Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.

This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).

re the cost of adding allies: the problem does seem to stem from the fact that these changes are looking at the corp/alliance level when applying a cost, when it should be looking at member numbers.


Would it be possible to apply a cost to calling in allies only if your "side" as a whole has more numbers than the other "side"?

Ie 50man corp decs a 10man corp; the 10man corp can pull in allies for free until they become a 50man entity making the war "balanced"*, be that 4 other 10man corps, or one 40man corp, or whatever.

Once the defenders are at 50, they can continue to pull in allies but it costs them as they are turning the numbers in their favour.


Making the allies system look at the number of pilots on each side conceptually ties in with the war cost being based on pilot numbers too, although there is some work to be done here for timings and edge cases and the like.




* as much as pvp is ever balanced

I agree. I think it's an interesting addition that fits very well in a flavour perspective and should provide a nice twist to LP. Will you be farming some up to buy them?

Understood... And so far, I have nothing positive or newgative to say. Luckily, your work has been focussed on something that is NOT troublesome to my gamining experience or my corp/alliance experience.

[needing a moke] Thanks for actually responding, though, even when I apparently posted int he wrong section! THANK YOU! You're one of the few CCP'ers to respond rather fast and punctually.

Cheers.

Exactly what I was talking about.

Then I left clicked on it, and it worked. For the first time since I have played EvE, I left clicked that button. Had no idea it was left clickable.

Oh well, it's your job to figure this out

Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.

Just because your post has not been directly responded to does not mean that it has not been read and taken on board by one of the Game of Drones team (which FYI Punkturis is not a part of). We as a company cannot possibly respond to each individual post made on any given topic. You may feel you are entitled to a response but I am afraid that it is not always possible. I would say though that, if some developer were to glance over your post without taking time to fully read it, they may be put off by the volume of caps which to us can appear like a rant. Not a criticism, nor saying that your feedback won't be read if it contains caps, or that it will be read if it does not, just a suggestion.

Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.

In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this.

Only if its that black bondage suit. But if you throw something in there that hasn't been seen, like that Solid Snake eye patch, I am sure people would grind for it. I would grind for it.

I can see it now, have the LP/ISK for a Typhoon Fleet Issue, or that shirt that says 'Winmatar=Secksmatar'. Everyone would choose the shirt.

You've done something to your protocols again/the Socket Closed connection problem has returned. Can't keep a Sisi client connected for long. Last time it came and went with Sisi updates, so I'm blaming your end.

We're looking into this issue.

Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrence of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.

You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?

Actually I deleted your previous post because it was a rant, it was extremely rude and totally non constructive. We have stated numerous times that while a rollback is not possible, we will do everything we can to work on the current functionality. There have been quite a few fixes in this update, there may be more. Noone at any time promised "hundreds of independant windows" (which you can get by the way, use shift click). I'm going to let this post stand as I'm replying to it directly. Improve your tone and calm down on the hyperbole if you choose to make a reply in this thread.

GÇóWhen you want to open an inventory in a separate window, you can now drag and drop it out of the main window as an alternative to the shift + click way of opening it.

Read all feedback! Shift+x or something else is in NO WAY acceptable. Doubleclicks and right clicks MUST be re implemented. I do not demand a rollback. I demand a 85%-100% re build of the old UI with the new code! That is something different.
To remind you of something look here (2012.05.30 10:03:55 )



Where can I find this function?

Not in yet due to bugs being fixed taking higher priority. Once we go back to general feature iteration (there are still some bigger bugs that need to be ironed out) this is a top 3 item.

Where can I find this function?

Not in yet due to bugs being fixed taking higher priority. Once we go back to general feature iteration (there are still some bigger bugs that need to be ironed out) this is a top 3 item.

In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this.

Fine. I do not notice your new bugs. Because I do not play since 22.05.2012. And I wont play and pay till I can play at a normal level again.
Whipe out some bugs no one cares and expulse all other old players who plays and paid more than 4 years.

We've been talking to some of the merc corps/alliances and having no meaningful choice in terms of picking a defender basically nullifies their business. What we wanted to do was put in an incentive to look harder at exactly who you ally with, meaning that successful merc corps would be able to market themselves better.

I agree that in an isolated sense, the 4500 vs 9x 500 people is a bit silly, but at the end of the day, making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. We can evaluate that later, but I'd really like to see how people who do this for a living fare with the changes.

Regarding the recurrence, we're definitely looking at that.

You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?

It's not just about the 5000 coming to high sec it's also the logistics and isk / purchasing power that said alliance has, They have unlimited reships available in high sec So how does that make for a good war??

All this will do is make people avoid wars again and we are back to before inferno.

What a waste.

We've been talking to some of the merc corps/alliances and having no meaningful choice in terms of picking a defender basically nullifies their business. What we wanted to do was put in an incentive to look harder at exactly who you ally with, meaning that successful merc corps would be able to market themselves better.

I agree that in an isolated sense, the 4500 vs 9x 500 people is a bit silly, but at the end of the day, making sure you can't just ally a large number of people was something put in to revive the merc business somewhat. We can evaluate that later, but I'd really like to see how people who do this for a living fare with the changes.

Regarding the recurrence, we're definitely looking at that.

Come on Paradox ... when we wardec the 5000 person alliance we have to pay ISK for EVERY MEMBER of the that organization regardless of how many of them come into HISEC. They all factor into the calculation that decides the wardec fee.

Thanks for the quick response SW.

I understand your thought process but I think you are prioritising addressing the wrong problems. You need to address the "massive group vs tiny group" imbalance that currently exists first before you worry about mercenaries.

If you nevertheless decide to stick to your current route vis-a-vis allies, you should instead re-visit the cost associated with wardeccing a 500 man alliance with a 5000 man one. The imbalance should have a cost associated with it, one that makes it very expensive to do.

Another, more nuanced mechanic might be to have the game identify aggressor entities that outnumber their targets significantly, and reduce the war cost against that aggressor for third party entities as a result until the number of "enemies" of the aggressor matched its own headcount. This would mean an entity could wardec who it liked as currently but if it was in highly imbalanced wars it would be opening itself up to cheaper counter-wardecs.

The fact remains that life and eve do share one thing in common: they aren't fair. Previous to the Ally system, if a more powerful group wardec'd you, you could either fight back and possibly get turned into a grease spot on the sidewalk, or run away.

It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate).