Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 16 post(s) |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1849
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:41:00 -
[151] - Quote
What he means is not a peep out of CCP about the current state of the war dec mechanics and it was not until goons were griefed hard by it interfering with people transferring sov to them and only 45 minutes after they posted a QQ article on mittins website, magically CCP is on the case.
Maybe if CCP had addressed the issue, well I don't know, some time since the current expansion was released and prior to goons being meta gamed via the war dec this would not have been such an eye brow raiser. You know just like when goons war dec'd a couple alliances a while back and many alliances came to their aid and goons cried to CCP to change the mechanic then.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch Liandri Covenant
288
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:45:00 -
[152] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
Bye bye player based consequences on your actions. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1117
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:52:00 -
[153] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. Bye bye player based consequences on your actions. hmm. why are there no consequences for trolls a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
WInter Borne
Cold Station 12 Surely You're Joking
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:56:00 -
[154] - Quote
Remove wardecs and remove concord. War dec mechanics solved! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3560
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 18:57:00 -
[155] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde
v0v
maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
TuonelanOrja
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
204
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:00:00 -
[156] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE Perhaps somebody in ccp told you to do it. Not a veteran, just bitter.. |
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:01:00 -
[157] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE
EVE IS REAL! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
723
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:02:00 -
[158] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What he means is not a peep out of CCP about the current state of the war dec mechanics and it was not until goons were griefed hard by it interfering with people transferring sov to them and only 45 minutes after they posted a QQ article on mittins website, magically CCP is on the case.
Maybe if CCP had addressed the issue, well I don't know, some time since the current expansion was released and prior to goons being meta gamed via the war dec this would not have been such an eye brow raiser. You know just like when goons war dec'd a couple alliances a while back and many alliances came to their aid and goons cried to CCP to change the mechanic then. If you really want to get tinfoily, I joined themittani.com writing staff two weeks ago just a few days after meeting with CCP Soniclover to confirm that they were going to be able to address War Decs this winter.
CONVENIENT TIMING EH?!
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1851
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:06:00 -
[159] - Quote
If the shoe fits.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
cBOLTSON
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
87
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:11:00 -
[160] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
A while ago I would have read this and laughed. Not too long ago I would have posted that you are crazy but I think you have a point. It is some coincidence. Then again CCP arent squaky clean with this sort of thing are they.... "Were not elitists, were just tired of fail" - The Sorn |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1851
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:12:00 -
[161] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Tah'ris Khlador
Space Ghosts. Break-A-Wish Foundation
241
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:32:00 -
[162] - Quote
The fix should have been the inability to join a new alliance while declared mutual, not let the aggressor retract the war while it is mutual. That literally makes no sense for using the mutual status unless you are RvB or a group with a similar approach to war PVP. What possible reason would a defender make a war mutual with this fix, since all it does is keep the aggressor from paying fees. This isn't a fix, this is making the mutual status practically useless.
Whereas, if you prevent a corporation that has the war set mutual from joining a new alliance, you stop the space herpes. In order to prevent the circumvention of this system by toggling mutual off, joining an alliance, and toggling it on again, if the war was EVER set mutual, then there would need to be an inability to turn mutual on again until a new war is actually declared. (This attribute would have to carry with the war itself, not with the entity) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
3561
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:41:00 -
[163] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?
We have a backlog of war dec stories that the CSM is fully aware of (and Alekseyev has been super helpful with), they for example saw it at their last visit to the office. We have been aware of these war dec exploit threads since they started popping up and been concerned about them, naturally. The reason the fix was implemented now is simply because I had time to implement it (we are also working on bounties and war decs) - it doesn't really matter if things are implemented at the beginning of a release or closer to release date since it's going to be released at the same day either way.
We clued in the players today with Tallest's post.
Does this answer your questions? Gÿà EVE User Interface Programmer Gÿà GÖÑ Team Super Friends GÖÑ @CCP_Punkturis My Dev Blogs |
|
Thorvik
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
49
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:42:00 -
[164] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM?
Wow...
Thread started out on topic about a bad game mechanic, ...
continued on for a while with good input and some worthy ideas and opinions.
reached its apex and is rapidly approaching terminal velocity in it's fall.
Let me direct you here to the important part: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2159028#post2159028 |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
724
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:42:00 -
[165] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde v0v maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE How long have you been working on a fix and when did you clue in the players and/or CSM? War dec iterations have been on the docket for Retribution since the summer iirc. The CSM Spring minutes were rife with these issues brought up to CCP "in person" by my floating head and you can see CCP Soundwave and others commit to taking action. So...a while.
The frustration on the CSM has been the Bounty feature having to be nailed down before war dec fixes could be talked about and scheduled in detail. To the point that, like i said, i was about to take this to the players for fear it had gotten cut. But no, I met with CCP Soniclover for over an hour and their user stories are strong.
Expect CSM (and my personal) engagement on this to continue on through the CSM Summit and beyond till these items get finalized. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
CSM7 rep, CSM 4 vet Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
AssassinationsdoneWrong
The Nexus 7's
18
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 19:51:00 -
[166] - Quote
Slutty Underwear wrote:What is wrong is not how the current wardec mechanics work but the wording of it.
"Mutual" should be changed to "All or Nothing mode".
And it goes like this.
"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" wardecs "Nasty Corp". Now "Nasty Corp" ticks box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" now has the option to drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode".
"Aggressor Corp/Alliance" ticks the box also and now both corps/alliance are in "All or Nothing mode".
At this point the only way to get out of the war is for "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics) to be agreed or one of the crops/Alliance disbands
Now "Nasty Corp" feels he needs some friends. So he goes of to "Silly Bear Alliance" and joins them. Now the wardec is on for "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" and "Silly Bear Alliance". At this point, Same thing/option can happens. "Silly Alliance" ticks the box "All or Nothing mode". "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" can again drop the wardec (24h cool down) or tick the box "All or Nothing mode". Same rules as before to end the war remain. But with one exception. If "Nasty Corp" or it's CEO resigns and leaves the "Nasty Corp" and or "Silly Bear Alliance", The wardecs goes with them.
End result is the same. Somebody has to Disband or agree to "Surrender terms" (in game mechanics).
The fact that Corp/Alliances can Wardec with out consequentness is a bitter pill to swallow for most folk. And with this up coming change. They get that back again.
I Must say that I do feel like some of the rest posting here.
Seems that if Goons say jump. CCP do say how high please Mr. Goon CEO
If the goons don't like the wardecs, Then they should not make them on folks. And if they don't want to fight the wardecs, Stay out of high sec. They have all that nice SOV. They can make their own trade hubs in null. They can make everything they need in Null sec. They don't need Jita. and if they feel like they do need Jita. Then maybe they should do more escort run when they go there.
The best post in the entire thread (save the announcement of the permadec withdrawal). It allows CEO's to over-ride a tic'd off Director's over zealous snap decision, gives the CEO t a chance to say "ooops", keep's the option to have the permawar KNOWING its consequences.
All encompassing, well thought out and +10 to you Slutty.
EVELOAN -áchannel is no longer attended. Contact me directly over secured loans needed. AdW
|
Bagehi
Kaesong Kosmonauts Test Alliance Please Ignore
126
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:10:00 -
[167] - Quote
AssassinationsdoneWrong wrote:Slutty Underwear wrote:If the goons don't like the wardecs, Then they should not make them on folks. And if they don't want to fight the wardecs, Stay out of high sec. The best post in the entire thread (save the announcement of the permadec withdrawal). It allows CEO's to over-ride a tic'd off Director's over zealous snap decision, gives the CEO t a chance to say "ooops", keep's the option to have the permawar KNOWING its consequences. All encompassing, well thought out and +10 to you Slutty.
I would agree with you except that there are no consequences for the dec shield alliance to do this. The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange. |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:22:00 -
[168] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:I would agree with you except that there are no consequences for the dec shield alliance to do this. The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange.
It would not matter. If "Nasty Corp" or it's CEO leaves "Silly Bear Alliance". Then "Silly Bear Alliance" gets removed from the wardec. The Wardec stays with "Nasty Corp" and its CEO. What this means is that "Nasty Corp" and it's CEO are the key to the wardec, Where they go. The wardec follows. If the CEO resigns. The "All or Nothing mode" switches off.
End result is that for all members of "Nasty Corp" have 2 choices if they want out of the "all or Nothing Mode" wardec.. Leave "Nasty Corp" Or fight (or stay docked). Now if all of "Nasty Corp" leave and only the CEO remains (one man corp). Then "Aggressor Corp/Alliance" is just locked into a one man corp wardec. And I would say that there would have to be a some sort of mechanic that states that if no activity happens from "Nasty Corp" Then the wardec drops. But that's for fine details to be worked out at a latter point should my idea get some backing.
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1851
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:33:00 -
[169] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:We clued in the players today with Tallest's post. Does this answer your questions? Yup.
What are the odds of you looking at corps and alliances bloating their numbers with alts to keep war decs against them extremely high? Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:34:00 -
[170] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:We clued in the players today with Tallest's post. Does this answer your questions? Yup. What are the odds of you looking at corps and alliances bloating their numbers with alts to keep war decs against them extremely high? Any chance you guys could have the war dec fee only calculate based on characters currently training a skill?
What a smart idea |
|
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1852
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:41:00 -
[171] - Quote
Bagehi wrote:The consequences for the other alliance extend outside empire space, which seems strange. Just like how a war dec fee includes all alliance members no matter where they are for the sake of 'plethora of targets' when a tiny fraction are only in/visit high sec. Strange indeed.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Slutty Underwear
The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:48:00 -
[172] - Quote
Slutty Underwear wrote: If the CEO resigns. The "All or Nothing mode" switches off. And i would say that the toon that was the CEO would have to have some sort of consequences. Fine details to be look at latter
Maybe the consequences would be say a negative wallet for say 1b. And the Corp loses say 50% of it's corp wallet also. And banned from joining any corps for 4 months?
Meh, That won't work. Smart folks will move the isk around to stop that. But you would still burn a toon. |
Brib Vogt
DC-centre Destiny's Call
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:04:00 -
[173] - Quote
Just one thing which is stuck in my head.
Is it possible, because now it is officially something which needs to be fixed, [Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.], that all stuck corps and alliances could be freed? I mean we are still stuck in many wars but everyone hides.
Even if the system is flawed, dec shield is still online using an acknowledged exploit. So my question goes to CCP, the GMs and the Zerg guy: Could you shut it down now? You got what you wanted - end it. The official statment should finallly show some consequences for Zerg if he does not stop the crap.
Otherwise i have to add one more month of doing nothing to the most of my ally members, which means something about >2000Gé¼. |
M5 Tuttle
The Shadow Plague Fidelas Constans
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:05:00 -
[174] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What he means is not a peep out of CCP about the current state of the war dec mechanics and it was not until goons were griefed hard by it interfering with people transferring sov to them and only 45 minutes after they posted a QQ article on mittins website, magically CCP is on the case.
Maybe if CCP had addressed the issue, well I don't know, some time since the current expansion was released and prior to goons being meta gamed via the war dec this would not have been such an eye brow raiser. You know just like when goons war dec'd a couple alliances a while back and many alliances came to their aid and goons cried to CCP to change the mechanic then.
I've been on goon coms for about a year now and I don't think I've heard one of them say the phrase "war dec" a single time. I think people in high sec might be exaggerating the affect they apparently have on us. |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1854
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:34:00 -
[175] - Quote
M5 Tuttle wrote:I think people in high sec might be exaggerating the affect they apparently have on us. Yet the CFC website says otherwise.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Destru Kaneda
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
121
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:38:00 -
[176] - Quote
You guys are nuts. Music for robots, geeks, hackers, and nerds. Nerdiest homepage on the internet? |
Dasquirrel715
Universalis Imperium Tactical Narcotics Team
19
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:46:00 -
[177] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:They are NOW getting fixed because goons are in a permanent war. Seems ccp responds everytime the goons have a problem -.-it takes them now to actually do say something
You realize that most null-sec alliances, especially one like goons are ALWAYS wardecced. Being in a permanent war is nothing new to them |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
101
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 21:51:00 -
[178] - Quote
CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.
While from the standpoint of someone is damn near always the aggressor in wars, this change greatly helps me, I cannot say that this is the proper way to fix mutual decs.
The problem with your 'fix' is that you're going back on the whole concept of "consequences for aggressors" that you touted so much in inferno. As it stands, I will have just as much (if not more) control over the dec if my target makes it mutual. In fact, you've made it so that there is literally no point to ever set a war mutual unless you are RvB.
Here's how you should actually fix mutual wars, so that they're still worth using as a defender, but aren't completely broken as they are now:
Step 1: The first step is to make mutual wars a cost burden that the defender must carry (ie someone has to pay CONCORD for the dec). This should be implemented such that when a war is declared mutual by the defender, it is stuck that way for 7 days, without charge. The defender will receive a bill (much like a run-of-the-mill aggressive dec) to continue the mutual war into a second week, etc. The 'mutual fee' will use the same cost mechanics current dec fees use. As with current mutual mechanics, the two sides must agree to a surrender offer in order to end the mutual war prior to the end of any given 7-day mutual war period. (Obviously one of the two sides can completely disband as they can now).
Step 2: The second step is to make it so that mutual wars count as "aggressive decs" for the original defenders. If the defender is a single corp, this means they cannot spread the war to others via an alliance as they cannot join it. If the defenders are originally an alliance, and the alliance declares the war mutual, the war will be considered mutual for corps that leave the alliance for 7-days.
Step 3: In order to maintain groups such as RvB that want a permanent forever war with each other, implement an option for the aggressor, once the defender has made the war mutual, to confirm the war being mutual. This can be made with a similar flagging system as current surrender offers. If the aggressor confirms the war to be mutual, it is free for both sides and requires a surrender offer to end.
Obviously, there is still room to spread wars around as long as the war is not declared mutual (and could be still used to keep an aggressor at war for a very long period of time). This process of dropping corps in and out of an alliance with proper timing is rather tedious (but can obviously be done). While it may be exploited, I doubt it will be to the extent (both in terms of time and the number of involved parties) that it is currently.
I apologize for the wall of text, but would greatly appreciate both player and dev feedback.
Thanks.
Adriel |
M5 Tuttle
The Shadow Plague Fidelas Constans
47
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:33:00 -
[179] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:M5 Tuttle wrote:I think people in high sec might be exaggerating the affect they apparently have on us. Yet the CFC website says otherwise.
What CFC website are you referring to? |
GODUN
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
0
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 22:43:00 -
[180] - Quote
I think you are making it a lot more complicated than it needs to be. "It should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler".
The whole problem is the wardeck propagation up the organization tree, I think it should only propagate down. If corp A wardecks Corp B and the corp B joins alliance X, the wardeck should not propagate to all of the alliance X members.
Corp A and Corp B would still be targets to each other, but not Corp C which is also part of the Alliance X.
If corp B seeks protection, then it needs to ask Alliance X to wardeck on Corp A separately, then there would be two wardecks going for Corp A: Wardeck 1 outgoing toward Corp B and Wardeck 2 incoming from Alliance X.
To deal with the griefing corps, the wardeck cost for the outgoing corps should exponentially increase over time, unless it's declared mutual.
Adriel Malakai wrote:CCP Tallest wrote:Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution. We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war. And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. While from the standpoint of someone is damn near always the aggressor in wars, this change greatly helps me, I cannot say that this is the proper way to fix mutual decs. The problem with your 'fix' is that you're going back on the whole concept of "consequences for aggressors" that you touted so much in inferno. As it stands, I will have just as much (if not more) control over the dec if my target makes it mutual. In fact, you've made it so that there is literally no point to ever set a war mutual unless you are RvB. Here's how you should actually fix mutual wars, so that they're still worth using as a defender, but aren't completely broken as they are now: Step 1: The first step is to make mutual wars a cost burden that the defender must carry (ie someone has to pay CONCORD for the dec). This should be implemented such that when a war is declared mutual by the defender, it is stuck that way for 7 days, without charge. The defender will receive a bill (much like a run-of-the-mill aggressive dec) to continue the mutual war into a second week, etc. The 'mutual fee' will use the same cost mechanics current dec fees use. As with current mutual mechanics, the two sides must agree to a surrender offer in order to end the mutual war prior to the end of any given 7-day mutual war period. (Obviously one of the two sides can completely disband as they can now). Step 2: The second step is to make it so that mutual wars count as "aggressive decs" for the original defenders. If the defender is a single corp, this means they cannot spread the war to others via an alliance as they cannot join it. If the defenders are originally an alliance, and the alliance declares the war mutual, the war will be considered mutual for corps that leave the alliance for 7-days. Step 3: In order to maintain groups such as RvB that want a permanent forever war with each other, implement an option for the aggressor, once the defender has made the war mutual, to confirm the war being mutual. This can be made with a similar flagging system as current surrender offers. If the aggressor confirms the war to be mutual, it is free for both sides and requires a surrender offer to end. Obviously, there is still room to spread wars around as long as the war is not declared mutual (and could be still used to keep an aggressor at war for a very long period of time). This process of dropping corps in and out of an alliance with proper timing is rather tedious (but can obviously be done). While it may be exploited, I doubt it will be to the extent (both in terms of time and the number of involved parties) that it is currently. I apologize for the wall of text, but would greatly appreciate both player and dev feedback. Thanks. Adriel |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |