It's the Icelandic Awesome Ideology, which has proven to be so effective at impacting game play in the past. Where have you been the last few years?Originally Posted by Ampoliros
It's the Icelandic Awesome Ideology, which has proven to be so effective at impacting game play in the past. Where have you been the last few years?
Keldon (the eve university guy) is the only one who has actually welcomed the changes (but I mean, eve university and the wardec system - yeah right). Most of the rest have said the changes will do no good at best, and considerable harm at worst. Some have gone on record saying that CCP appeared to pay absolutely no attention to their feedback (I can link you to the podcasts if you like).pretty sure the CSM has gone on record as saying they discussed them and agreed with most of them. Maybe not the defensive cost scaling that you'reabout, but the other stuff, most definitely
Soundwave's "eve isn't fair" soundbite mainly. Which has been deconstructed and held up to ridicule fairly widely this past week. Designing a game mechanic around the "x isn't fair so Y shouldn't be fair either" ideal is a bit silly - if it becomes too unfair its probably just real life. I've semi-ironically suggested they now just let us add defensive allies for 1000 aurum since the game isn't "fair" I may as well get to add my salary power directly into the mix. But seriously, game mechanics are supposed to be fair -> competitive, balanced. Then the players make them unfair by being better at playing with those mechanics than their opponents (that is how games work).
Take sunday's England vs Italy game. Football is a "fair game" ie both teams get 11 players, same number of subs, same chance to kick the ball into the other side's net. The ruleset is FAIR. But player skill makes all the difference, which is why our 11 players were stumbling bums chasing after the ball and falling over and the Italian players seemed to be lunatic demons hungry for blood.
Put Soundwave in charge of FIFA and you'd end up with the US team being able to field 500 players to Italy's 11 because its got a bigger population and GDP.
Thats what I mean by a flawed ideology. He's become convinced that you don't need any kind of fairness or balance in the underlying mechanics. (while nonetheless kneejerking to protect the largest alliances in the game from the unfairness of the defensive alliance dogpile.).
$300,000 dollars for a 52nd defensive ally in an internet spaceship war.
Nobody sensible asked for "unlimited free allies" - we wanted free allies up to the size of attacker (then to pay to go larger).
Last edited by Jade Constantine; June 26 2012 at 04:31:32 AM.
Nothing ever burns down by itself
I've most definitely read things from seleene(?)/hans/twostep who said they were in favor of removing the allies from mutual wars and adding in some scaling mechanic so you couldn't dump a thousand corps on every wardec. They might have disagreed on the implementation of the cost scaling mechanics and felt that they were ignored on that part, but I would not say that nobody had feedback.
Sandbox games, including eve, are inherently unfair. Your football (oh god, i'm turning british) analogy is the exact opposite of EVE's playstyle, and more akin to WoW's battlegrounds or arenas. You can bring 500 people onto an 11 man gang. That's just the way it is, and it happens every day. The mechanics support it and encourage it.Soundwave's "eve isn't fair" soundbite mainly. Which has been deconstructed and held up to ridicule fairly widely this past week. Designing a game mechanic around the "x isn't fair so Y shouldn't be fair either" ideal is a bit silly - if it becomes too unfair its probably just real life. I've semi-ironically suggested they now just let us add defensive allies for 1000 aurum since the game isn't "fair" I may as well get to add my salary power directly into the mix. But seriously, game mechanics are supposed to be fair -> competitive, balanced. Then the players make them unfair by being better at playing with those mechanics by than their opponents.
Take sunday's England vs Italy game. Football is a "fair game" ie both teams get 11 players, same number of subs, same chance to kick the ball into the other side's net. The ruleset is FAIR. But player skill makes all the difference, which is why our 11 players were stumbling bums chasing after the ball and falling over and the Italian players seemed to be lunatic demons hungry for blood.
Put Soundwave in charge of FIFA and you'd end up with the US team being able to field 500 players to Italy's 11 because its got a bigger population and GDP.
Thats what I mean by a flawed ideology. He's become convinced that you don't need any kind of fairness or balance in the underlying mechanics. (while nonetheless kneejerking to protect the largest alliances in the game from the unfairness of the defensive alliance dogpile.).
Also, implying this was some kneejerk to protect the large alliances is not really supported by anything I've seen. Goonswarm isn't going to implode because you killed 15b of their freighters and industrials, they probably spend more than that per-day on ammo and PLEXs. However, it was absolutely going to destroy the mercenary and wardec markets that CCP were trying to cultivate as a part of Inferno. You cannot have a system where everyone can dogpile onto an attacker every time a wardec goes out and still expect that people will wardec things.I'm not going to defend the scaling value (much) as it stands because I think it's counter-intuitive and dumb anyway (offensive wars scale per member, but defensive allies scale per discrete entity...$300,000 dollars for a 52nd defensive ally in an internet spaceship war.
Nobody sensible asked for "unlimited free allies" - we wanted free allies up to the size of attacker (then to pay to go larger).). I will say that if you don't want to pay that number you should probably not have 51 allies in your war, in the same way that if you don't want your hand burned you probably shouldn't put it on an active stovetop. v0v
Serious question: how much did the 51st war ally cost in imaginary dollars? What kind of sliding scale are we using? Also, I don't really see the harm in adding as many allies as you want to fight a war. I thought most wars were entered into for a small entity to form roaming gangs and grief high sec bears. Who cares if they want to invite more bears into the shooting gallery? More targets is more PvP.$300,000 dollars for a 52nd defensive ally in an internet spaceship war.
Nobody sensible asked for "unlimited free allies" - we wanted free allies up to the size of attacker (then to pay to go larger).
You won't get through to Jade, as far as he is concerned hiswarcrusade is the only conflict that exists in Eve, and that until you achieve precise parity in numbers on each side, even though the numbers are completely arbitrary (does GS have 9000 bloodthirsty and/or experienced pilots? No) then it's "unfair", "biased", etc. CCP made this change specifically to screw with JC/protect GS.
Never mind that it takes only a grade school education to see that a system where a defender can lock in an aggressor and then dogpile them with free support completely screws over normal wardeccing.
Last edited by Durzel; June 26 2012 at 06:28:33 AM.
How does it screw over normal wardeccing? An aggressor can keep a defender locked in as long as they pay the fee. Why shouldn't a defender be able to lock the aggressor into the war that, after all, they started? A successful defender, particularly one that has coughed up for contracted support, should be able to punish their aggressor. That's the kind of risk someone starting a war should have to take. It's supposed to be war, not a temporary license for risk-free casual highsec tossery. The mechanics as they were implemented first time round had flaws, certainly, but at their core they had the right idea.
That's an aside, though. The main problem is cost. The scale they've applied to allies was blatantly thought up of in about five minutes and makes no sense whatsoever. Why should the same rules apply regardless of size? It's absurd.
Last edited by elmicker; June 26 2012 at 06:35:10 AM.
That is the fair kind of unfairness that we all grew to like and are here for. However the unfair unfairness begins, when the 11-people gang is massively punished for finding 489 other people to ass-rape the 500s with. After all, they just did what the 500s did to them before. Why is one side allowed to do it, while the other side gets punished?
Where did I say a defender shouldn't be able to lock in an aggressor at all?
What I did say was that it was ridiculous that it should be possible to lock in an aggressor and THEN invite a load of people in to pile on, for free, which is what the original system allowed.
The reason it screws over normal wardeccing is because it would make any wardec unmanageable from a risk perspective, you could dec someone and end up just fighting them, or maybe them and another entity you already know to be associated with them, or you could dec someone and end up fighting any number of people you never anticipated fighting.
Some might argue "well that's the risk in wardeccing someone", which is also stupid imo. You can't seriously argue that it's an acceptable risk to potentially end up fighting target +/- <rest of eve>
Then why not scale the costs at members involved instead of entities involved? Where's beeing locked in war by 50 corps with 1 man each, more problematic then beeing locked in war with a single 50-man entity or 2 25 man-entities?Where did I say a defender shouldn't be able to lock in an aggressor at all?
What I did say was that it was ridiculous that it should be possible to lock in an aggressor and THEN invite a load of people in to pile on, for free, which is what the original system allowed.
The reason it screws over normal wardeccing is because it would make any wardec unmanageable from a risk perspective, you could dec someone and end up just fighting them, or maybe them and another entity you already know to be associated with them, or you could dec someone and end up fighting any number of people you never anticipated fighting.
Some might argue "well that's the risk in wardeccing someone", which is also stupid imo. You can't seriously argue that it's an acceptable risk to potentially end up fighting target +/- <rest of eve>
Maybe that's the way it should work? Clearly the current costs aren't sensible in spite of Jade's tortured football analogy and "what can I buy for $300,000" equivalency nonsense.
At what point would it make monetary sense for corps/alliances to just start their own war rather than aid in an already existing one?
Why not?
Obligatory Real-World Examples:
1.) Average-sized guy starts fight with puny-guy in bar. Looks like he'll mop the floor with him. Oh shit... turns out the 50 bikers in the corner are puny-guy's best friends. Things get interesting.
2.) Wars in the real-world are over when both sides agree it's over... not some predetermined time limit. It is faulty logic to say a war should be controlled by only a single side. If there is any time limit, it's not a war... it's a sporting event. I'd bet there were many countries in our history who, when they start losing, would love to hunker down and wait out the war timer.
I think it's horseshit that CCP is attempting to 'game' conditions of war. Wars don't have referees. IMO, CCP should open up the ally system completely... aggressors and defenders should be able to enlist as many allies as they choose, at whatever price they determine. Yes... it will at first descend into utter chaos, and eventually build into an Eve-version of a World War... but it will be interesting.
Honestly, Eve needs to decide: is it a Cold-Harsh Universe or a moderated, rule-laden sporting event? Pick one or the other, but for the love of spaceships... PICK ONE. This middle-of-the-road crap they're trying is doomed to failure.
If Eve is a Cold, Harsh Universe, then it's okay if 15 people gank that solo Rifter... because hey, it's a cold, harsh universe. If someone starts a war that turns into a nightmare for them... fine. HTFU or run for your life. Cold. Harsh. Universe.
If Eve is a Moderated Sporting Event, then having rules for war are fine. "You've been wardeced so we'll let you bring in 50 people at such-and-such price for x-number of weeks under current conditions." But, if you're going to have that, you're a hypocrite. Why are you not stepping in and stopping those 15 guys from ganking that solo Rifter mentioned above?
FFS, pick one. You cannot have it both ways.
There isn't a time limit though. The attacker can hunker down and wait out the war timer, but the defender can pick up the tab and start paying the costs as soon as the war finishes if they so desire. Think of the attacker in the war as an invader in a RL war. The attacker can leave at any time they like, if the defender wants to carry on the war, they have to go into enemy territory, and now they're responsible for paying the costs of deployment etc. I really don't see the problem.
Fundamentally, EVE has its no-holds barred "Cold Harsh Universe" - it's called Null sec. High-sec war decs are basically a mechanism to pull people who want to live in high-sec into null-like conditions (ignoring neut scouts/logi/etc/etc/etc). In one sense they do this very well, and I suspect that's the reason behind the cost structure CCP settled on: the more people you want to pull into the war, the more you have to pay. This is similarly reflected in the allies change.
What I don't get is that people want to be able to go to war in high-sec at no cost. All of the tantrums that are being thrown are in essence because for a brief time there was a way to get free wars, and it's been taken away. You want to fight another entity? Fine, dec them. Wars are no more or less "fair" as a result of this change - all that's happened is a change to how much you have to pay to do so. The fact that all of these tears are coming out of people complaining that they have to pay to fight goons (who btw, you can fight for free in Deklein any time you like) takes it from the sublime to the ridiculous, imo.
Well presumably (based on the exponential scale) the 51st ally would cost $150,000 dollars)
Nothing ever burns down by itself
Problem with your (and Soundwave's) argument is that GS is counted as having 9000 pilots for the purpose of the fee anyone has to pay to wardec you (ie 500m isk per week) - claiming that its wrong to look at balancing a competitive wardec system on this number when its ALREADY been used to balance the costs against you is just poor argumentation.
For what seems like the 1000th time. I'm entirely happy with a system where the defender gets to add free allies up to the size of the attacker (then pays to go larger.)
The lock-in element was trashed by banning defensive allies in mutual wars anyway. Plus of course the attacker was free to surrender at any time. Just because the ego of your leader made surrender "impossible" doesn't mean the option didn't exist in the system.
Nothing ever burns down by itself
first ally is free
Second is 10
third is 20
fourth is 40
fifth is 80
six is 160
7th is 320
8th is 640
(per 2 weeks)
Each of these is cheaper than deccing a large alliance directly (500m isk)
So technically the first 2-8 would be better served paying the defender their wardec isk (so the defender can pay concord).
But (and its a big issue) defensive allies do have their wardecs invalidated every 2 weeks and are forced to have a 24/48 cooldown) before they can join the war again (+ the admin of needing to apply/be accepted xfer monies etc) and this would give the attacker a get out of a jail period where you can't be at war.
So for genuine 100% coverage we're at war dammit pressure you need to be the attacker (or single defender) now.
Nothing ever burns down by itself
Yep and for a brief time (to use your analogy for gang warfare to = the wardec system - it was possible for 500 to be brought onto a 11 man gang (and then for the 11 man gang to bring an additional 500) but that got nerfed at the mechanics level.
Its getting pretty boring dealing with this strawman. Nobody defended principle that a small wardeccer hitting an equal sized or larger target should be faced with a free escalation so don't bother trying to string together an argument that supposes they did.
So don't defend the mechanism.I'm not going to defend the scaling value (much) as it stands because I think it's counter-intuitive and dumb anyway (offensive wars scale per member, but defensive allies scale per discrete entity...
Nothing ever burns down by itself
CLARIFICATION: Not exactly, as mutual wars have always existed. (But I understand what you're saying, and will address this below.)
IMO, it's not about fighting Goons for free (though isk does affect the current situation). Everyone loves to see the Big Guy fall. It's just human nature and an expression of individuality. (Hell, the single most driving force behind the Goons themselves was the destruction of the Big Guy (BoB).)
Ironically, the Goons are now the Big Guy, and when they declared war on a smaller entity, these new mechanics allowed an opening for multiple small entities to dogpile on them... and it was snatched up. I nearly resubbed just for that (not because I hate Goons; I just have a serious underdog complex). It looked like the small guy might have a chance to at least inflict some paltry damage. Yes, an Empire-based war isn't going to kill off a null-sec entity, but I can tell you it gets damn irritating after a while. And that was the promise of this emergent gameplay; tiny entities could become a thorn in the paw of the big boys, and they couldn't stop us! When that was taken away, resentment spilled out across the forums.
Agreed... we can fight Goons for free in null. But that's their home turf. All their ships and infrastructure are there, and let's face it; it's a bit foolish for a small entity to strike a larger one at their place of power. Part of the underdog romance was in hitting them where they are weakest... in Empire with hit and run attacks.
You could say "Hey, if you don't want to fight Goons in null then be a man and declare war on them." That's a valid point. Unfortunately, I couldn't afford that. I'm taking a break from Eve ATM, and so am unable to see... my three characters (single account) are in a 3-man corporation. How much would it cost me to wardec Goons? I'm willing to bet it's more than I have in the bank. You can't say that fee paid for the war represents "costs of deployment" as it costs me far more to wardec Goons than it would cost Goons to wardec me.
In their release state, the ally system allowed huge numbers of smaller entities dogpiling onto a massive powerful group in a forever-war. If you're the small guy (and happen to have an underdog complex, as I do), how could you not bitch and moan when CCP changes the rules? (I'm not bitching or moaning here... just disappointed because it could have been fun, and I'd bet the Goons would agree with me.)
Anyway... water under the bridge now.
...Average-sized guy lives the rest of his short life being constantly pummeled with no escape route until the 50 bikers get bored or average-sized guy dies.Why not?
Obligatory Real-World Examples:
1.) Average-sized guy starts fight with puny-guy in bar. Looks like he'll mop the floor with him. Oh shit... turns out the 50 bikers in the corner are puny-guy's best friends. Things get interesting.
Oh goody, real world examples. It is utterly pointless comparing Eve mechanics to the real world because even if there are things that work the same they may not translate to a fun game to play.
Realistically when we're talking about a game not many people will suffer being in constant peril all of the time in space that is for everyone else "safe". Some people relish it, but highsec is ultimately somewhere that permits transient wars rather than a system whereby one wrong dec could mean you can never practically play casually again.
Last edited by Durzel; June 26 2012 at 12:43:43 PM.
As a side note I think the idea of numbers parity doesn't work from either side (either saying that 9000 should be factored into ally cost, or that it should be free to add allies up to this number) because, obviously, that 9000 people won't all be combat-orientated people, or even "mains".
As a concession there should be some cost skew involved if the defender is the one with fewer members, but it shouldn't be as linear as "add as many allies for free until you hit 9000 member cap, then it costs ISK", but it should reflect that the originating wardec was a 9000 man entity picking on a smaller guy.
I don't think the existing system or the costs is perfect, but the logic is sound - both the "no allies in mutual wars" and A cost for adding allies.
edit: Lol poor Jade resorting to negrepping, what a fucking baby
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks