These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Blawrf McTaggart
ElitistOps
Goonswarm Federation
#81 - 2012-06-13 18:36:05 UTC
i think you've had a spirited disagreement with the majority of the game over this mechanic, jade!!!
Crasniya
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#82 - 2012-06-13 18:36:49 UTC
I'd be more in support of a cost/number of allies structure based on head count. Big alliances, small alliances, big corps, and small corps should not all be handled the same way.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - [email protected]

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#83 - 2012-06-13 18:39:31 UTC
Atum wrote:
Personally, I'd have rather had CCP go, "Oh, Snap!!" and then sit back and watch what developed for a while before slapping together what appears to be a knee-jerk response. This doesn't appear to have been a nuclear-level fsck-up (e.g. Incarna, NEx) that required CSM summits or panicked roll-backs, so where's the harm in waiting a month or two and iterating slowly?


Once again though, your argument assumes that this was a knee-jerk response to Goonswarm's plight, an idea which has zero basis in reality whatsoever. Goonswarm never came up once in any of the CCP / CSM talks about the war dec issue, despite all the loonies trying to suggest as much.

The harm has been stated quite clearly multiple times now - the *design objective* of these changes was creating an outlet for mercenary work - NOT making wars perfectly balanced or fair. The changes instituted in Inferno completely undermined this objective, and needed modification.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#84 - 2012-06-13 18:42:07 UTC
Aleph Phi wrote:
devblog wrote:
Lastly, there is a new skill out there, called Armor Resistance Phasing. It reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners (or, well, the one that currently exists) by 10% per level. This skill costs ca. 600k, has a skill rank of 5 and is sold wherever good skill books are sold (i.e. the usual places).


Reduced Cycle time? While I'm all for a skill to make reactive armor hardeners adapt faster, this isn't a good way to go about it. Here's why:

  • Neutralization vulnerability. A module with a shorter cycle time is far more prone to being deactivated by capacitor warfare -- particularly when you're relying on a capacitor booster to keep your hardeners running. This is particularly critical on the reactive hardener, where deactivation means that adaptation has to start all over again.
  • Increased capacitor consumption. Unless you're also intending to reduce the activation cost, a faster cycle time results in correspondingly higher energy cost on a per second basis. The reactive armor hardener already consumes dramatically more capacitor than standard armor hardeners -- this would only make that worse.

  • For these reasons, I would actively avoid training the skill. The reactive armor hardener can be situationally useful without it, but the drawbacks make it a liability.

    P.S.: Did you mean to make the reactive armor hardener stacking penalized against damage controls? Neither module makes any mention of stacking penalties, but they most definitely act against each other.


    What ship are you planning to use this on where you are running out of capacitor because of this new hardener, or where you need capacitor boosters in order to run normal active hardeners? Care to share your fit?

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

    Midnight Hope
    Pator Tech School
    Minmatar Republic
    #85 - 2012-06-13 18:42:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Midnight Hope
    CCP Soundwave wrote:
    Manssell wrote:
    You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.


    It's funny you should mention this.................Big smile


    ^This got me thinking...

    It would seem to me that if the goal is to promote merc contracts then the whole idea of allies goes straight against it. Just get rid of allies and go with mercs. If you will end up paying one way or the other why even bother with allies.

    On the other hand, it also seems the war dec feature could use a bit more work and include treaties...who define who your allies (before a war starts) and join the war for free. If you want help above that then hire mercs.

    And since we are on that topic... will there be tools to evaluate which merc outfits are better than others? (besides scouring dubious killboards).
    Aleph Phi
    HnL Enterprise
    #86 - 2012-06-13 18:56:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Aleph Phi
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    What ship are you planning to use this on where you are running out of capacitor because of this new hardener, or where you need capacitor boosters in order to run normal active hardeners? Care to share your fit?

    Just about anything that's under neut pressure. People use capacitor boosters to run modules under neut pressure all the time, since a single injection will let you run all your mods for a cycle before you get neuted back down again. A shorter cycle time would leave you vulnerable until you could inject more capacitor -- definitely not a good thing.

    As for a ship that'd be troubled by the additional capacitor consumption? How about an Abaddon? They're already quite reliant on their cap boosters to run their lasers. Any additional pressure is just going to make them run through their charges that much faster. It's a factor, whether you admit it or not.
    Fuujin
    GoonWaffe
    Goonswarm Federation
    #87 - 2012-06-13 18:59:10 UTC
    Midnight Hope wrote:


    ^This got me thinking...

    It would seem to me that if the goal is to promote merc contracts then the whole idea of allies goes straight against it. Just get rid of allies and go with mercs. If you will end up paying one way or the other why even bother with allies.

    On the other hand, it also seems the war dec feature could use a bit more work and include treaties...who define who your allies (before a war starts) and join the war for free. If you want help above that then hire mercs.

    And since we are on that topic... will there be tools to evaluate which merc outfits are better than others? (besides scouring dubious killboards).



    I think the design thought was
    -Get wardec'd
    -solicit for allies through interface
    -get bids from mercs through interface
    -Approve mercs you want
    -Mercs join your war without having to declare their own.

    Unfortunately, "1000 market/roaming ganker corps joining for free" wasn't a consideration. This not only works contrary to providing work for "Real" mercs, but it also has the effect of chilling wardecs from smaller entities (the vast majority of wardecs) since even a 20 vs 20 can become 20 vs 400 overnight. System was broken.


    I also LOVE how people are taking away "ZOMG you only get 1 ally now!!!1eleven" when in fact to carry 3 allies is a mere 30M per 2 weeks. Even for level 3 mission runners that's nothing. Unless your goal is to just load up on trash allies...in which case, that isn't the goal of the system so go ahead and cry it out.
    Kismeteer
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #88 - 2012-06-13 19:10:49 UTC
    TBH, goonswarm doesn't care about empire for the most part. It's a playground to visit, buy stuff in, and cause chaos in general. Anyway, :words: because people are confused about this patch.

    Here is a break down of our wars. We have approximately 8,901 members in Goonswarm Federation right now, though I'd be surprised if more than 50 were down in empire taking part in these wars. We do have a lot of dumb pilots who ignore war decs though and try to buy something in Jita, dying on the undock!

    Quote:
    Goonswarm Fed vs Mabrick Mining and Manufacturing (3 members)
    0 Allies
    0 kills, 0 losses

    Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Noesis (2 members)
    0 Allies
    0 kills, 0 losses

    Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Philanthropists (3 members)
    0 Allies
    0 kills, 0 losses

    Goonswarm Fed vs The Honda Accord (154 members) (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Honda+Accord)
    38 Allies
    40 kills, 341 losses (7 bil killed, 17.8 bil lost)

    Goonswarm Fed vs The Star Fraction (70 members (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Star+Fraction)
    40 Allies
    19 kills, 62 losses (1.4 bil killed, 10.2 bil lost)


    So, to replicate this circumstance in this new system, Honda and Star Fraction would have to spend approximately 1.4 Quintillion and 5.5 Quintillion respectively (short system). Versus the Inferno War dec system, which cost 0. Now, if you have significant resources to protect, 10 allies is 20 bil, which is somewhat reasonable. But you better choose your mercs wisely! I also assure you that we will have similar losses in the new system as well, we are bad at eve.

    The current system is obviously broken, this is not the merc system as was requested. It's not like goonswarm is showing up in groups of 400 in empire to kill one small group either. We're showing up in packs of two's and four's to gank haulers and industrials. And we are losing tons of single pilots on jita undock, because we have dumb pilots.

    In the end, you have to hire competent mercenaries that can protect your assets with small groups with a fleet doctrine and you'll be fine. Hiring the entire universe to defend you is crazy talk. Also, why would people hire mercenaries if they can get some people to randomly show up for free? Give people a reason to hire the best mercenaries rather than just gankers. Hiring a group like the Privateers is great if you want them to sit on Jita undock and pop random goons. But to protect you in the belts and hauling, that takes a real mercenary crew.

    Also, I made this quick spreadsheet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort:
    Quote:

    1 ally = 0 Million
    2 allies = 10 Million
    3 allies = 30 Million
    4 allies = 70 Million
    5 allies = 150 Million
    6 allies = 310 Million
    7 allies = 630 Million
    8 allies = 1 Billion
    9 allies = 2 Billion
    10 allies = 5 Billion
    11 allies = 10 Billion
    12 allies = 20 Billion
    13 allies = 40 Billion
    14 allies = 81 Billion
    15 allies = 163 Billion
    16 allies = 327 Billion
    17 allies = 655 Billion
    18 allies = 1 Trillion
    19 allies = 2 Trillion
    20 allies = 5 Trillion
    21 allies = 10 Trillion
    22 allies = 20 Trillion
    23 allies = 41 Trillion
    24 allies = 83 Trillion
    25 allies = 167 Trillion
    26 allies = 335 Trillion
    27 allies = 671 Trillion
    28 allies = 1 Quadrillion
    29 allies = 2 Quadrillion
    30 allies = 5 Quadrillion
    31 allies = 10 Quadrillion
    32 allies = 21 Quadrillion
    33 allies = 42 Quadrillion
    34 allies = 85 Quadrillion
    35 allies = 171 Quadrillion
    36 allies = 343 Quadrillion
    37 allies = 687 Quadrillion
    38 allies = 1 Quintillion
    39 allies = 2 Quintillion
    40 allies = 5 Quintillion
    41 allies = 10 Quintillion
    42 allies = 21 Quintillion
    43 allies = 43 Quintillion
    44 allies = 87 Quintillion
    45 allies = 175 Quintillion
    46 allies = 351 Quintillion
    47 allies = 703 Quintillion
    48 allies = 1 Sextillion
    49 allies = 2 Sextillion
    50 allies = 5 Sextillion


    PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!
    Rrama Ratamnim
    Brave Newbies Inc.
    Brave Collective
    #89 - 2012-06-13 19:22:47 UTC
    Aleph Phi wrote:
    devblog wrote:
    Lastly, there is a new skill out there, called Armor Resistance Phasing. It reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners (or, well, the one that currently exists) by 10% per level. This skill costs ca. 600k, has a skill rank of 5 and is sold wherever good skill books are sold (i.e. the usual places).


    Reduced Cycle time? While I'm all for a skill to make reactive armor hardeners adapt faster, this isn't a good way to go about it. Here's why:

  • Neutralization vulnerability. A module with a shorter cycle time is far more prone to being deactivated by capacitor warfare -- particularly when you're relying on a capacitor booster to keep your hardeners running. This is particularly critical on the reactive hardener, where deactivation means that adaptation has to start all over again.
  • Increased capacitor consumption. Unless you're also intending to reduce the activation cost, a faster cycle time results in correspondingly higher energy cost on a per second basis. The reactive armor hardener already consumes dramatically more capacitor than standard armor hardeners -- this would only make that worse.

  • For these reasons, I would actively avoid training the skill. The reactive armor hardener can be situationally useful without it, but the drawbacks make it a liability.

    P.S.: Did you mean to make the reactive armor hardener stacking penalized against damage controls? Neither module makes any mention of stacking penalties, but they most definitely act against each other.


    100% agree, Soundwave please make this a activation cost Reduction + Cycle time reduction to maintain cap stability as it is its already very cap sensitive

    And yes the stacking penalty is annoying... do to its situational usage i really wish they would make it in a stacking group by itself. i mena if i'm gonna dump that much cpu into a DCU and a Reactive armor let me get the resists lol

    Wolodymyr
    Breaking Ambitions
    #90 - 2012-06-13 19:41:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    Once again though, your argument assumes that this was a knee-jerk response to Goonswarm's plight, an idea which has zero basis in reality whatsoever. Goonswarm never came up once in any of the CCP / CSM talks about the war dec issue, despite all the loonies trying to suggest as much.

    So these are changes that needed to be made, and the game will be better for it. Up until now the new wardeck mechanics were a little silly. With everyone being able to dogpile into a war there was very little incentive to shop around and actually hire mercenaries. And being able to declare a war mutual and lock someone into a war against multiple alliances probably wasn't the best game mechanic.

    But this whole fiasco comes down to a problem of perception. From the outside it looks like these desperately needed changes were not brought into the game because they were desperately needed changes, but rather because the goons whined about it.

    In a very short amount of time people saw the goons wardeck some people in highsec. The people highsec asked for help. They got help (a lot of help). And then a nerf was announced to prevent them from getting the same kind of help again. No matter what CCP's intentions were with their patch, that's what people saw.

    The same thing happened with the tracking titan nerf. tracking titans needed to be fixed. But they only got fixed because the goons were shouting about it.

    If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.

    I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck.

    I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544

    DarthNefarius
    Minmatar Heavy Industries
    #91 - 2012-06-13 19:42:15 UTC
    Kismeteer wrote:
    TBH, goonswarm doesn't care about empire for the most part. It's a playground to visit, buy stuff in, and cause chaos in general. Anyway, :words: because people are confused about this patch.

    Here is a break down of our wars. We have approximately 8,901 members in Goonswarm Federation right now, though I'd be surprised if more than 50 were down in empire taking part in these wars. We do have a lot of dumb pilots who ignore war decs though and try to buy something in Jita, dying on the undock!

    Quote:
    Goonswarm Fed vs Mabrick Mining and Manufacturing (3 members)
    0 Allies
    0 kills, 0 losses

    Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Noesis (2 members)
    0 Allies
    0 kills, 0 losses

    Goonswarm Fed vs Paladin Philanthropists (3 members)
    0 Allies
    0 kills, 0 losses

    Goonswarm Fed vs The Honda Accord (154 members) (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Honda+Accord)
    38 Allies
    40 kills, 341 losses (7 bil killed, 17.8 bil lost)

    Goonswarm Fed vs The Star Fraction (70 members (http://evewho.com/alli/The+Star+Fraction)
    40 Allies
    19 kills, 62 losses (1.4 bil killed, 10.2 bil lost)


    So, to replicate this circumstance in this new system, Honda and Star Fraction would have to spend approximately 1.4 Quintillion and 5.5 Quintillion respectively (short system). Versus the Inferno War dec system, which cost 0. Now, if you have significant resources to protect, 10 allies is 20 bil, which is somewhat reasonable. But you better choose your mercs wisely! I also assure you that we will have similar losses in the new system as well, we are bad at eve.

    The current system is obviously broken, this is not the merc system as was requested. It's not like goonswarm is showing up in groups of 400 in empire to kill one small group either. We're showing up in packs of two's and four's to gank haulers and industrials. And we are losing tons of single pilots on jita undock, because we have dumb pilots.

    In the end, you have to hire competent mercenaries that can protect your assets with small groups with a fleet doctrine and you'll be fine. Hiring the entire universe to defend you is crazy talk. Also, why would people hire mercenaries if they can get some people to randomly show up for free? Give people a reason to hire the best mercenaries rather than just gankers. Hiring a group like the Privateers is great if you want them to sit on Jita undock and pop random goons. But to protect you in the belts and hauling, that takes a real mercenary crew.

    Also, I made this quick spreadsheet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort:
    Quote:

    1 ally = 0 Million
    2 allies = 10 Million
    3 allies = 30 Million
    4 allies = 70 Million
    5 allies = 150 Million
    6 allies = 310 Million
    7 allies = 630 Million
    8 allies = 1 Billion
    9 allies = 2 Billion
    10 allies = 5 Billion
    11 allies = 10 Billion
    12 allies = 20 Billion
    13 allies = 40 Billion
    14 allies = 81 Billion
    15 allies = 163 Billion
    16 allies = 327 Billion
    17 allies = 655 Billion
    18 allies = 1 Trillion
    19 allies = 2 Trillion
    20 allies = 5 Trillion
    21 allies = 10 Trillion
    22 allies = 20 Trillion
    23 allies = 41 Trillion
    24 allies = 83 Trillion
    25 allies = 167 Trillion
    26 allies = 335 Trillion
    27 allies = 671 Trillion
    28 allies = 1 Quadrillion
    29 allies = 2 Quadrillion
    30 allies = 5 Quadrillion
    31 allies = 10 Quadrillion
    32 allies = 21 Quadrillion
    33 allies = 42 Quadrillion
    34 allies = 85 Quadrillion
    35 allies = 171 Quadrillion
    36 allies = 343 Quadrillion
    37 allies = 687 Quadrillion
    38 allies = 1 Quintillion
    39 allies = 2 Quintillion
    40 allies = 5 Quintillion
    41 allies = 10 Quintillion
    42 allies = 21 Quintillion
    43 allies = 43 Quintillion
    44 allies = 87 Quintillion
    45 allies = 175 Quintillion
    46 allies = 351 Quintillion
    47 allies = 703 Quintillion
    48 allies = 1 Sextillion
    49 allies = 2 Sextillion
    50 allies = 5 Sextillion


    PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!



    lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24:
    Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.

    An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
    
    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    #92 - 2012-06-13 19:45:05 UTC
    Aleph Phi wrote:
    As for a ship that'd be troubled by the additional capacitor consumption? How about an Abaddon? They're already quite reliant on their cap boosters to run their lasers. Any additional pressure is just going to make them run through their charges that much faster. It's a factor, whether you admit it or not.


    No no, I get it, stuff takes cap. I was just asking to find out whether you'd actually played with this in practice on a specific fit and tested it under such conditions, or were just talking in principle.

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

    DarthNefarius
    Minmatar Heavy Industries
    #93 - 2012-06-13 19:46:34 UTC
    Since CCP is turning the ally rules on thier head so completely I'm sure that CCP is giving current mutual War DEC's the option of quitting the war with no costs on the date of the rule change?
    An' then [email protected], he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
    
    LtCol Laurentius
    The Imperial Sardaukar
    #94 - 2012-06-13 19:52:13 UTC  |  Edited by: LtCol Laurentius
    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    [the *design objective* of these changes was creating an outlet for mercenary work - NOT making wars perfectly balanced or fair. The changes instituted in Inferno completely undermined this objective, and needed modification.


    This must be one of the most boneheaded responses I have ever read.

    So basically you are arguing that wars BY DESIGN (not by players striving to get an advantage) should be unfair, favouring the agressor.

    Fine. Personelly I think The Caldari and and Amarr militia militia should be capped at 200 members while the obvioulsy sucessful Gallente and Minmatar militia should not be touched. That would make the current FW wars about the same level of unfair BY DESIGN. After all, this is what you are advocating.

    Unfairness by DESIGN.
    Kismeteer
    Bat Country
    Pandemic Horde
    #95 - 2012-06-13 19:57:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Kismeteer
    Wolodymyr wrote:
    If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.

    I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck.


    You really need to read the CSM notes from previous sessions. Goons have been at the forefront of shouting for a technetium fix for a very long time, we just have not gotten it yet. Then we started using all of our tech because CCP is not fixing it.

    More details: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/230860/page/2

    E: oh yeah, and the CSM notes in question: http://www.eveonline.com/council/transcripts/2011/CSM_CCP_Mettings_7-9_12_2011.pdf
    Alekseyev Karrde
    Noir.
    The Network.
    #96 - 2012-06-13 20:04:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
    LtCol Laurentius wrote:
    \
    Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs..

    Im strongly opposed to the change to the ally system and CCP has ignored me.

    So try again, it's not my fault nor has anything to do with a damn thing I've said.

    Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

    Atum
    Eclipse Industrials
    #97 - 2012-06-13 20:13:39 UTC
    Weaselior wrote:
    As mentioned in the test server thread, the reason this is being dealt with isn't so much to block jade's attempt to let us shoot everyone in highsec, but to allow actual mercs to market their services. Since that's a major feature of this expansion, mercs being unable to charge a fee is the sort of broken mechanic that needs a quick CCP response.

    I'm not an empire dweller (spent the last few months in a WH, now I'm in null), so this stuff doesn't affect me all that much. I just don't see how the merc market is really screwed up by this... There was no merc market before Inferno, so why is changing something that's not even a month old completely screw the pooch? Everyone loves to hate the Goons, and I think most folks (besides TEST and the rest of the CFC) would probably love to shoot Goons just on the principle of the thing. That they can do so without the corresponding security hit would just be an added bonus.

    Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
    Once again though, your argument assumes that this was a knee-jerk response to Goonswarm's plight, an idea which has zero basis in reality whatsoever. Goonswarm never came up once in any of the CCP / CSM talks about the war dec issue, despite all the loonies trying to suggest as much.

    The harm has been stated quite clearly multiple times now - the *design objective* of these changes was creating an outlet for mercenary work - NOT making wars perfectly balanced or fair. The changes instituted in Inferno completely undermined this objective, and needed modification.

    Once again??? Uhhh... that was the first post I made in this thread. I'm not arguing right or wrong on making this change, and the "design objective," as you say, is one that I agree with. What I don't like is that rather than sitting back and watching a little longer, CCP is moving forward with a major change that breaks the emergent response to an interesting conundrum, and which, intentionally or not, is directly favorable to a faction generally regarded as a royal PITA. *I* never said anything about the Goons coming up during talks (others, though, have), and had this happened five years ago and worked in favor of BOB, I'm sure we'd be having this same discussion.

    As I mentioned above, considering that the merc market is completely new with Inferno, waiting a little while to watch the evolution would not be a game-breaker. Let's say this were Star Fraction versus Stain Wagon... would either side be worried about the other going mutual and bringing the rest of the cluster in on the fun? I rather doubt it. I agree that this is a broken mechanic, but I'd much rather give it some time before going in and changing things, since this is also a brand new mechanic.
    LtCol Laurentius
    The Imperial Sardaukar
    #98 - 2012-06-13 20:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: LtCol Laurentius
    Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
    LtCol Laurentius wrote:
    \
    Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs..

    Im strongly opposed to the change to the ally system and CCP has ignored me.

    So try again, it's not my fault nor has anything to do with a damn thing I've said.


    Soundwave goes out of his way to acertain that the ONLY thing that he wanted to make sure of is that mercs was a viable proffesion, even if it means gutting the rest of the mechanic. And that with a feature that was the FLAGSHIP of the Inferno expansion. If that is not pampering to your playstyle, I dont know what is.

    You might not agree with the implemenation, and this is confirmed by Soundwave as well:

    CCP Soundwave wrote:

    2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.


    So basically, he says that the ENTIRE CSM wanted an even more merc-tailored solution than the one we have got.
    Jade Constantine
    Jericho Fraction
    The Star Fraction
    #99 - 2012-06-13 20:22:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
    corestwo wrote:
    DarthNefarius wrote:
    lol or here's a calculation I saw in Evenew24:
    Jade wants to match goon numbers and put together a 9000 person coalition from other 100 man corps/alliance it will cost 3,094,850,098,213,450,687,247,810,550,000,000 isk every two weeks.


    If only there were an NPC buy order for pretentious words. Jade would have no problem paying those fees then.




    See this is the irony about the whole goonie thing. Whenever some poor miner pipes up on GD and goes "oh noes goons ganked my hulk lets all form up a giant alliance and go bash them!" the goons will generally say "come at me bro" and encourage the attack with bluster and bravado.

    Problem is that the first time we ever got close to actually putting together a hisec coalition to do just that and you guys are backpeddling faster than a trick unicyclist from an escaped tiger.

    End of the day you guys want the right to do "grief decs" on your terms without effective counter. And you have now got a sequence of game changes to your clear benefit.

    1. Loopholes gone - check.
    2. 10x the cost to counter dec - check.
    3. Mutual lock-in removed - check.
    4. Defensive allies priced out of stratosphere - check.

    And we are going to be stuck with this system for quite some time.

    So while sure, you guys are going to be eating high the hog for a while - just don't expect the rest of Eve Online to keep eating your line of blather about welcoming wardecs. You don't. You are wardec evaders end of the day - on the grandest scale Eve Online has ever witnessed.

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

    Hans Jagerblitzen
    Ice Fire Warriors
    #100 - 2012-06-13 20:25:26 UTC
    Wolodymyr wrote:
    If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.

    I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck.


    Honestly, I think constantly catering to public misconception and wasting extra time and resources trying to combat conspiracy theorists is more detrimental to the overall process than just asking players to screw their heads on straight and not leap to conclusions all the time.

    The bottom line is that Goons are *NOT* the driving force behind every major decision in EVE, despite their numbers and despite all the erroneous hype. Going out of our way to select a feature change that “hurts Goons” is giving them exactly what they’re after: attention. If you don’t understand Goon motivations for why they do what they do, I don’t know where to start. They would be *thrilled* to know the game was changed on their behalf, whether its in support of or in spite of their efforts.

    Besides, The Mittani has been one of the most outspoken supporters of a Technetium nerf, so that’s not even a place you can go to hit them “below the belt”. Again, its important that you understand Goon motivation for the tactics they employ, often using silly mechanics to their extreme end in order to make a statement about the game design in the first place. However, there is a critical difference between using behavior as an *example* to the developers, and using one’s insider influence to actually *control* the developers as so many have fearfully suggested.

    CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary