Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:46:00 -
[451] - Quote
By the way, in the one or two instances where GSF actually acted on their wardecs (i.e. messing with Krixtal, etc) they numbered less than 20.
Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir. - "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, issued in the 1930's |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:50:00 -
[452] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:I am listening, Jade. All I said was that you aren't convincing me that Goons griefing people out of the game using predatory wardecs is a big enough problem to shape a mechanic around it.
No real surprise I am not convincing you of that because nowhere in any of my posts am I claiming that. You are still responding to your internal dialogue rather than addressing what is actually being said.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I mean you made a big deal about the CSM and CCP developing policy especially in response to them, but I'd say pointing to an anti-Goon war that now can't happen as your example is doing exactly that. You're still more than welcome to convince me though that the wardec- griefing issue is out of control, I can't speak for the other CSM's but I'm *always* subject to a change of an opinion on an issue with respect to new information.
I'm obviously not going to try to convince you that "wardec-griefing" is out of control because I want more war not less of it.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:51:00 -
[453] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Unless I'm overlooking some rule, it seems that there are indeed methods through which a defending alliance could take on as many willing participants as they can find, its just not *as easy* this way. There's no rule stopping me from forming an alliance, wardeccing anyone I want to, and then offering corps to join the alliance to fight the war for free.
I could be 1 person declaring war on day one and 50,000 active in week two, and it's all allowable under the rules and there's a single flat cost capped at 500mil per week.
But hey, that's like, effort man. Why not design the game so that in the specific example of my specific grudge it is easier for me? - "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, issued in the 1930's |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:57:00 -
[454] - Quote
To much stupidity here
Because A helps B does not mean that A was designed with that in mind. It may in fact be a small downside to a score of positives.
All this conspiracy nonsense is getting out of hand. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:58:00 -
[455] - Quote
Azual Skoll wrote:Surely if you're concerned about not being able to add sufficient allies to match your aggressor's numbers, you could simply recruit willing participants into your corp or alliance rather than use the ally system? Sure, fewer people will be willing do leave their own corp or alliance to do it, but hey - war is supposed to be all about consequences and difficult choices right? It'll be harder for you, but just ticking a 'requesting assistance' box and letting people do their thing seems a little easy to me - why shouldn't you have to put in some effort? Alternatively, you can simply pick your allies well - choose someone who has a proven record of forcing larger entities to surrender. That's what the ally system was supposed to be after all.
Let me give you a couple of reasons.
1. SF is not a mass recruiting alliance. We generally only recruit mature individuals with a good sense of humour and laid back attitude to life, culture and alternative sexuality - we don't really hit the mass demographic of most internet spaceship guilds.
2. SF is NRDS - we don't shoot neutrals, we take our diplomacy seriously and we don't recruit people who just want to shoot random noobs in lowsec, nullsec, wherever.
3. SF is currently in Minmatar Faction warfare, that means we're at war with the entirety of the 24th Crusade and State Protectorate and we can't even go to Jita without getting chased by the space-po-lice.
Hence adding random people and corps to the alliance is not really an option.
Azual Skoll wrote:There are solutions, even if they aren't the most elegant solutions or the ones that you'd like to have as the defender. For the regularity with which such situations occur, I think it makes far more sense to rely on those than to demand the whole system be designed around your edge case.
Well the opposite is going on really. The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.
Azual Skoll wrote:You're also assuming that these 'huge alliances' will active prosecute a war against a smaller party using their full membership, which isn't true at all - almost all of them are in nullsec, and even at a stretch you're going to be actively fighting a very small portion of their membership. Treating a wardec from a 9000 member nullsec alliance as a war with 9000 hostile participants is deliberately misleading.
Really doesn't matter what their 9000 membership does in space - its already had an impact in setting the price of any third party wardec against them at 500m per week.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 21:59:00 -
[456] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:You're both looking at the edge case and asking for the mechanic to be changed to meet it. This is the exact wrong thing to do when designing a system to cater for many.
The request is for the mechanic to not be changed. If the resolution of the edge case does not impede the design of the system for many people what is the harm?
Khanh'rhh wrote:Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir.
So you think that Noir. could defeat the Goons, or at least bring them to terms?
Khanh'rhh wrote:There's no rule stopping me from forming an alliance, wardeccing anyone I want to, and then offering corps to join the alliance to fight the war for free.
There are alliance mechanics which allow the executor corporation to be changed. A free invite policy can result in you losing the alliance rather quickly.
Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:00:00 -
[457] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:One more thing. You say access to 9000 targets in a war should have a high cost. Ok. The war dec mechanic is only relevant in high sec and maybe lolowsec if you really want to reach for things. Yet, to their own admission, only 1% actually go to high sec. Ok. So to have access to those 90 pilots you have to pay over 500 million ISK? But those 90 can war dec a corp/alliance of 150 for only 50 million ISK??
In one post you justify access to 9000, which is only on the extreme case all 9000 actually go to high sec. But then shortly after brush aside any posts describing extreme scenarios with words proclaiming you don't design game mechanics with extreme scenarios in mind.
What.
The.
****?!
We're in Orwell-land I'm afraid Marlona - the doublethink is getting thick in here.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:02:00 -
[458] - Quote
Kadl wrote: Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars.
Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered by this CSM (or apparently) team BFF.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:05:00 -
[459] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote: @ Jade - Are you willing to open your alliance to corp recruitment and alliance merger? If you're this dead-set on showing any holes in the system, than consider standing up and taking it to the next level. Perhaps in the process you'll find the kernel of a new highsec power bloc.
Best bet is probably Marlona's alliance that we'll work out a deal with so she gets the zero cost ally slot. In addition I'll probably offer in trade hub raiding allies for cost (ie 10,20,40,80,160,320,640m isk per two week slot)
Its a bit of a pain but those sums paid to Star Fraction will get anti Goon fighter a better deal than paid directly to concord (obviously we then have to pay concord for the ally).
Quote:@ Marlona Sky - Looks like you're (or at least a group of FHC folks are) doing this already at the merc level, which sounds intriguing and cool.
Of course if any of us are too successful it'll be nerfed again :)
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:09:00 -
[460] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon.
With all due respect Soundwave, this is a load of absolute bull, and you all all should know better.
If a nullsec alliance today finds itself attacked by a numerical superior enemy, the game DOES NOT penalize it if it finds allies.
Increased risk forces higher level of coorporation and larger numbers to survive, which is why you find the biggest and best organized player entities in EVE in nullsec. Highsec is by comparison badly organized, badly led and fragmented. This is NOT likely to change any time soon. So even if a higsec entity where to achive parity, it would still be (presumably) inferior in organisation and leadership.
Then there is the argument that "just a small portion" of a nullsec entity will fight i highsec war. So basically, the argument is that a nullsec entity is entitled to a cake and get to eat it too? "we must keep the higsec entity numbers low, so the nullsec wardeccing party can fight them without really commiting". Is that it?
|
|
La Nariz
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:13:00 -
[461] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??!
Some fencing at fanfest would be awesome! |
Finde learth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:14:00 -
[462] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either.
So why we need ship balance ? Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE.
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:15:00 -
[463] - Quote
Question. Based on:Jade Constantine wrote:Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered and
Quote:The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances and earlier
Quote:Goonswarm have whined CCP into nerfing the Inferno Wardec System because they hated the idea of ever losing even a fraction of their numerical advantage [..] we'll call it a form of moral victory that Mittani was forced to beg his mates at CCP to nerf the Inferno Wardec System
I really want to know why you think, after rampant lies, tinfoil hattery and tabloid style posturing that anyone would ever see anything you said on the matter as un-biased?
The system is NOT being changed for you. This has been said now a dozen times or more and you are still posting as though CCP have stepped in to put a stop to the specific examples here.
They haven't. Get over yourself.
I posed you a challenge a page back, go have a crack at it. - "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, issued in the 1930's |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:16:00 -
[464] - Quote
Alain Kinsella wrote:@ Marlona Sky - Looks like you're (or at least a group of FHC folks are) doing this already at the merc level, which sounds intriguing and cool. We will see. Keep in mind this alliance will not be exclusive to just FHC, but to everyone. Also it will be targeting whatever the largest alliance in the game hiding behind the Inferno war dec mechanic.
CCP introduced a new war dec mechanic that just so happens to protect large bloated alliances. Someone (just happens to be Jade - get over it) finds a way to fight back. Days later CCP announce a change that just so happens to add another layer of protection for the large bloated alliances. If CCP make another change to add a third layer of protection for them...
Well it will be crystal clear what the agenda is.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:16:00 -
[465] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:By the way, in the one or two instances where GSF actually acted on their wardecs (i.e. messing with Krixtal, etc) they numbered less than 20. Even in your edge case of a large entity going after a small corp there's simply not an issue that couldn't be solved by the first ally you hire being a good outfit, such as Noir.
And who the hell is going to pay a proper merc's going rate for a wardec (1-2billion a week) to defend a nonsense dec from a 9000 man alliance that has to pay 50m a week for the pleasure.
Thats so out of kilter its beyond lunacy.
Even if no shots are ever fired and nothing explodes that means the defender is losing 1950m a week for nothing.
Are you actually a goon scammer?
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:22:00 -
[466] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:And who the hell is going to pay a proper merc's going rate for a wardec (1-2billion a week) to defend a nonsense dec from a 9000 man alliance that has to pay 50m a week for the pleasure of putting 1% into clown ships in Jita?
Anybody on the CSM who thinks that is going to revitalize the "Merc Profession" is smoking serious blunts and should probably have a nice cup of tea to calm down
You are 100% right.
This, by the way, is why the changes aren't about large nullsec alliances trolling empire dwellers but all about actual situations that would be aided by actual mercs doing actual work, and not having that eroded by Jita being 50% wartargets that were hired for no ISK.
But you just can't see past "and what about Goonswarm?" in anything so nothing makes sense to you. - "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, issued in the 1930's |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1993
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:25:00 -
[467] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Azual Skoll wrote:There are solutions, even if they aren't the most elegant solutions or the ones that you'd like to have as the defender. For the regularity with which such situations occur, I think it makes far more sense to rely on those than to demand the whole system be designed around your edge case. Well the opposite is going on really. The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.
For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
25
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:30:00 -
[468] - Quote
Two step wrote: For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
I'd like to hear the CSM position on mechanics that hurts only after parity is achieved. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:31:00 -
[469] - Quote
Two step wrote: For the hundredth time, no, that is not the reason the changes are being made. I know your universe revolves entirely around yourself, but there are actually other people out there who are effected by the wardec changes. Allowing unlimited numbers of allies makes wardecs much more unfeasible for *small* groups than it does for Goons or TEST. If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
For what seems the hundreth time will you please actually read the thread including the detailed proposal I made that addressed this specific issue.
There is no point you accusing me of having the universe revolve around me when you are refusing to discuss a proposal I've made to precisely resolve the problem you are raising.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2462
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:32:00 -
[470] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:The system is being redesigned to nerf our edge-case because it was proved to be a disadvantage to large alliances. Sure there are ways round it - we can make a new alliance and invite random people to join their corps to that alliance for free and invite that alliance for zero isk. But its a bit of admin nonsense and as I've been saying long and loud in this thread the fix proposed by CCP/CCP will not achieve their goals - all it does is protect large alliances.
See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are, you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.
On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue? Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
1119
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:35:00 -
[471] - Quote
Two Step - Then push for some changes that revitalize the merc market without tossing a safety blanket over the large alliances. Can you do that??
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:40:00 -
[472] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are ...
Actually both groups have claimed their motivations are to protect and nurture merc corps. As I reference in the post you quote this will not work and you are doing absolutely nothing to actually boost the merc profession while doing an awful lot to protect large alliances from the Inferno allies system.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.
In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue?
I know you are not listening Hans because at least twice now you've completely missed the point I've been making. Two step didn't even bother reading my proposal before missing the point. Seleene frothed without considering the issue. Elise and Dovonan trolled. The only sensible posts from the CSM in this whole thread game from Alekeseyez and Issler.
And one more time. I am saying that if you think these changes will boost the merc profession you are very wrong. The only thing these changes will do is protect large alliances from the consequences of the Inferno allies system. If you've reached this position through genuine ignorance of the war-dec system then fair enough. But its not beyond the grounds of all rational argumentation to assume that a change solely in the benefit of large alliances might somehow somewhere have been the intended outcome on the agenda.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:41:00 -
[473] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Two Step - Then push for some changes that revitalize the merc market without tossing a safety blanket over the large alliances. Can you do that?? It doesn't toss a safety blanket over large alliances, since they are a) not asking for this change and b) it doesn't benefit them
The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.
The only people whining about this change are the people who were exploiting the system to get an infinite number of free wardecs against people they were at war with.
The more they post, the more they discredit their own position. It's really quite beautiful. - "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, issued in the 1930's |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:42:00 -
[474] - Quote
Finde learth wrote:And why unlimited free allies was dumb if Balance a fight never really been the goal in EVE ?
Because unlimited free allies might actually let the little guy win for a change :)
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:43:00 -
[475] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread. In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will. Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it? - "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, issued in the 1930's |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:44:00 -
[476] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote: The only people winning out in this change are small corps attacking small corps that were rapidly outnumbered by free allies. The only people losing out on this change are people who were looking to use the mechanics to make their anti-Goon agenda free for themselves.
And what pray tell happens to those small corps when the targets ask for allies and each one accepts the request from a 1000 man alliance looking for ganks in empire? This change does absolutely nothing to improve the situation of small merc corps or small wardec declarers. It only defends and protects very large alliances.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2445
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:45:00 -
[477] - Quote
I'm reading the same post over and over and over again while trying to find some issues people are having with Inferno 1.1
it's a bit tiring
here, have this @CCP Punkturis | EVE User Interface Programmer | Team Super Friends |
|
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
1317
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:46:00 -
[478] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:And one more time. I am saying that if you think these changes will boost the merc profession you are very wrong Actually, these changes are to stop it from harming the merc outfits, not necessarily boost them. We can discuss how and what would do that in another place but these changes actually suit their aim pretty well. - "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, issued in the 1930's |
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:46:00 -
[479] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kadl wrote: Honestly the suggestion that the allies be allowed be equal in number seems quiet reasonable. If it is an edge case then I see no harm in resolving it. If it is not an edge case then it should encourage more active wars.
Its perfectly reasonable and a good game mechanic. Unfortunately it is not to the advantage of the large alliances so it won't even be considered by this CSM (or apparently) team BFF.
Although I appreciate the support, I must disagree with a conspiracy mindset (shocking for an EVE player!) There may be a subtle bias towards seeing war decs on the part of the CSM, but I believe in time they could be convinced. I also think that CCP might be convinced in time. They are focused on possibility of improving merc environment. The argument is quite simple: Fewer allies -> Pick best -> Yay mercs! The problem is that they are not seeing that the mercs they are trying to help are not in the same market as these free allies. An additional problem is that they have rejected and therefore not developed any active targets for defenders. Those targets would be something to hire mercs for to handle. So we have some stumbling around, not a conspiracy. I am not optimistic that enough parties can be convinced in time to change this, but it is worth some reason and effort.
Two step wrote:If some 20 man corp decs a 5 man corp and the 5 man corp can pull in 500 allies, the 20 man corp isn't going to declare war in the first place. This is the problem that CCP is trying to solve.
Then the proposed modification of the change will not harm their goals in the least. The first ally would be free for the 5 man corp. Assuming that first ally is at least 15 people the special exception to ally costs is now removed. Any allies above that first group of 15 can cost whatever CCP deems is balanced.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:See, this is where you lose me. You're approaching two groups of people - the developers and the CSM, and trying to discuss changes in game mechanics, and you're not only telling us both what our motivations are, you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread.
On top of that, you accuse us of not listening to you. Has it occurred to you that maybe if you want someone to take your claims seriously and have a *real* discussion about an issue that maybe telling people what their motivations are for making decisions (and than being wrong about them) isn't the best way to encourage constructive dialogue?
Please listen to this Hans in this Jade. No conspiracy just people who we may be able to convince.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2057
|
Posted - 2012.06.12 22:47:00 -
[480] - Quote
Khanh'rhh wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: ... you also happen to be wrong in your presuppositions. I've never *once* heard "Hey guys, this screws over the fat cats. It's so unfair" in any of the internal discussions whatsoever, and yet you've made this claim a dozen times in this thread. In which case you are simply terribly misinformed rather obviously biased. But the end result is the same, this game change will not have the outcome you think it will and it will have the precise income everyone else thinks it will. Care to post your proof that the *actual* discussion was how to best aide large alliances and members of CCP and the CSM seem to know nothing about it?
Am I really supposed to be surprised that nobody claimed this change "screws over the fatcats" in Han's internal ccp discussions?
You need to go have a cup of tea Khanh'rhh, you really aren't making any sense.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |