(If you need a tl;dr, just read the bolded text above.)
Let's begin with one of the greatest things CCP Soundwave has ever written. This is so completely awesome, that it puts to rest completely, finally, anything he might have written in 2011 for the Greed is Good CCP newsletter.
I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.
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. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.
Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.Emphasis is mine. It is important to understand the design principles of EVE Online before continuing.
The meta-game is important. CCP understands its importance. Start yapping about some one or some group, expect repercussions. Blogging is not a free pass from in-game consequences. You blog about the game, you've become part of the meta-game. You do not need to be logged into EVE Online to be taking part in the game.
Making wars fair is not a design consideration. Why should war be fair? In the history of human existence, when has war been fair? Oh, we have 2 to 1 advantage over you? Oh, you don't have any cavalry? Well, we'll just sit out all our horsemen and half our army, wouldn't be fair otherwise. Sorry about that. Okay, let's start the fighting. EVE is a simulator of human conflict, artificial rules to even playing fields is not EVE, that's some other game, like World of Warcraft, with their battlegrounds and arenas. Go play that if you want a semblance of fairness.
One of the premiere features of the Inferno war declaration system is the ability for defenders to hire allies, also known as mercenaries. Much was made of this by CCP, much talk about a mercenary marketplace and a validation of a legitimate role/profession in-game. Much talk about improving the mercenary marketplace UI even before Inferno 1.0 had released. CCP was excited about this, they had plans for this.
EVE players being EVE players, the mercenary market, as envisioned by CCP, did not materialize. Instead, a Privateer system evolved rather quickly, on the very first day of Inferno's release, May 22 2012. Corps started joining any wardec looking for allies. A large number of corps were quickly attached to 30 - 50 wardecs. One corp in particular, Unquestionable Prosperity Alliance, was attached to over 70 wardecs.
Dogpiling onto wardecs is not a marketplace, this was obviously not what CCP intended.
Alekseyev Karrde, of the CSM, predicted this would happen before Inferno was released. He made his opinion known through normal CSM/CCP channels. CCP chose to wait, see what would actually happen. Player actions can be hard to predict. The dogpiling occurred as Alekseyev predicted, and CCP/CSM discussions began immediately on how to fix the new wardec system so that a mercenary marketplace could have a chance to flourish. (It's like the old John Lennon song, Give Mercs a Chance.)
CCP will be implementing these changes in the Inferno 1.1 update on June 19 2012. Four weeks after Inferno 1.0 was released.
So on to the conspiracy. Here it is in a nutshell. Jade Constantine decides to talk some shit about Goonswarm. Goonswarm wardecs Jade's alliance, The Star Fraction, on May 31 2012. Jade sets the war to mutual. The war will now last forever (or until one side or the other surrenders.) Goonswarm doesn't care, they welcome some highsec mayhem (does anybody remember Burn Jita?) Forty or so corps join the war on the side of The Star Fraction, for free. What happened here is not unique. On May 22 2012, 38 corps dogpiled onto an ongoing wardec Goonswarm had against The Honda Accord. In fact, every wardec that began or was active when Inferno released had corps dogpiling onto them as allies, if allies were requested. This has been an unintentional side-effect of the new Inferno wardec system since it was released. This is not a problem that CCP just stumbled upon three days ago.
Two days ago CCP Goliath posts on the EVE Online forums, detailing some of the changes that are going to be included with Inferno 1.1. Among them are some fixes to the wardec system that will curtail dogpiling. Jade Constantine replies, accusing CCP of giving in to Goonswarm demands and whining. Basically, he all but accuses CCP of showing preferential treatment to Goonswarm, claiming these changes to the wardec system are emergency fixes that CCP only gave credence to a few days earlier.
First of all, Goonswarm did no such public whining. Anyone that asks for links to these whines are ignored, because there are no such posts. Second of all, CCP did not suddenly realize "Hey, we have a problem here! Goonswarm is in trouble! Get the patch team mobilized!" CCP was well aware of the problem the day the patch released: 1. because every wardec (not just those initiated by Goonswarm) from May 22 2012 onwards became an abject lesson in dogpiling; 2. because the CSM was well aware of the problem. The CSM and CCP talk daily. From day one, the CSM and CCP were discussing possible ways to rectify the situation. (Hell, I wrote about dogpiling on May 27 2012.)
To make matters worse, Ripard Teg, one of the most respected and famous bloggers in the EVE-O-verse, decided to fuel the fire and blogged that he too thought CCP was showing favouritism to Goonswarm, completely ignoring any actual facts on the timeline of events. Ripard is usually better than this, even though he is a big closet carebear, who's pretty high on himself and his influence on design and development issues over at CCP. Basically, he wrote his post, not so much because he believes the conspiracy he's espousing, but because he feels if he stirs up the drama-storm to a crescendo, that he'll influence CCP to keep the dogpile mechanic intact. (That's how much influence he believes he has.)
(I'm not going to link to Jade's or Ripard's tinfoil-hattery, because both posts are terrible. If you really need to read them, they should be easy enough to find.)
So yeah, no fucking conspiracy. Remove the tin hats. CCP had made the decision that things needed to be fixed (iterated upon) starting May 22 2012. This was not a quick, off-the-cuff decision by them. The changes coming June 19 have been well-considered and planned over the last 3 weeks.
This is easily your masterpiece Poetic.
ReplyDeleteI'm not on board with the tinfoil, but there's nothing about dogpilling that breaks any of the game design principles Soundwave talks about.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not 100% on the new war dec system, but if Goonswarm hadn't fired off the original dec, all their 'haters' would have had to deal with the extraordinary expense of dec'ing a 9,000 pilot alliance, correct?
So how's dog piling not simply those 'social repercussions' in action?
Mercs can still be hired/sought out. They need to be added as an ally wisely now.
DeleteI do have issue with the ally costs, they seem a little steep, or the exponential rate is a tad too high, in my opinion. But that's a separate post for tomorrow or Friday. I'd rather see an exponential rate of 1.25 or 1.5 at each step rather than 2.
Kate, don't make the mistake of thinking of this problem in terms of "Goonswarm whined so CCP changed". We didn't whine about it at all, in any forum. Wardecs are a non-factor to 99.9% of our membership, and the ones that DO live in Empire had no opposition to the idea, as the extra targets help break up the monotony of waiting for other wartargets to undock.
DeleteBesides, as much as I personally don't agree with the changes (they're way too stiff in the other direction - typical CCP right there), the spirit of what CCP had in mind when they created the ally system was pretty clearly not working at all, hence the change. It really IS that simple, and ascribing to any kind of "well, GOONS" mentality just ruins any chance of a serious look at whether their changes work or not.
"I'm not on board with the tinfoil, but there's nothing about dogpilling that breaks any of the game design principles Soundwave talks about."
DeleteChanging all amarr ships's graphics to literally be images of steaming piles of dog crap wouldn't break any of those design principles either, but I'm not putting 100 down on a bet that CCP's rolling that out with their newest expansion, "Who let the dawgs out?". Are you?
"And I'm not 100% on the new war dec system, but if Goonswarm hadn't fired off the original dec, all their 'haters' would have had to deal with the extraordinary expense of dec'ing a 9,000 pilot alliance, correct?"
Or they could have just written uncomplimentary blogs about goonswarm, and gotten decced themselves. but that would have required effort.
"So how's dog piling not simply those 'social repercussions' in action?"
As has been stated a million times, because dog piling was happening across the board, to everyone. How do we know that gravity is not a social repercussion for wearing plaid shirts? Because gravity affects everyone. This is pretty basic kindergarten-level stuff here, you might want to practice your war analysis on Farmville for a bit. Now if you removed social from that phrase and just referred to it as repercussions, then yes, it's true that dogpiling was a new repercussion for wardeccing someone. If you're Ripard teg, then you think that this repercussion was obviously the intent of the ally system. *chokes with laughter*
This repercussion was so blatantly obvious before release. I would love to hear the rationale behind the "wait and see" approach. The conspiracy theory is definitely laughable, but so is the decision to let this go live in the first place.
DeleteRemember what Two Step said ?
ReplyDelete"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."
why call free 500 allies should be a problem if making wars fair is not a design consideration ?
And if making wars fair is not a design consideration, why we need ship balance ? Let Titan back.
The restriction of allies has nothing to do with "fairness" to either party in a war, it's meant to give a real, in-game extension of what Mercenary corps do.
DeleteThe problem with the unlimited, free allies was that instead of actually seeking out a merc corp to deal with a war, it was just far easier to open it up to any corp that wanted a free wardec, and since the corps themselves aren't restricted to how many wars they can join, it just turned into a free-for-all of people getting wardecs for nothing.
The theory behind not having unlimited, free choices is that now you'll think about who you ally with. You'll actually try to measure out just how many people you're actually fighting against (as opposed to looking at an alliance counter and whining about it), figure out when they fly, hire based on how many pilots you need, what timezones you need coverage in, etc. The fixed-length contract also allows an out not only for the alliance hiring (if you didn't like how the allies worked out, etc) or for the mercs themselves (for whatever reason a merc corp might not extend a contract).
That said, there's definitely an argument to be had about whether or not the actual limitations and costs are a good idea (I think they're too severe as-is, there needs to be more wiggle room for a defender to have allies that might or might not work out without hurting them significantly financially), but any arguments have to start with accepting that CCP simply isn't going to allow a situation where anyone can get on wardecs for free, regardless of what anyone thinks.
"why call free 500 allies should be a problem if making wars fair is not a design consideration ?"
Delete"Why should it be a problem?" It shouldn't be a problem.
What you meant to say is "why is it a problem?" It's a problem because it would lead to a large decrease in wardecs. It's not a matter of the wars being less fair or more fair, it's a matter of completely disincentivizing wardecs altogether. Your logical error in missing this obvious point is a subset of the "false dilemma" fallacy; you should educate yourself accordingly to avoid repeating this error.
Rammstein: you're the one to talk about logical fallacies. You yourself are making the slippery slope false argument in this case: that "dog piling" will lead to fewer wardecs because fewer people will be interested in declaring war.
DeleteProperly researching target is important in any wardec situation. If you know that a particular corp has a lot of friends, you would fight a different style of warfare against the target. If you know that a particular corp has a habit of turtling and not logging in, you could wardec them with 1 member and still be effective in getting them to turtle up and stop logging in. If you have several thousand members, you don't care how many allies the target can find, they will never be a threat to you.
In any situation, finding people who know how to fight is imperative if the war is going to be anything other than a comedy sketch. You could hire mercenaries to declare war on your target, you could hire mercenaries to join your side as a free ally.
With the new system, not only will you need to pay through the nose to invite the ally to join you in the first place, but you'll have to pay whatever fees the mercenaries are asking for. The new system hurts the mercenary marketplace because it imposes extra costs into mercenary contracts. It is cheaper by at least 10M ISK a week to find mercenaries using the forums or in game chat, than to attempt to secure mercenary contracts through the wardec ally mechanism.
Anyone who cares about encouraging the competent mercenary fighter marketplace should be horrified by the rapid acceleration of hosts associated with recruiting allies to the defending side of a war. That anyone believes these exponentially rising costs will make recruiting mercenary corps more attractive beggars belief.
The new wardec system makes it even more attractive to simply biomass and quit the game, rather than "lrn2pvp".
This blog post is a good post and you should feel good about it Poetic. :-)
ReplyDeleteAt least _you_ have retained your sanity. I respect Ripard, but his latest posts on this subject are facepalm inducing.
Regardless, it is a sad day when CCP has to introduce two new forum rules because of this crap. The assholes responsible for this (and I'm looking at Jade Constantine in particular) should be ashamed of themselves.
What if the cost of adding a defending ally was also linked to the number of wars that defender was involved with? That would limit the number of wars any particular Merc was able to join...which is really what CCP needs to resolve. There should be some sort of linear repercussion for the overall number of "defending allies" involved in any war, but Merc corps shouldn't also get a free pass to join every wardec they wish. The problem with the Merc Market is that while wardecced corps must limit the number of allies, the Mercs themselves can still be part of as many wars as they so choose.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good point. CCP may be looking at things from the wrong angle, instead of looking for employers to pick out merc corps, perhaps merc corps should be enticed to select more apt wars to join. Limiting the number of wars those corps can be part of is a great way to do this.
DeleteI like this idea. Perhaps using this method would be better than limiting it on the defending target's side. Perhaps even have it be about half the extra cost on both sides or something of that nature.
DeleteGood Post, Stanz.
ReplyDeleteThe issue here is that this new system, which is supposed to promote mercenaries, does exactly the opposite. Small corp gets war declared on it by large corp/alliance. It can only hire 5 corps (because after that it just gets stupid expensive for a small corp), albeit good merc corps, that only mean that, in combined forces, they're only 10% of the attacking forces.
ReplyDeleteWhy would they bother? The logical thing to do would be to just cave in or sit it out with alts. This is the exact opposite of what CCP was supposedly trying to achieve!
The anonymous above me also makes the good point: if you argue for consequence of actions, then a large alliance should face the possibility of a shit-kicking war-dec to turn bad on it (i.e. have large alliances sign up). As it is, a large alliance declaring war on a smaller on is of no consequence to it (something the goons often pointed out in this discussion).
The issue I think is that with this new war-dec system it's very difficult to get a good balance: repercussions for both sides, while promoting the NEED for a mercenary marketplace. I don't see how the new changes promote that. At least in the old system, a good merc corp would have had reason to be employed over a free careless grief corp.
How can you possibly even know that, no matter what merc corps are hired, they're only "10%" of the attacking force? Neither of those numbers are at all static.
DeleteAnd yet again, these infinite wardecs aren't being removed for being a consequence, they're being removed because CCP doesn't want ANYONE to have free indefinite wardecs, and that's exactly what was going on. If it was simply a matter of being a consequence for attackers, it wouldn't have been changed. Simple as.
The hilarious thing about this debate is that of the vast majority of the thousands of eager young voices crying for equality of opposing numbers in every wardec under the sun--their fervent wish is to have equal numbers so that they can still stay docked for the duration of the war, while knowing that at least they aren't outnumbered, and hopefully that their free allies are winning the war for them. It really is a surreal charade of propaganda.
ReplyDeleteI never understood the need to balance wars... wars do not happen between two same size forces in real life either so why it should do so in Eve?
ReplyDeleteExcellent post Poet. I can see where the basis for tinfoil ass-hattery ideas may grab a foot hold with Soundwave, Sreegs,and who knows who all being Goonswarm members previously and wondering if they still are and using that to influence game play. But that's getting in to the realm of real life careers being put on the line to favor some bro's in a game. But shit happens. I'm not saying it is, but I can see why some may think these things.
ReplyDeleteYou laid out the facts and proof. Hell, I may end up joining someone in the CFC just to carry the torch and fight these idiots.
Even if they themselves don't realize it, Jade and co.'s tinfoil hattery is as much a part of the metagame as hulkageddon or whatever other shenanigans the goons and co. decide to pull, such as this counterpunch article. Only perception matters to the player base, not CCP's actual intentions.
ReplyDeleteGood posting. Finally someone talking some sense.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I am not a Goon. Quite the contrary.
That's a nice hat
ReplyDeleteI know jade can be a tad over-opinionated sometimes (I was in the star fraction for a year or so), but I wish people would stop dredgeing up false aligations about him.
ReplyDeleteIt's "emphasis mine" or you'd need to say "the emphasis added to the text was done by me" to avoid the possessive confusion.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise a perfect post ;)
Excellent fucking post man.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in this conspiracy, but I also feel like CCP are pretty much hypocrites, because on the one hand they're saying that it isn't their place to add more "fairness" to wars, but it seems to me like these changes are essentially them trying to do just that. They can't handle that the open-ended nature of the ally system was immediately taken full advantage of with corps "dogpiling," and they're retuning it so this totally realistic feature (in a real war, a country could have any number of allies, up to the total number of armies in the world minus the army they're fighting against) has a completely unrealistic bottleneck (because each ally one has in the real world increases one's costs by double each time?).
ReplyDeleteThey can talk all they want about how this is designed to reinvigorated the merc trade, but I'm not sure why CCP couldn't just let GOOD merc corps distinguish themselves, and argue for their own value, through their actions in battles, instead of god-moding a market into existence with this unrealistic, top-down fee structure. I'm not sure why this market needs their hands-on support, when they would decline to do the same for pretty much any other market in the game, their basis being that it wouldn't be authentic if they interfered. It just doesn't compute for me.
Thanks.
DeleteNoone has answered this to my satisfaction yet.
Not a tinfoil wearer, but just don't understand the necessity for a formal marketplace to exist.
Is Noir. shivering in a station with the power off, eating dogfood now?
"and they're retuning it so this totally realistic feature (in a real war, a country could have any number of allies, up to the total number of armies in the world minus the army they're fighting against)"
DeleteNo, it's completely unrealistic, because in the real world the attacker could have free allies as well. If this kind of realism is your deal, then head to null sec.
"I'm not sure why this market needs their hands-on support, when they would decline to do the same for pretty much any other market in the game, their basis being that it wouldn't be authentic if they interfered. It just doesn't compute for me."
This is fallacious rhetoric. You are arguing against the straw man of CCP "NEEDING" to do this. This isn't CCP fulfilling a need, this is CCP fulfilling a desire. Mercenary market is just like marketplace for goods that already exists, your statement that CCP doesn't provide a market for anything else is flatly wrong. Contracts and the market for goods has existed for years, and CCP will shortly add more functionality for trading other kinds of services.
No. The difference is that CCP doesn't step into these other markets and say, "Oh, well, officer mods are overpriced on contracts, so we're going to perform some artificial action to make prices go down on them." You act as though it was impossible for a "good" merc corp to exist with the soon-to-be-old ally system. I'm sorry, but a good merc corp could have distinguished itself just fine through excellent play. The only difference we're going to see after the new changes are introduced is that small merc corps, regardless of their skill and efficiency in battle, will be left at the wayside in favor of large zerg corps/alliances with the ability to drop tons of ships on the battlefield, no matter how shitty they may otherwise be at mercing.
DeleteI think what really got CCP's goat is that the wardec changes revealed an unappealing reality of the PVP part of the game, which is that it's become a blobfest. Dogpiling isn't the result of bad design. It's the natural conclusion of what the game's PVP has evolved into. So what we're not going to see here is a real change from that. People are still going to "dogpile" to the greatest extent that they can justify/afford (which will be quite a lot, I'm sure). Small merc corps are still going to be left without clients because priorities will be readjusted to hiring the most populous corps first. That is the only thing that's going to happen. CCP will not have solved a single thing with this bullshit, other than to alienate non-blobbers from ally PVP.
"No. The difference is that CCP doesn't step into these other markets and say, "Oh, well, officer mods are overpriced on contracts, so we're going to perform some artificial action to make prices go down on them.""
DeleteThey actually did, they recently changed the way contracts are displayed by default to price, not time, which affected overpriced contracts for all items, not just officer mods. More generally, speculating on patch changes is generally recognized as one of the most profitable activities in the game. Sorry, but you couldn't be more wrong.
"You act as though it was impossible for a "good" merc corp to exist with the soon-to-be-old ally system."
No, I don't. Their prices for many less difficult services would be reduced due to free competition, no doubt, but I never claimed anything like what you assert. There's an entirely different reason for CCP to revert these changes, which I detail below.
"Dogpiling isn't the result of bad design. It's the natural conclusion of what the game's PVP has evolved into. So what we're not going to see here is a real change from that. "
That's true, to some extent.
"That is the only thing that's going to happen. CCP will not have solved a single thing with this bullshit, other than to alienate non-blobbers from ally PVP."
This is incorrect, without the change people would have stopped wardeccing. It's quite obvious, under the dogpile system:
1. If you wardec, you get decced(ally'd) by 100 corps.
2. If your goal was to dec 100 corps, you'd just dogpile onto 100 wars, and avoid paying for the wardec.
3. Therefore, the number of wardecs would go down dramatically.
4. Therefore, CCP has solved the unintentional wardec decrease problem, and your claim is 100% wrong.
1) But that change to contracts wasn't about reducing the price of officer mods. It was about making the contract interface more readable by default, and stood in addition to several other changes they had made to improve the GUI experience. And how does patch speculation have anything to do with CCP intervening in the markets? Not quite following you there.
DeleteBy comparison, this change to the ally system is designed, by CCP's own admission, to aid in the institution of a merc market. That's what they've said they're trying to do here. So why is it okay for them to directly intervene in one, when their general policy is to intervene as little as possible in everything else? It's perfectly possible right now for a merc corp to distinguish itself and prove its worth in battle.
2) No, people wouldn't have "stopped wardeccing." Stop being an idiot. What the current ally system does--quite rightly, by the way--is it makes you consider a series of consequences before you launch a wardec. Is it going to make life hard for a 10-person corp that was once ridiculously dec-happy? It sure will. But it also makes it uniquely possible for a minor corp or alliance to go toe-to-toe with a big corp or alliance by "aggressing" them and inviting a bunch of allies to the party to even the numbers. That was one of the most exciting things about the new ally system in the first place, the idea that suddenly it was within the mechanical boundaries of the game for smaller entities to band together against larger entities who may declare war on them. And now they're adding a big barrier to that possibility, as the smaller your corp/alliance is, the more onerous the financial burden for bringing on allies.
And as I pointed out before, the only real upshot in all of this is that small merc corps will be avoided, without regard to their skill or efficiency, in favor of larger "bang for the buck" merc groups that can put more ships in the field. The idea that this is even going to have the effect of forcing people to prioritize quality over quantity is absurd. People will prioritize quantity even further, as ally slots will be limited by available finances. All CCP will have incentivized is the creation of large merc blob corps and alliances.
"But that change to contracts wasn't about reducing the price of officer mods. ...Not quite following you there." I don't think we're talking about the same change.
Delete"So why is it okay for them to directly intervene in one, when their general policy is to intervene as little as possible in everything else? It's perfectly possible right now for a merc corp to distinguish itself and prove its worth in battle."
It's perfectly possible to trade items without the automated marketplace, through just spamming local and trading in station, yet CCP instituted the market. It's perfectly possible for contracts to be enforced through third parties holding collateral for a fee, yet CCP enforced NPC brokers and an automated contract system. The ally/mercenary market system is exactly analogous to those, I'm sorry that this confuses you. Your mental framework for determining when automated systems are interference and when they are just game features is not coherent. As your catchphrase goes, stop being an idiot.
"No, people wouldn't have "stopped wardeccing." Stop being an idiot."
I didn't say "stopped wardeccing completely", obviously a smaller number of people would still wardec. Only an idiot would think I meant 'stop wardeccing completely'...stop being an idiot, as you like to say.
"That was one of the most exciting things about the new ally system in the first place, the idea that suddenly it was within the mechanical boundaries of the game for smaller entities to band together against larger entities who may declare war on them."
Yes, because now it's impossible to form a 9000 person coalition to fight the magically 'mechanical boundaries of the game defying' 9000 person coalition, CFC. What's that phrase you used...oh yes: stop being an idiot. I'm surprised that you aren't against the entire corp/alliance system for being 'interference' in the game by CCP, let people keep track of that manually right?
"All CCP will have incentivized is the creation of large merc blob corps and alliances."
Well, if that's true, then there won't be any small corps left to wardec, problem solved .
This really is going over your head I think, we might want to cut out the detailed argumentation and just call each other idiots for a while until your brain cools off.
You're really being obtuse now, aren't you? CCP has never introduced a change to the market based on the idea that they needed to help some small portion of that market specifically and exclusively. Please re-read the last part of that sentence (from "...based on") before you summon a response to it. That would be the equivalent to what they're doing here. In CCP's view, there's a segment of the corporate PVP population who are trying to offer quality merc services, and their product is being "watered down" by dogpiling, so CCP is saying, "We're going to step in and take positive action," supposedly to increase the value of the services these merc groups offer. If you think that's all fine and well, then okay. We're in disagreement about that. But to try and act like it's somehow SOP for CCP is utterly absurd, because it absolutely isn't. At no point has CCP ever been so open and brazen about specifically enacting a change in order to interfere with and "balance" a market that should be completely open and player-driven. Their comments tell us everything we need to know, in plain English. You're putting the market interface itself on the same level as this tweak to wardeccing only because it serves the interests of your convoluted argument, not because it makes sense. In reality, the market interface mechanic is equal to the entire wardeccing mechanic. A change to the market mechanics based entirely on tightening the market system for the benefit of only a specific segment of players who use the market (something that has never been done) would be equivalent to the tweak they're now making to the ally system openly in the favor of these, I guess, professional, quality merc corps (who clearly aren't professional or quality enough to prove their skills without being babied by CCP).
DeleteAnd no, you're right. It is possible to make a 9000 personal coalition to fight CFC. Which is really the only way to ever fight them, sadly, since these changes to the ally system would make it otherwise prohibitively expensive. So basically what CCP is engineering is the disuse of the very ally system it has touted as a gamechanging introduction to the EVE experience. A lot of us felt like this would bring some interesting new dynamics to the PVP experience, but the game is going to end up just as limited as it was before. All these quality mercs who are supposed to be helped will still be judged based on quantity before quality.
"CCP has never introduced a change to the market based on the idea that they needed to help some small portion of that market specifically and exclusively. "
DeleteGetting specific, mercenary corps are not strictly a small portion of allies, they provide services that are covered by the ally mechanic, and services that aren't. I don't agree that CCP ever said that the ally change was "specifically and exclusively" to benefit mercs. I applaud you bringing this back to a discussion of specific examples, but you're adding in bogus conditions, unless you can provide a link where CCP said that. They said it was the biggest reason, sure, which is a statement I don't believe btw.
"At no point has CCP ever been so open and brazen about specifically enacting a change in order to interfere with and "balance" a market that should be completely open and player-driven. "
Compare it to how eliminating drone poo and meta0 drops benefited miners, or how the recent changes benefited FW mission runners, etc. If you want 'completely player-driven', go play Second Life. EVE has a lot of dev content in it, which you seem to notice only when it suits you, like in the following quote:
"So basically what CCP is engineering is the disuse of the very ally system it has touted as a gamechanging introduction to the EVE experience. A lot of us felt like this would bring some interesting new dynamics to the PVP experience, but the game is going to end up just as limited as it was before."
I'm getting whiplash, are you saying that these changes are brazen interference with a market that should be entirely player-driven, or are you saying that they were introducing interesting new dynamics? You're really not making any sense here.
But was eliminating drone poo and meta 0 drops specifically designed to benefit miners? It's not a matter of whether somebody benefits from something. Any change to the game is bound to benefit somebody and perhaps not benefit, or actually hurt, somebody else. It's a matter of what the intention was behind the change. In this case, CCP has been very clear about their intentions. You may choose not to believe that CCP is giving you the real reason behind the change, but all we have to go on is what they're saying, and the fact of the matter is that it runs completely counter to their overarching design philosophy for EVE. There can be no denying that.
DeleteIn the case of the initial wardec changes and the ally system, CCP was introducing a mechanic that actually would allow for a more open, dynamic market. The way the old mechanics kept wardecs separate and discrete, and didn't officially allow for mercs unless the mercs agreed to dec a target independently, actually stood in the way of a more organic, free-flowing way of fighting wars. The way things were before was actually a form of market interference (because who is CCP to say that all wars have to be separate and discrete?). The changes, as far as I'm concerned, constituted CCP lifting a set of unnecessary regulations. So there's no contradiction in my argument.
You made very specific statements, which were false. Now, instead of trying to support your specific and untrue statements with quotes and links, you just retreat to useless generalities. Sorry, go troll someone else :)
DeleteYou're the one who's trolling, sorry to say. This entire time, you've rested your arguments on faulty logic (ex. that the entire market interface can be compared to a wardec tweak, and so obviously the existence of a market interface constitutes CCP "interfering" in the markets ... which is a total joke of an argument). I've pointed that out, and all you've got is unsupported allegations that what I'm saying is "false"? Troll on, yo.
DeleteGSF, Jade, Wardec, CCP
ReplyDeleteI do not like such coincidences
And now war will be "more fair" in the direction of GSF and not the smaler entities that are attacked by mitten deathsquads
ReplyDeleteYou were doing so well not posting. I recommend you go back to that.
DeleteI'm not going to indulge in any anti-goon tinfoil hattery, but the new rules do make it much easier for a 9000 player alliance to dec a 10 player alliance than the other way around. And while I couldn't give two shits about disparity of alliances in null, empire is *supposed* to be under the protection of both CONCORD and the four empires and war decs are *supposed* to be bribes to CONCORD to allow the fighting to occur. And while EVE isn't supposed to be fair, Empire is supposed to be a little more fair. I believe that allies should be free, but the aggressor should be able to pull out if they've bitten off more than they could chew.
ReplyDeleteAs one of the individuals actually privy to the decision-making process behind these changes, you nailed it. The idea that Goonswarm was currying favor with CCP is ridiculous, and players shouldn't give them the ego boost they crave by pretending otherwise. Goons aren't anywhere near as special to CCP as they wish they were.
ReplyDeleteThanks for setting the record straight, I'm glad at least *one* of the major EVE bloggers decided to write a realistic and informed summary of the situation, instead of playing the hits game and publishing sensational bullshit.
Eve players aren't all that childish to get lured into conspiracy idea's that easy.
DeleteJester did a good blogger job by presenting this story with underlying humour .... and I may remind you that he was very open when you pointed him to the relevant CSM forum thread.
I hope that CSM members will always be patient enough with underinformed users and bloggers. ... which are 90% of the community ?
Aren't we a special snowflake?
DeleteI was under the impression that CCP knew that dog piling would be the result of the changes, but intentionally allowed the dog piling to occur so that potential mercs could quickly build some sort of history within the wardec system. They weren't blind, they were dealing with a necessity. They are trying to establish a market system. Without a record, you cannot evaluate potential hires. A killboard doesn't necessarily demonstrate your ability to work the new system. Without a record, you simply cannot value your service. The system could not have worked initially because the only merc group the majority of the eve player base knows is PL.
ReplyDeleteThe free for all period is over. Now potential buyers should have at least a basic reference point as to who they are hiring.
+1 from a unista-staffer :p
ReplyDeleteNailed it, don't know what Ripard was smoking.
None of this matters. Sony is buying CCP and the whole game's mechanics will be changed. High Sec 1.0-.08 will be a NO shoot zone. Concord response times will be sped up, and scams like the Goons recruitment "fee" will be officially banned.
ReplyDeleteEnjoy it while you can cause the time they are a changin
Yeah, sorry, no. For one, in order for Sony to buy, CCP would have to sell. Second, the CEO at Sony Entertainment Group plays EvE, and not as an empire carebear (based on things he's said about the game). In other words, the CEO of SEG gets why EvE is awesome and not to fuck with the sandbox.
DeleteHerp
DeleteIf ever there was tin-foil hattery this would be it. I mean this comment, also I mean the wardec system hoopla.
The mentioned CEO is actually in a CFC member alliance.
DeleteOh, god, the tinfoil if Sony were to get involved in the game directly would be insanity.
I'm frankly shocked at this post. A rational, well thought out post without mad dog attacking Eve University. It's almost like Jester and you have traded off blogs. Regardless, good job on your blog post, I'll be sure to start keeping up with what you blog more now that I know you are capable of this.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work!
To the root of this post, it is a great one, nice work Poetic.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I am curious about is the change to mutual wardecs. In that when a war goes mutual there can be no allies, what was the reasoning behind that decision?
Thought I smelled something...
ReplyDeletefishy...
Yeah, preventing/limiting allies goes right back to the old mechanic. The aggressor remains in charge... Screw that.
Poetic and Hans are hypocrites, because they treat Mittens with velvet gloves and cheer him on as he metagames shit to the 9nth degree. The moment someone else does that, you all start talking about truths and facts instead of treating it as part of EvE gameplay. Screw you and your Goon favoritism.
ReplyDeleteWar is going to be unbalanced no matter what you do. This is -eve-. People don't like fighting in fights they might lose (ok, some individuals like it, but they tend to be far and few in between). Either the aggressor will be favored, or the defender. Given how easy it is to just run away from your problems in eve (log off, sit in station, heaven forbid move to a different region), coupled with the fact that war is an aggressive action, it seems to me that war should favor the aggressor.
ReplyDeletewhilst the dog piling is retarded, players using mechanics creatively have been a part of eve as long as unfair wars have been.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with the wardec system that I can see is the mechanism for calculating the cost in the first place - it makes more sense if the closer 2 corps are in size the cheaper it gets, and the further apart in size they are the more expensive or less expensive it gets depending on which side of the size gap you are on (small corp deccing big corp = cheap, big corp deccing small corp = much more expensive) - this would promote "good fights" and give the smaller corps the push they might need to actually get out and fight. If they can see the chances of winning are at least even money, perhaps they will get out and TRY PvP (I was the CEO of a small highsec carebear corp before my PvP coming of age, and this is precisely what happened. A small enough corp wardec'd us so we faught back and won. And then gave up carebearing and went looking for kills)
Another problem with highsec wardecs is that they are meaningless. There is no territory to capture, not end goal .. they just exist for 'lol, wardec' (ok there are some exceptions, knocking down a POS in a location you are interested in, economic warfare etc but by and large they are used by 'elite' highsec pvp corps to hammer newbies into submission).
Whilst I don't agree with some sort of forced victory conditions, there needs to be a reason to go to war - something which BOTH sides are going to be driven to fight over. Defenders wont fight if there is no reason for them to fight and they are content to dock up in station and do nothing.
Some part of highsec needs to be conquerable/capturable...perhaps if you are the dominant corp in a system you get special favours from the NPCs who own it - reduced tax, higher yields, priority access to research slots and the like. That is something which would give an attacker a reason to attack and a defender a reason to defend.
No matter what CCP or others say, a mechanic which is designed from the outset to unfairly favour the 'lol wardec' crowd, while reducing the ability for the defender to turn the fight on its head (which is completely acceptable in 'real world' wars) is not a clever move. The dog piling is bad - maintaining a system which allows small and diverse corps to be griefed into submission is worse.
Posts like this and the discussion in the comments above really make me miss being an active participant in the EVE community. Good on ya.
ReplyDeleteI don't really have a hat in this debate me since I'm not in GSF and I'm not war-decced by goons but I do have a quick question ...
ReplyDeleteIf 40+ corporations joining a mutual war against GSF, or indeed anyone, is dogpiling and needs to be fixed then why is a 9,000 member alliance declaring war against a one-man corp not also considered dogpiling and similarly deserving of a fix?
Mike.
Mike makes a great argument here. What exactly is the substantial difference between a 9000-member alliance wardec'ing a small corporation and a small corporation bringing in--let's just say, for the sake of argument--9000 allies to aid in the war that has been declared against them by a 9000-member alliance? Why is one an example of the game working as intended, but the other "dogpiling."
DeleteIf this tweak to the ally system has any effect, it will be to encourage people to simply form enormous alliances, because you can "dogpile" all you want with that setup. Never is that considered "unfair" or "broken," even though it's essentially the same fucking thing.
But when hasn't the mechanics of EVE Online encouraged large groups of people to band together into alliances and coalitions?
DeleteOf course, but I don't think CCP has ever designed a mechanic that explicitly argues against its own use.
DeleteThe fail is so strong in this post, i don't know where to begin
ReplyDelete1) You argue against things being fair... then proceed to argue that the wardec system should be more fair to mercs and large alliances because they have a ton of ppl... FAIL#1
2)Soundwave is AGAIN interfering in the sandbox. Nurturing the Merc market? dafuq? If mercs are so good, then corps that are under wardec should be flocking to them no? fail #2
3) Mike poaster above me nailed FAIL#3
4) I agree with you about the cost of bringing in allies. NOT A FAIL
5) Goonies are dogpilling the forums against Jade.. You seriously going to ignore that? say they aren't bitching loud and hard? FAIL#4
Again, the fail is strong in this
I love the mass of Anonymous posts in here. Awesomesauce.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't actually aware there was a flap between Jade and the Goons to begin with, although I'm not particularly surprised; Goons will pounce on anyone who gets their attention. I should read the forums more often.
There will ALWAYS be complaints of CCP favouritism whenever something gets changed, or implemented, or implemented and then changed. It's impossible to please everyone all the time. CCP is possibly the most capricious creature in the world, considering how often the "favouritism" changes sides ;)
great post! i'd read jester's trek post about this and hadn't really gotten the gist of this "dogpiling" going on. reading "hunters and pray" again i notice jester wasn't very clear what "dog-piling" meant, and i guess he took for granted the major problem ccp is addressing and focused on the 'mutual' aspect of an already broken wardec system.
ReplyDeletethanks for the clarity!
There is ALWAYS favouritism when it comes to CCP and Goonswarm - half of the CCP devs are former/current Goons.
ReplyDelete