merc corp . Such as POS defense, or pushing another corp out of a system. That doesn't change with Inferno 1.1. Just because a corp can get 1 million free allies doesn't mean they would be willing to pay for even 1. If it cost them something, most defenders will choose zero allies over paying for one. If you want a viable mercenary profession, a lot more needs to change then the number of allies that can be brought into a war. Infact, the number of Allies that can be brought in is independent of making a viable mercenary profession.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#411 - 2012-06-20 06:58:39 UTC
Nikon Nip wrote:
I think you guys are overestimating the isk that a lot of us have.


They're not. The explicit design decision was to "enable" mercenary corps. Thus a mercenary corp knows that any price under 2 Trillion ISK per week is a fair price to ask, assuming you have something in hisec worth 2 Trillion ISK per week to defend. But I think that's where CCP has painted themselves into a corner on this: what hisec care bearing alliance has "stuff" that is at risk in a wardec that is worth paying 2T ISK/week to defend? None.

The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners, and they shuttle stuff up to hisec using NPC corp alts flying orcas or low-value hauls in freighters.

There is some serious do-the-design-after-the-implementation retro-thinking going on with this wardec situation. It wasn't designed so much as vomited up after a drinking binge at the wrong bar.

Perhaps Mr Kardde can come to the table and detail some of the mercenary contracts he's personally been responsible for, involving defence of hisec care bearing corps.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
TheGunslinger42
All Web Investigations
#412 - 2012-06-20 07:52:58 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:

I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.


Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed.

There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given.

So please try it.

Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts.

Read what everyone else is saying.










That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback.


I guess on our part it's an exercise in futility then. You state you haven't noticed peoples complaints or suggestions amongst the goon/jade spam/drama/whatever and then flat out state you won't bother looking and instead are going to just blindly push forward with flawed mechanics just because you've already got momentum.

As for people reposting the same arguments ... shouldn't that give a bit more weight to them - it's one thing if a single character makes some random statements, but if it's echoed by a lot of people maybe it should be given a bit more consideration?

Honestly, the kind of responses I've seen from CCP over this crap is very disheartening, as it seems as though you're all very reluctant to reconsider the 1.1 decisions (which feel as though they were rushed to begin with)
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#413 - 2012-06-20 09:45:30 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:

Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)


Does that mean its going to trim the number of allies down to the cap when 1.1 comes out? Or will it just refuse to let me add new allies up until the renewal 2 weeks? (+ if it does auto trim how is it going to decide which allies to lose?)


you get to keep your gazillion allies (for 2 weeks) but the next one is going to cost you whatever the cap is

unless your war is mutual, then all your allies will be removed

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Richard Desturned
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#414 - 2012-06-20 10:10:23 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners


you need 700 tech moons to have that much income in a week and I'm pretty sure there are far less than 700 tech moons

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#415 - 2012-06-20 10:37:35 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners


you need 700 tech moons to have that much income in a week and I'm pretty sure there are far less than 700 tech moons


Approximately 350-400 afaik, of which goons are the largest holders with 76.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#416 - 2012-06-20 10:38:11 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
The people making 2T ISK/week are technetium miners


you need 700 tech moons to have that much income in a week and I'm pretty sure there are far less than 700 tech moons

there's 350-400.

edit: argh

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Darek Castigatus
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
#417 - 2012-06-20 10:39:16 UTC
TheGunslinger42 wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:

I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.


Well try this as a mental excercise. Skip all my posts in this thread. Also skip all Goon/Test/Nullsec posts and anyone specifically trolling my posts etc. The reason being we're specifically involved in the issue and invested in the outcome. Then take a serious look at what the genuine neutrals are saying and see if you think its generally supportive of the 1.1 changes or opposed.

There are issues that many people are criticising (and have indeed been criticising since before inferno) I've just been back reading some of the threads when Soniclover initially laid Superfriends plans for wardecs. Back then I wasn't even posting in the threads but these issues were still continually raised and negative feedback given.

So please try it.

Skip my posts, Skip the large alliance posts.

Read what everyone else is saying.










That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback.


I guess on our part it's an exercise in futility then. You state you haven't noticed peoples complaints or suggestions amongst the goon/jade spam/drama/whatever and then flat out state you won't bother looking and instead are going to just blindly push forward with flawed mechanics just because you've already got momentum.

As for people reposting the same arguments ... shouldn't that give a bit more weight to them - it's one thing if a single character makes some random statements, but if it's echoed by a lot of people maybe it should be given a bit more consideration?

Honestly, the kind of responses I've seen from CCP over this crap is very disheartening, as it seems as though you're all very reluctant to reconsider the 1.1 decisions (which feel as though they were rushed to begin with)


Or you could actually read what screegs wrote and realise theyre ignoring people whos attempts at persuasion involve spamming the same **** over and over and over. Give them some feedback thats actually worth reading and they'll take it on board.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#418 - 2012-06-20 10:39:24 UTC
Nikon Nip wrote:

Which is exactly what has happened, only the Goons thought we would just bend over and take the abuse. Oh how wrong they were.

you are, and will continue to do so

meanwhile our unwardeccable npc alt freighters will continue to supply us and bring our tech to jita

have fun!

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#419 - 2012-06-20 11:07:54 UTC
Nikon Nip wrote:
I honestly think the goons are scared, scared that their highsec logistic alts will get shut into a station, scared of their moon goo shipments getting repeatedly ambushed, scared that all the carebears, they have spent the last several year terrorizing, have finally said enough is enough. I'm sure when this started they had no idea that we carebears actually had some teeth, that we would band together and fight back. This war stopped being about Goonswarm v Jade a while ago, now it is Goonswarm v Highsec and they don't like it.

Can you show
a) Any such mention of this, ever?
b) Any of these "ambushes"? (hint: neutral alts hurr hurr)
c) Highsec "standing together" Hint: corps who declared war on everyone don't count

"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.
#420 - 2012-06-20 11:09:44 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Tyrozan
Jade Constantine wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Two step wrote:
I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended.


Wardecs should be risky, but all the risk should be on the defender's side? WTF?

You want-----Edit----- and wardec corps in hisec, then you want the poor fools you're wardeccing to stump the costs for defending a war they didn't want?

If wars are supposed to be risky, the defender should at the very least be allowed free allies up to the point that the defending team outnumbers the attacking team. Making a war mutual should not preclude the defenders having allies. You started the war, you wear the cost. The defender goes mutual, you're stuck in the war that you started. That's your risk.



Please listen to this player CCP ... she gets it!

Giant self-confessed carebear is on your side, and this is evidence your change is balanced and reasonable?

Heh.

Jade, your proposal has been shot down in countless threads already. Why do you insist that this hasn't happened? Do you enjoy having these posts linked and then leaving the thread until it's off the first page? -----Edit-----

The concept of a wardec system that ensures that every war fought is either
a) A much smaller entity attacking a larger one (grief deccing) or
b) Always fought on equal numbers

is just beyond stupid. But we're looking PAST your -----Edit-----solution to the ACTUAL question on the table:

- Does 1.0 need to be removed ASAP?

The answer to this is clearly yes, as it is fundamentally broken.

You know the hilarious thing in all of this is the ONLY entities that *can* fight a war (if they chose to do so) with unlimited and free allies IS------Edit------Goonswarm/TEST.

Jade would have you believe this change benefits them when the reality is they're the ONLY ones gaining from it.

The other person gaining from it is Jade. That's not because Goons are hurting but because he wants to have others *think* it is by linking lossmails and claiming the war is being won, and the Goons are looking bad.

Jade is asking for a fundamentally unbalanced system such that he is able to smack-talk Goonswarm and try to level some embarrassment against them.

It's sad, very unbalanced, and totally wrong.

Luckily everyone sees this, but Jade will keep on no-lifing it in posts to the same goal: Say anything that makes Goons look bad, even if it's 100% false.

Post edited
No personal attacks, please.

ISD Tyrozan
Ensign
Community Communications Liaison
Interstellar Services Department

"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,