| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Bossy Lady
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
31
   |
Posted - 2012.06.07 12:41:00 -
[31] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:I like the idea of the defender being able to set goals for the allies. They can do that now, manually, but it would be a pain.
One way this could be implemented is for the defender to be able to set bounties on the WTs. Like each kill earns you x% of the hull value of the ship killed, where the defender sets the value x, and also sets a total "not to exceed" ISK pot from which payouts are made.
Ads for allies could then be "We are paying 25% bounty to a total of 200 million".
That is a fantastic idea!
Posting on this character because apparently some people get upset when they're asked difficult questions. M. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
1988
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 13:14:00 -
[32] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:First off, the lack of dec scraping and dec shielding is great. Wars are actually wars again, and fights are happening because of it. So in that sense this patch has been a huge success.
Yep all this is good.
Quote: Wardec costs. I understand the logic behind making corps pay more isk for more war targets, but at the same time I believe this has had a chilling effect on wardecs against those most capable of defending themselves, driving those corps who use wardecs as a means to get fights to go after smaller groups. I don't really have a good change in mind to correct this without breaking all the things CCP stated as reasons behind the change, so I'm bringing this item up so that maybe someone else with an idea can chime in.
Also, it costs a small fortune for a 1-man corp to wardec Goonswarm, and a pittance for Goonswarm to wardec a 1-man corp. Instead, I suggest basing the wardec cost on the total number of participants on both sides.
To be honest I think the wardec ally system resolves these issues in a fairly good way. Case in point. Goonswarm Federation recently wardecced The Star Fraction. They are some vast multi-thousand person alliance and we're currently a couple of dozen. I think they pay 50-100m or something which is a nominal fee. Sure if we wanted to wardec them directly it would cost us hundreds of millions a week. But, we now have the option of hopping on somebody else's defensive request offer for completely FREE (like honda accord or similar target.) This really does balance the field in my opinion and it means that a big organization deccing anyone is an invitation to EVERYONE to fight them from FREE if they want too - and thats a very good thing.
Further to this example - on receiving the Goonswarm Wardec I put it open to assistence requests and have so far added 22 allies to the war - the majority of which are single digit trade-hub fighting corps who could never justify the full independent wardec fee against Goonswarm but are so happy to save half a billion isk a week in charges that they join third party defensive offers for FREE as well.
This is consequence in action. Sure an outfit like Goonswarm has the resources and assets to perma wardec anyone they like - but in doing so the new wardec system allows the defender to wardec anyone they like in order to balance the odds. - For us to have enough allies to equal the Goonswarm numbers we'd need 500 allies of the scale - but funnily enough the system will eventually let us get there.
Quote:Allies: I've said it time and again, unlimited free allies for defenders only is a bad idea. I love the idea of officially bringing allies into a war, but the current system goes over the top and woefully imbalances warfare toward the defender if they know what they're doing. Some suggestions for fixing this:
- Add a per-member Concord fee for every ally coming into the war. This will make it prohibitively expensive to spam allies and force defenders to carefully consider their options before throwing money at it.
This is an absolutely terrible idea and would completely cut out small corp participation in defensive allying on wardecs. And it would do nothing but to underpin and enhance the advance large entities already have in access to unlimited wardec funding. There should NEVER be a default concord fee per ally and only ever what the ally themselves wish to charge. This proposal would be a huge disincentive to larger wars and by definition is bad.
Quote:
Allow attackers to bring in allies at a 2:1 ratio; meaning if the defender brings in two allies, the attacker is then permitted to bring in one. If the attacker does not "escalate" the war, then the defender is stuck with just the two allies.
Maybe. This I can see has promise and it will lead to the escalation and enlarging of wars and thats a good thing :)
Quote:Mercenaries: The mercenary market as it exists isn't so much a market as a free-for-all where lots of would-be mercs spam themselves into wars so they get lots of targets without actually caring about war objectives. Real for-money mercs are having a very hard time getting work because the wars are so full of free (and mostly useless) allies. So here are the changes I'd make:
When a defender advertises that they're looking for aid, they can set a win condition (percentage kill ratio, fixed number of kills, or attacker surrender/withdrawal) a deposit amount, and a payout should the win conditions be met. This way serious mercenaries can shop for paying customers AND be held accountable. Coupled with the proposed changes to the ally system that would force defenders to be more careful about the allies they accepted, this could make the mercenary profession an actual profession (you know, where people get paid).
Again not bad ideas though again lets look at one existing example goonswarm vs the star fraction. Goonswarm have intended a permanent dec I assume (certainly the cost is irrelevant to them) so irrelevant in fact that I opted to mutual it last night. Their goal I would assume would be to "have fun" and "shoot jade" - our goal "see goonswarm try to wriggle out of it (ie surrender) - whats the goal we then set to defensive allies ? I mean as discussed we'd probably need 500 allies to = their numbers. I'm entirely happy with the current quid pro quo that people join for free and get to hunt GS in hisec and take what loot they can, but would be ridiculous if we'd end up paying billions in the long term if GS surrendered. (unless of course we could set the victory condition to something like GS has to pay 100m per member to all the participating allies :)
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
842
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 13:16:00 -
[33] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:i dont get it if ccp says that high sec is not supposed to be safe then why would they make a mechanic that would make it safer for larger alliances? I mean if a hulk is not safe in high sec then why is a goon freighter?
With ~60 active wardecs I don't see how a Goonswarm freighter would be safe in hisec
eh |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
1988
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 13:20:00 -
[34] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i dont get it if ccp says that high sec is not supposed to be safe then why would they make a mechanic that would make it safer for larger alliances? I mean if a hulk is not safe in high sec then why is a goon freighter? With ~60 active wardecs I don't see how a Goonswarm freighter would be safe in hisec
I get the impression not everyone on this thread has looked at the public war list and seen the implications of the ally invitation system yet :)
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
1988
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 13:27:00 -
[35] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:All systems that base cost on the agressor's size or SP total or SP average have one big hole: The aggressor knows exactly when the war starts. As a result they can kick members as needed to minimize the war cost, then pull everyone back in once the bill is paid.
To be blunt, I think the days of the wardec fee being much of a disincentive to anyone are long past and CCP could throw a useful balancing the field hand-grenade into the system by just losing the size multiplier completely. Call it 50m for the first, 100m second, 200m third, 400m forth etc. Regardless of who you are deccing.
Do that and give an automated system of public marks for wardec evasion (ie leaving a corp at war) to characters slipping away and it would be delicious mayhem.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1802
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 13:27:00 -
[36] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i dont get it if ccp says that high sec is not supposed to be safe then why would they make a mechanic that would make it safer for larger alliances? I mean if a hulk is not safe in high sec then why is a goon freighter? With ~60 active wardecs I don't see how a Goonswarm freighter would be safe in hisec
I hear Goonswarm is starving for materiel and is ripe for the pickings, as they can't reship.
Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1686
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 13:59:00 -
[37] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Quote:
Allies: I've said it time and again, unlimited free allies for defenders only is a bad idea. I love the idea of officially bringing allies into a war, but the current system goes over the top and woefully imbalances warfare toward the defender if they know what they're doing. Some suggestions for fixing this:
[list]
Add a per-member Concord fee for every ally coming into the war. This will make it prohibitively expensive to spam allies and force defenders to carefully consider their options before throwing money at it.
This is an absolutely terrible idea and would completely cut out small corp participation in defensive allying on wardecs. And it would do nothing but to underpin and enhance the advance large entities already have in access to unlimited wardec funding. There should NEVER be a default concord fee per ally and only ever what the ally themselves wish to charge. This proposal would be a huge disincentive to larger wars and by definition is bad.
Maybe you missed the "per-member" part. It would cost the same to bring in 50 one-man corps as one 50-man corp. What this would prevent is the blobbing of multiple large corps/alliances onto a war for free. Defenders would be limited to the number of allies they could reasonably afford rather than accepting any and every offer of assistance. That way they'll have to think carefully about who they take. If it's a "merc corp" that only has frigate kills in Jita, maybe you should look elsewhere.
(edit: perhaps the cost could work on a sliding scale based on the relative size of attacker and defender. That way a situation where GSF goes after a much smaller corp would result in ally fees being significantly lower than the other way around. This would go a long way toward balancing the current cost system.)
Jade Constantine wrote:Quote:Mercenaries: The mercenary market as it exists isn't so much a market as a free-for-all where lots of would-be mercs spam themselves into wars so they get lots of targets without actually caring about war objectives. Real for-money mercs are having a very hard time getting work because the wars are so full of free (and mostly useless) allies. So here are the changes I'd make:
When a defender advertises that they're looking for aid, they can set a win condition (percentage kill ratio, fixed number of kills, or attacker surrender/withdrawal) a deposit amount, and a payout should the win conditions be met. This way serious mercenaries can shop for paying customers AND be held accountable. Coupled with the proposed changes to the ally system that would force defenders to be more careful about the allies they accepted, this could make the mercenary profession an actual profession (you know, where people get paid). Again not bad ideas though again lets look at one existing example goonswarm vs the star fraction. Goonswarm have intended a permanent dec I assume (certainly the cost is irrelevant to them) so irrelevant in fact that I opted to mutual it last night. Their goal I would assume would be to "have fun" and "shoot jade" - our goal "see goonswarm try to wriggle out of it (ie surrender) - whats the goal we then set to defensive allies ? I mean as discussed we'd probably need 500 allies to = their numbers. I'm entirely happy with the current quid pro quo that people join for free and get to hunt GS in hisec and take what loot they can, but would be ridiculous if we'd end up paying billions in the long term if GS surrendered. (unless of course we could set the victory condition to something like GS has to pay 100m per member to all the participating allies :)
That sort of scenario is certainly something that would need to be accounted for, but I think the theory is sound. Mercenaries shouldn't be paid for failure, and the current system basically allows them to do that. I want to introduce accountability for the mercs along with a much more robust and rewarding market system. I don't see a way to have one without the other.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
1988
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 14:26:00 -
[38] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Maybe you missed the "per-member" part. It would cost the same to bring in 50 one-man corps as one 50-man corp. What this would prevent is the blobbing of multiple large corps/alliances onto a war for free. Defenders would be limited to the number of allies they could reasonably afford rather than accepting any and every offer of assistance. That way they'll have to think carefully about who they take. If it's a "merc corp" that only has frigate kills in Jita, maybe you should look elsewhere.
(edit: perhaps the cost could work on a sliding scale based on the relative size of attacker and defender. That way a situation where GSF goes after a much smaller corp would result in ally fees being significantly lower than the other way around. This would go a long way toward balancing the current cost system.)
On balance I think you should stick with your second original option (allowing a 2-1 ratio of escalation in favour of the defender). Bringing isk into the equation just overcomplicates it and protects large wardeccing entities. If you are dead set on it then sure, some kind of relative size mechanic could be brought into play but its probably a lot of work programming and balancing to try and solve a problem which either doesn't really exist or is relatively minor. How about letting the current mechanic be tested in the wild for six months before saying its broken?
If you really want to look at the numbers though here's the thing. If goonswarm as a 5000 person entity (no idea what they are currently but lets say 5000 for argument) decs target Y (100 man alliance) for 500m per week. Then the total cost of adding 4900 allies should NEVER exceed 490m isk.
And what happens if the defender declares the war mutual (effectively making the dec free for the aggressor) in that situation its ridiculous that the defender should pay to enlarge the war so long as they are still outnumbered.
I think bringing isk into it is just overcomplicating the system which is currently working pretty damn well and turning hisec into thunderdome for 0.0 powers and their hisec foes.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1688
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 14:44:00 -
[39] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:On balance I think you should stick with your second original option (allowing a 2-1 ratio of escalation in favour of the defender). Bringing isk into the equation just overcomplicates it and protects large wardeccing entities. If you are dead set on it then sure, some kind of relative size mechanic could be brought into play but its probably a lot of work programming and balancing to try and solve a problem which either doesn't really exist or is relatively minor.
The escalation idea was my first, and my first ideas are usually among the better ones. I proposed the isk mechanic largely as an alternative or something to be done in addition to it. Even with a 2:1 escalation, it's conceivable that a war between two 100-member corps could get stupid when the defender involves a single 500-person corp that they may never could have afforded if there were a per-member fee.
Jade Constantine wrote:How about letting the current mechanic be tested in the wild for six months before saying its broken?
CCP is big on iterations right now. I want to keep the discussion of this system alive so that as they plan the next phases of this system, our ideas and issues are fresh on their minds. The dev response here makes it obvious that they at least have an interest in what we have to say about this.
Jade Constantine wrote:If you really want to look at the numbers though here's the thing. If goonswarm as a 5000 person entity (no idea what they are currently but lets say 5000 for argument) decs target Y (100 man alliance) for 500m per week. Then the total cost of adding 4900 allies should NEVER exceed 490m isk.
This is exactly the sort of "what if" thinking that I'm looking for.
Looking at it the other way, if you were to dec Goons they'd also be able to pile on allies for free right now. That's what I'd like to find a balance for.
And what happens if the defender declares the war mutual (effectively making the dec free for the aggressor) in that situation its ridiculous that the defender should pay to enlarge the war so long as they are still outnumbered. [/quote]
I thought mutual wars couldn't have allies?
"Another thing weGÇÖre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GÇô if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled."
Did that not make it into the patch?
Jade Constantine wrote:I think bringing isk into it is just overcomplicating the system which is currently working pretty damn well and turning hisec into thunderdome for 0.0 powers and their hisec foes.
That may well be the case. I'd hate to exclude the idea from the discussion because it *might* be too complicated for CCP to implement, though. I think it's better to talk about all the potential downfalls of it so that *if* something like it is used they have a good guideline of what to look out for.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
1988
|
Posted - 2012.06.07 15:01:00 -
[40] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
Apparently not because I made our war mutal and accepted alllies after doing so and our initial ally contracts were not cancelled. On balance I'm glad they left that clause out because it would have made it much too easy for aggressors to get out of wars - (or ignore wars against small entities).
Currently the only way its possible to potentially get a surrender out of an aggressor in wars is to make it mutual and load up the allies until the aggressor is forced to surrender formally.
If you don't make it mutual they they'll just stop paying and the war will end with the usual "no harm no foul no penality" we're used too.
So you need to the mutual system so the aggressor cannot just evade the war by not paying. And you need the allies system as is to enable an outnumbered defender to equal the field and bring appropiate pressure.
All in all CCP made the right decision to drop that clause because it would have ruined the new system.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
Solj RichPopolous
Mentally Assured Destruction
7
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 19:54:00 -
[41] - Quote
Simple fix I think some stuff OP said. Defender can bring 1 ally in for free. Additional allies cost on an increasing scale dependent on corp size. After 1 ally, aggressor can bring in assistance for free. 2:1 ratio. Win conditions for a set pot of isk. Or smaller objectives for smaller parts of the pot. |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
Comic Mischief
714
|
Posted - 2012.06.10 20:07:00 -
[42] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:MeBiatch wrote:i dont get it if ccp says that high sec is not supposed to be safe then why would they make a mechanic that would make it safer for larger alliances? I mean if a hulk is not safe in high sec then why is a goon freighter? just head into dek and kill goons there - isk spent on wardec: 0, available target: lots
I find it hilarious you put the word "Just" in that sentence.
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
Michiko Kat Sterling
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:34:00 -
[43] - Quote
I agree with Vincent just keep cloaked ships on every system round the clock in Dek... Shoot anything mining or carrying anything. I find it hard to believe the goons can't defend themselves. What happened to the sandbox so are we saying with this update that a big alliance can stomp any small alliance that they want.
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power.
Cascade Imminent
1143
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:39:00 -
[44] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Also, it costs a small fortune for a 1-man corp to wardec Goonswarm, and a pittance for Goonswarm to wardec a 1-man corp. Instead, I suggest basing the wardec cost on the total number of participants [i]on both sides.
I hear a lot of this "new wardec system sucks because i wanna attack goonswarm", there's like 16 regions where you can attack them for free without paying .01 isk for a wardec. |
RubyPorto
SniggWaffe
YOUR VOTES DON'T COUNT
1874
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 02:41:00 -
[45] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Also, it costs a small fortune for a 1-man corp to wardec Goonswarm, and a pittance for Goonswarm to wardec a 1-man corp. Instead, I suggest basing the wardec cost on the total number of participants [i]on both sides. I hear a lot of this "new wardec system sucks because i wanna attack goonswarm", there's like 16 regions where you can attack them for free without paying .01 isk for a wardec.
I think there are also a good number of wardecs you can Ally yourself into if you want to fight goonswarm.
This is EVE. -á Everybody Versus Everybody. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1023
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:12:00 -
[46] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Also, it costs a small fortune for a 1-man corp to wardec Goonswarm, and a pittance for Goonswarm to wardec a 1-man corp. Instead, I suggest basing the wardec cost on the total number of participants [i]on both sides. I hear a lot of this "new wardec system sucks because i wanna attack goonswarm", there's like 16 regions where you can attack them for free without paying .01 isk for a wardec. I think there are also a good number of wardecs you can Ally yourself into if you want to fight goonswarm.
Try asking Jade Constantine, I think they can set you up.
WARNING: You may be unable to leave the war until we drop it.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Grumpy Owly
Paladin Philanthropists
625
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:15:00 -
[47] - Quote
RubyPorto wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Also, it costs a small fortune for a 1-man corp to wardec Goonswarm, and a pittance for Goonswarm to wardec a 1-man corp. Instead, I suggest basing the wardec cost on the total number of participants [i]on both sides. I hear a lot of this "new wardec system sucks because i wanna attack goonswarm", there's like 16 regions where you can attack them for free without paying .01 isk for a wardec. I think there are also a good number of wardecs you can Ally yourself into if you want to fight goonswarm.
Feel free to ally with my Corp if you like for such purposes. As for some reason the existance of a young 3 man Corp in High Sec is a serious threat to Goonswarm security. ;)
Bounty Hunting for CSM7 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1025
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:18:00 -
[48] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Feel free to ally with my Corp if you like for such purposes. As for some reason the existance of a young 3 man Corp in High Sec is a serious threat to Goonswarm security. ;)
There you have it. Sign on the dotted line, please :)
I look forward to seeing the EVEmail from CONCORD.
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
Grumpy Owly
Paladin Philanthropists
625
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:26:00 -
[49] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:RubyPorto wrote:
I think there are also a good number of wardecs you can Ally yourself into if you want to fight goonswarm.
... WARNING: You may be unable to leave the war until we drop it.
Allied help I believe only nominally comes in batches of 2 week spells? (As of inferno 1.1)
Bounty Hunting for CSM7 |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
1025
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 03:30:00 -
[50] - Quote
Aww, they changed it? Oh well.
Then you'll have to refresh the alliance then. Keep at it though !
Those who cannot adapt become victims of Evolugalbugaslugakjlwsdhvbzxd |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1753
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 13:51:00 -
[51] - Quote
edited the OP with this info. Thanks for the link.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
Grumpy Owly
Paladin Philanthropists
625
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 15:09:00 -
[52] - Quote
Olleybear wrote:Love the OP post. Good post.
One thing I would like to add, in case someone else hasnt already, is having a place Mercs can advertise their services, prices, area of operation, etc. Defenders could then browse the ads and pick who they want to help them instead of waiting on offers.
This extention to the merc system would go a long way to improving things. In short it would actually make it more of an actual market of course. Unsure how much more in terms of iterations this area of the game will have in the near future. But capabilities may be improved as per comments peole are making regarding expanding on the mercenary elements in game with real in game rich features to explore commercial contracts properly.
At the same time there is the Treaties feature seemingly ressurected by the CSM to potentially expand on "negociations" between organisations further.
The only complication I have personally about the application of a mercenary market is the aspect of trust and also the relative ease of being able to see who will actually be an effective option to choose. At present others than some IG knowledge their is realistically a limit to understanding reputations and options of such things as a result. As such I'm not sure what would be the answer to this IG that would allow quick and easy decisions by CEO's in responce to defending war decs to seriously be a comfoting tool to them. But if the intention is to limit the numbers of potential allies and you have to scrutinise the most effective help for purposes then you will need some form of easy to see metrics reagarding capabilites and perhaps recommendations follwoing assistance to guage reputations perhaps.
Certainly I don't understand the reason to really put a limit on it. But if there had to be one, I'd suggest to at least ensure the defender has a change to allow allies in piolots numbers greater to some extent (by percentage if need be, e.g. 150%) than there attacker to justify the existing balance to the design for war mechanics. Else with certain threasholds options could easily be limited with large alliances not only then having more control with numbers if attacking, but with clever tactical use, can engage interested parties and concerns with ruse contracts and divert focus elsewhere as needs since at present if you are already allied in a war with a defender against said attacker, you "cannot" then ally yourself in a similar war against the same attacker in another war.
Besides that it also seems just comercially bad sense to limit mercenary options in this way. It kind of could be seen as trying to monopolise the market also.
Also convictions need to be in place for allied help to support defender interests purely on ethical, moral or a politcal stance so to some extent besides mercenaries needing some helpfull mechanics to advetise and easy influence war situations with a valid service, the retention of having free allies I feel should remain as a valid option. Wether however said allies with serious convictions still need to have a paid retainer even if they themselves may then end up paying for the privaledge.
All the above points I hope prove helpfull for discussion.
Personally with my 3 man corporation being a serious security issue to the largest alliance in EVE for some apparent reason (Mittens and Goons being shy to explain these actions) I would personally need some way of answering in kind to this level of aggression wtithout going bankrupt. Funnily enough had free offers already from people eager to fight the Goons, but they are already engaged in hostilites against GSF in other wars so cannot ally them as a result at the present time.
Bounty Hunting for CSM7 |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1763
|
Posted - 2012.06.14 14:50:00 -
[53] - Quote
New dev blog!
Highlights:
-Ally contracts will now have a fixed length of two weeks.
-Allies can now no longer be part of mutual wars.
-There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies.
-There is now a [500 million isk] cap on how [defender size] affect the war declaration cost.
It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |