These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Angry Mustache for CSM9

First post First post
Author
Jayne Fillon
#21 - 2014-03-06 20:03:22 UTC
Angry, simple question for you: how would you go on about introducing more small gang into 0.0 warfare?

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Tubrug1
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2014-03-06 20:05:26 UTC
Angry I'm concerned about the lack of small gang warfare in 0.0, I would like your opinion as to how would you go on about introducing more small gang into 0.0 warfare?
Angry Mustache
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#23 - 2014-03-06 20:19:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


I actually agree with you here. Attackers shouldn't have a way out. Question is how do we plan on balancing that aspect? How do we allow smaller groups to be effective against larger alliances in high sec without the little gimmicks you pointed out? Perhaps simply having the wardec last for a predetermined amount of time then so no one can leave the party early would fix it.

Would you be for that as a way to solve to the issue?


There is no silver bullet. To make wardecs meaningful would require a systemic change, I'll list out a couple thing here.

-There must be a compelling gameplay reason to have long term standing corps in Highsec

-There must be vulnerable, in-space assets that can be seized/destroyed in Highsec, things that need to be defended, things that you lose if you just dock up/log off for the duration of the war. POCOs right now are a decent example, but the real clincher would be valueable HS POS's.

-Meaningful victory/defeat. Right now, defenders never surrender, because the moment they do, attackers can just spool up another war and continue harassment at no loss to themselves.

-Binding wars, given a compelling reason for corps to exist in HS, there must be a way to hold corps in a wardec, for both attacker and defender. Not quite to the decshield degree, but attackers being able to drop dec instantly when the defender calls up allies is lame.

So to accomplish all these points, CCP is going to have to do a lot of work, possibly including a complete revamp of POS and Industry, but in the meanwhile, i had a few ideas bouncing in my head that would be somewhat easier to implement, but feedback is welcome.


Jr game designer time.
-Wardec costs will scale based on the number of actively training characters in a corp/alliance. The starting cost will start lower, and base cost will be lower overall.

-Wardec costs scale with time, say, 10% more per week of wardec. 1x in the first week, 1.1x in the second, 1.21 in the third. This means wars can not drag on forever, the collary to this is that war's should be fought with a purpose, ex, to remove a series of POS's or POCO's might take a week and be cheap, but continual harassment over a year will and should cost a lot of money.

-Upon ending a war, neither party can declare war on the other for a set amount of time. I'm thinking that this could either be a set time, say a month, it could be a negotiated parameter in the surrender deal, or it could be a multiple of the war time. When a war ends, there has to be meaningful peace.
  • To get around exploits, the locks will be character based, ex, a member of corp A that just signed a treaty with corp B can not join any other corp at war with corp B, also corps with ex corp A members can not declare war on corp B.

  • -To reward defenders for holding against attackers, should the attackers end the war, the defenders keep a portion of the wardec fees. Should the attackers win the war (defenders disband/surrender), they get a portion of their dec fees back.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Seraph IX Basarab
    Outer Path
    #24 - 2014-03-06 22:20:31 UTC
    Angry Mustache wrote:
    Seraph IX Basarab wrote:


    I actually agree with you here. Attackers shouldn't have a way out. Question is how do we plan on balancing that aspect? How do we allow smaller groups to be effective against larger alliances in high sec without the little gimmicks you pointed out? Perhaps simply having the wardec last for a predetermined amount of time then so no one can leave the party early would fix it.

    Would you be for that as a way to solve to the issue?


    There is no silver bullet. To make wardecs meaningful would require a systemic change, I'll list out a couple thing here.

    -There must be a compelling gameplay reason to have long term standing corps in Highsec

    -There must be vulnerable, in-space assets that can be seized/destroyed in Highsec, things that need to be defended, things that you lose if you just dock up/log off for the duration of the war. POCOs right now are a decent example, but the real clincher would be valueable HS POS's.

    -Meaningful victory/defeat. Right now, defenders never surrender, because the moment they do, attackers can just spool up another war and continue harassment at no loss to themselves.

    -Binding wars, given a compelling reason for corps to exist in HS, there must be a way to hold corps in a wardec, for both attacker and defender. Not quite to the decshield degree, but attackers being able to drop dec instantly when the defender calls up allies is lame.

    So to accomplish all these points, CCP is going to have to do a lot of work, possibly including a complete revamp of POS and Industry, but in the meanwhile, i had a few ideas bouncing in my head that would be somewhat easier to implement, but feedback is welcome.


    Jr game designer time.
    -Wardec costs will scale based on the number of actively training characters in a corp/alliance. The starting cost will start lower, and base cost will be lower overall.

    -Wardec costs scale with time, say, 10% more per week of wardec. 1x in the first week, 1.1x in the second, 1.21 in the third. This means wars can not drag on forever, the collary to this is that war's should be fought with a purpose, ex, to remove a series of POS's or POCO's might take a week and be cheap, but continual harassment over a year will and should cost a lot of money.

    -Upon ending a war, neither party can declare war on the other for a set amount of time. I'm thinking that this could either be a set time, say a month, it could be a negotiated parameter in the surrender deal, or it could be a multiple of the war time. When a war ends, there has to be meaningful peace.
  • To get around exploits, the locks will be character based, ex, a member of corp A that just signed a treaty with corp B can not join any other corp at war with corp B, also corps with ex corp A members can not declare war on corp B.

  • -To reward defenders for holding against attackers, should the attackers end the war, the defenders keep a portion of the wardec fees. Should the attackers win the war (defenders disband/surrender), they get a portion of their dec fees back.


    Those are some decent ideas. Some other candidates simply fill out their post with meaningless replies but you actually presented ideas. I can respect that.
    Hendrick Tallardar
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #25 - 2014-03-06 22:30:15 UTC
    You have specifically spoken out, at least in the chat channel we share, that you feel Faction Warfare is broken.

    Could you elaborate for those who do not know why you feel such a statement to be true?
    Erotica 1
    Krypteia Operations
    #26 - 2014-03-07 06:28:09 UTC
    Seems like a good guy from what I know. And funny. +1

    See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

    Hendrick Tallardar
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #27 - 2014-03-07 14:14:27 UTC
    Erotica 1 wrote:
    Seems like a good guy from what I know. And funny. +1


    You clearly haven't shared a Jabber channel with him. Big smile
    Angry Mustache
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #28 - 2014-03-07 17:00:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
    You have specifically spoken out, at least in the chat channel we share, that you feel Faction Warfare is broken.

    Could you elaborate for those who do not know why you feel such a statement to be true?

    It’s broken in the same way the pre-nerf Incursions was broken. FW, as it stands, is such a good source of income that players have to keep an alt (or more) in faction warfare to be competitive in income. FW plexing in a WCS frigate can easily net 100million isk/hour in the form of FW LP, all while in a ship that costs maybe 4 million isk max. FW missions can net up to 300million isk/hour in a bomber. This is extremely high income (especially compared to the ~45 million isk/hour earned by ratting post taxes), and distorts other portions of the game. If you do not have a FW alt, you are not making as much money and people who do, and they can price you out of the PLEX market. Not only that, the current FW income mechanics are completely anti-conflit, to the point that something like only 20% of ships in FW complexes are fitted to fight, and fighting FW organizations purposely keep their tiers low in order to push farmers to the other faction.

    I’m going to ramble on a bit, but I think the current state of FW, and wormholes to a lesser extent is one of the big contributors to the reason that there are no new faces in Nullsec. Compared to Nullsec PvE events, FW and Wormholes are vastly superior, while at the same time the price to wage war is much higher in Nullsec. A small-ish group trying to make its own will join FW or move to a C4/C5, and never “move up” to sov Nullsec because the individual members would find their incomes drastically decreased. AFAIK the only alliance to move into 0.0 from FW (rather than a 0.0 alliance building their wallets in FW, and moving back), is J4LP. There are lots of groups in FW/WH’s that can make it and survive in 0.0, and in the past (pre Apocrypha) might have taken sov space, but don’t do so now because it’s simply not as profitable as what they currently have.

    However, while sov Null is relatively bad for member income, it’s one of the only places to gather alliance income. Moon and renter income can go straight to the alliance wallet, and unlike WH loot/LP, ratting is easily taxed by the alliance. If you try to force a WH/FW pilot to hand over 15% of their income to the alliance for alliance use, they would mostly tell you to get ******. On the other hand, to wage a sov war, Alliance war chest is what’s important, because SRP runs out of alliance wallets. No matter the organization, there will be a distribution of member wealth, and as a sov war drags on and losses build up, the poorer members of the alliance will be force out of the fight unless their ships are reimbursed. Without alliance income to fund SRP, members will start dropping out of the war, then fleet numbers start dwindling, and the war is lost.

    So the dilemma is, Nullsec is worse for individual member income so they don’t want to move to sov null. Alliances need Alliance level income to fight a sov war, but sov null is the only place to get alliance income without relying on donations. These two barriers combined discourages any groups trying to make their way into the game of sov because there are much better alternatives.

    Am I saying that FW income should be toned down a little? Yes. Am I saying that FW/WH’s should be “nerfed into the ground” to drive their members to sov null? Hell no. There’s 3 aspects to the “fix sov” problem.


    • Revamp of the way that sov wars are fought (“split the blob”)
    • Revamp of the way that sov is held (structures, power projection, and consolidation)
    • Give reasons for people to want to try sov (fix income)


    The first 2 get a lot of attention, the last one gets lost in the cries of “fix supers” “fix tidi” and “fix blobs”. Without an economic reason for alliances and members to move out of their comfy suburbs try and build their own settlement in space, they won’t do it.

    Like Bill Clinton said “It’s the economy, stupid”

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Illectroculus Defined
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #29 - 2014-03-07 17:22:38 UTC
    As a CSM member you'll have to talk to people via videoconferencing, will you invest in a better headset?
    Angry Mustache
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #30 - 2014-03-07 17:27:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    Jayne Fillon wrote:
    Angry, simple question for you: how would you go on about introducing more small gang into 0.0 warfare?


    I don't think we quite need to, small gangs can already have a pretty significant effect in 0.0 warfare.

    A few years back, PL was very successful with their 10-12 man roaming blap titan fleets. Right now, Rooks and Kings are very successful with their 12-man small gang smartbombing battleships.

    More recently, the CFC was able to take all of Immensea sov within a week and a half with a small gang of about 40 supercarriers, supported by another small gang of 60ish dreads.

    Last week we purged every BL pos in Venal with a 50 man mixed dread/carrier small gang after another small gang of bombers and blap dreads played a key role in taking out their maelstrom fleet.

    So yes, small gangs are very effective right now, the people comlaining about the inability of small gangs to make an effect on 0.0 warfare need to man up and upship into things that can make a differance, or just learn to EVE better.

    EDIT :: THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS POST, i'll make another post actually addressing the problem later. The question I answered to was a troll from jayne, so i trolled him back.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    BadAssMcKill
    Aliastra
    #31 - 2014-03-07 17:36:16 UTC
    Not quite sure I'd define 170 dudes as small gang

    Jayne when you say small gang do you mean 5-10 dudes roaming or do you agree with Ripard when he says the new meta is 30-50 dudes
    Ranamar
    Nobody in Local
    Of Sound Mind
    #32 - 2014-03-07 18:04:48 UTC
    Angry Mustache wrote:
    stuff

    Like Ronald Reagan said “It’s the economy, stupid”


    I like the things you have to say, but I regret to inform you that it was Bill Clinton, not Ronald Reagan, who said it. Lol
    Seraph IX Basarab
    Outer Path
    #33 - 2014-03-07 18:07:20 UTC
    Angry Mustache wrote:
    Jayne Fillon wrote:
    Angry, simple question for you: how would you go on about introducing more small gang into 0.0 warfare?


    I don't think we quite need to, small gangs can already have a pretty significant effect in 0.0 warfare.

    A few years back, PL was very successful with their 10-12 man roaming blap titan fleets. Right now, Rooks and Kings are very successful with their 12-man small gang smartbombing battleships.

    More recently, the CFC was able to take all of Immensea sov within a week and a half with a small gang of about 40 supercarriers, supported by another small gang of 60ish dreads.

    Last week we purged every BL pos in Venal with a 50 man mixed dread/carrier small gang after another small gang of bombers and blap dreads played a key role in taking out their maelstrom fleet.

    So yes, small gangs are very effective right now, the people comlaining about the inability of small gangs to make an effect on 0.0 warfare need to man up and upship into things that can make a differance, or just learn to EVE better.

    EDIT :: THIS IS NOT A SERIOUS POST, i'll make another post actually addressing the problem later. The question I answered to was a troll from jayne, so i trolled him back.



    Glad that's a joke. I was getting worried reading about a "50 man dread/carrier fleet" being considered small gang. Ugh
    Angry Mustache
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #34 - 2014-03-07 19:20:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    Ranamar wrote:
    Angry Mustache wrote:
    stuff

    Like Ronald Reagan said “It’s the economy, stupid”


    I like the things you have to say, but I regret to inform you that it was Bill Clinton, not Ronald Reagan, who said it. Lol


    >.< derp, right, RR's thing was "morning in america" which doesn't exactly fit here I guess..

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Seraph IX Basarab
    Outer Path
    #35 - 2014-03-07 19:25:50 UTC
    Angry Mustache wrote:
    Ranamar wrote:
    Angry Mustache wrote:
    stuff

    Like Ronald Reagan said “It’s the economy, stupid”


    I like the things you have to say, but I regret to inform you that it was Bill Clinton, not Ronald Reagan, who said it. Lol


    >.< derp, right, RR's thing was "morning in america" which doesn't exactly fit here I guess..



    Don't feel bad, it was James Carville. Blink
    Louis Robichaud
    The Scope
    Gallente Federation
    #36 - 2014-03-11 20:14:36 UTC
    Your analysis about the importance of the initiative is spot on. Given all the advantages the wardec corp has already, it's no wonder that they almost always win. Even when"carebears with claws" decide to fight back, 90% of the time the aggressor just isn't there...

    I blog a bit http://hspew.blogspot.ca

    Angry Mustache
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #37 - 2014-03-20 17:25:33 UTC
    OP has been updated with another campaign platform.

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Lanctharus Onzo
    Alea Iacta Est Universal
    Blades of Grass
    #38 - 2014-03-25 01:12:39 UTC
    CSM9 Candidate Interview: Angry Mustache
    http://capstable.net/2014/03/09/csm9angrymustache

    Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus

    Angry Mustache
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #39 - 2014-03-25 01:19:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Angry Mustache
    Lanctharus Onzo wrote:
    CSM9 Candidate Interview: Angry Mustache
    http://capstable.net/2014/03/09/csm9angrymustache


    Well that was quite painful for me to listen to, first ever podcast interview.

    But you live and learn, and come better prepared for the next one Lol

    An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.

    Tarojan
    Tarojan Corporation
    #40 - 2014-03-25 12:07:44 UTC
    You still appear to be one of the most in touch candidates with my way of thinking then so many others. I doubt my acct votes are gonna sway things for you(they are yrs btw), but be aware you are getting some newbie highsec votes from being intelligent and articulate. Good luck!

    Will gank for food

    Previous page123Next page