Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance.

The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place!

Your devblog patchnotes could have been drafted by Mittani.

In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table.

And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out.

You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy.

GÇó Adding some new items to FW LP stores
GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs

lol the old missle launchers are gone. Come join us on Sisi and see for your self

no new mods :( was so looking forward to seeing the extreme rigs for frigates, or the micro jump drive get introduced, 1.1 seems a bit lackluster :(, i mean the v3 is pretty but :( still a sad panda

Right, of course you also believe they should be free to wardec forever and a day for 50m a week while it would cost the defending side in Inferno 1.1 a truly ridiculous sum of isk to bring an equivilent number of allies to the party so you opinion is somewhat biased.

I have absolutely no problem with being in foreverwar with Goonswarm. But clearly *someone* had a pretty huge problem with the notion it should be more of an even fight.

Don't worry, if this all goes through nobody much will care about hisec wars in the future.

Despite the general forum hurly-burly the reality is that the goonswarm rank and file is not the goonswarm leadership. I can quite imagine the common goons quite enjoying the wardecs - but the planners and leadership see the danger and thus start whining for a nerf.

What doesn't make sense about this argument?

"The Goonswarm CSM plants have no idea what their constituents want and they are using their influence to change game mechanics in ways that their alliance players won't actually like, just to make life harder for pubbies."

Seems totally logical to me.

what exactly does goonswarm have to lose by being in a highsec war with anyone

answer: nothing, because we've been using neutral alts in empire since 2006

It's just too dumb; I refuse to believe that you believe this stuff, Jade. The more you rabble about it along those lines, the less attention anyone is going to pay to you. Stick to talking about the actual mechanics and stop this nonsense.

OFC I am. I'm just mad posting a bit. I thought that's what this thread was about? Did I make error?!

I'm curious, why was it determined that only defenders could bring in mercs, sorry, "allies" (don't we already have alliances?) in the first place? Why not allow anyone, attacker or aggressor, to bring in as many mercs as they can afford (with an adjustable contract length, much like price is negotiable?)

True, but that's why we can look up a corp's war history now, isn't it?

It's interesting that the one CSM member who is against the change is the one who is negatively impacted by it. Guess that means the CSM DOES lobby for their own personal game, not for the good of the game as a whole.

The problem that CSM and CCP are trying to fix is another one: in comparably sized wars, the defender has an enormous advantage by being able to hire infinite allies for free. That then again turns into one side being hopelessly outnumbered and getting beat up on, and is again unfun.

Oh, my bad, the problem is that Goons wardecced -SF- and are now swarmed by flashy reds. /s

Explain the problem as you understand it, then. I have been known to be wrong.

Jade coming out on top in any shape or form of goons war decing SF really pisses you off doesn't it?

Listen Hans ... Get your act together seriously. The CSM on this thread is all over the place. Spend less time trying to forum warrior the indefensible to cover up the gaps in your collective stories and more time getting this sorted out. I'm tired of seeing your facepalms and sighs.

But seriously, the question of risk cuts both ways some see a very large organization wardeccing a small one has virtually no risk attached. You aren't going to lose your space, you aren't going to lose even a significant portion of your isk. But by having the defender able to add allies to the war to make the numbers more even and risk more balanced we're sharing the risk out.

Gimme a break Jade, we know better than to talk to MB3. You're giving him far too much credit.

Where exactly is the balance of risk in a system where a 9000 man alliance has to pay 50m a week and a small alliance has to pay billions to attract a "good merc" who is nonetheless completely incapable of ending the war.

Answer ... well, there is none.

I'm not a game programmer, but it seems that adding some conditional situations to AI isn't a massive undertaking, it's simply "if player EWAR = true set EWAR=O" (or whatever it is actually written as).

Oh, yes this I completely understand, so in reality I'm questioning whether such a logic can actually be applied to the EvE code.

In my head the application of player EWAR toggles the state of the PLEX (one change) and it stopping toggles it back. The NPCs would simply check whether they were in PLEX state 1 or 0 and their behaviour would be A or B ... but I really don't know if that works on a design level here (the PLEX would be an environmental variable, much like say a WH).

But by allowing the Defender to enlarge the war and even the field a little more you turn them from helpless victims into people who just might have a fighting chance and start shooting back.

No you are ignoring the fact there is no pretense of gameplay balance where the attacker in a 9000 man alliance must pay 50m per week while the defender in a 100 man alliance would need to pay billions per week to attract a competant merc corp to fight a war that they have absolutely no chance (or indeed mechanism) of bringing to a conclusion. Especially since inferno 1.1 also nerfs the mutual system. The moment you bring in any ally (including your illustrious mercs) then it becomes effectively impossible to "win" the war because the attacker than just :forget: to pay the bill and escape at any time.

I have said this to you multiple times. I can only imagine you are now trolling. Suggesting the appropriate response to a 50m isk dec is to spend billions a week on mercs is simply a scam attempt.

So what? The defensive coalition can deny access to hisec to the largest alliance in the game. Eventually you'll surrender.

Must've feared something you war decked them first

I have deleted approx 75% of goon posts in this thread, and will continue to do so when they step out of line. The only reason I didn't delete your post is that I didn't want to throw fuel on your fire.