Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
Severian Carnifex
185
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
yea... we see that...
if not only one... then few the largest ones... |
Faiunus KeDar
Green Void Inc Dark Taboo
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
Quote:Trilambda
GÇó Minmatar V3 GÇó Re-designed Caldari Drake GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship. GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
I love the V3'd minmatar ships, however the T1 ships I always imagined to be a bit darker, like the Tornado on TQ. With all the new shaders being brighter I also see another problem. The Caldari and Amarr ships I can live with, but Gallente ships does not look as good as they did once the first version of the new shaders came out. Personly I like the darker textures. Why? New Eden is not a stroll in the park, it is a dark universe we live in. I think that the darker textures fits better with that theme. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:01:00 -
[33] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war?
The Honda Accord wardec has been running for several weeks longer and has created the same precedent.
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways.
What you have done is completely remove consequences from the largest entities in Eve. You have made it utterly impractical to add enough allies into a war to discomfort a very large alliance and made it impossible to lock such an alliance into a war so they are forced to consider surrender.
And the thing is - who was complaining about the way this was working? Certainly not the hundreds of small corporations getting to try empire war against large territorial alliances for the first time. The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really.
I don't think you have given the Inferno wardec system long enough in the wild to make any kind of rational assessments of how it is working in practise. And this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into.
These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliances in Eve and to the huge detriment of the smaller entities.
You have to acknowledge this stinks like a container of rotten fish in a cesspit.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:02:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways.
You are TOTALLY missing the point - with all due respect. Its not the defnders ability to defend them selves thats at issue here.
Its the fact that your system had a built in consiquence for getting in over your head. Pressing the "I want to go to war" button should be something you think about as it is on TQ right now that is the case.
You could find yourself you cant get out of untill you surrender or leave your corp/allaince.
What these changes do is remove that consiquence, wars are now back to "it not a important decision, its a random gameplay distratction". In essance you have made war less important and i am dam sure that wasnt part of your original design - It sure as hell wasnt part of what we were told the design was, but i start to digress.
Defenders dont want additional toys, you gave them everything they need - they want to know if they go *all in* and get help from a wide range of people - that they can make sure that the allaince/corp/entity in question that agressed knows there are lasting consiquences.
A 100 man allaince (for example) might never do enough damage to seriously harm a 1000 man allaince - But if that 100 man allaince knows they might get stuck with a war forever - that is on terms they cant dictate - they might think twice about pushing that button.
consiquence's are core to eve stop removing them. (infuriatingly just affer you added them).
/trying not be be rant, just rather disapointed.
|
Cathrine Kenchov
Ice Cold Ellites
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:04:00 -
[35] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful. No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).
-8.4 GJ/s is a little extreme, don't you think? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
523
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:04:00 -
[36] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war? The Honda Accord wardec has been running for several weeks longer and has created the same precedent. CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways. What you have done is completely remove consequences from the largest entities in Eve. You have made it utterly impractical to add enough allies into a war to discomfort a very large alliance and made it impossible to lock such an alliance into a war so they are forced to consider surrender. And the thing is - who was complaining about the way this was working? Certainly not the hundreds of small corporations getting to try empire war against large territorial alliances for the first time. The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really. I don't think you have given the Inferno wardec system long enough in the wild to make any kind of rational assessments of how it is working in practise. And this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into. These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliances in Eve and to the huge detriment of the smaller entities. You have to acknowledge this stinks like a container of rotten fish in a cesspit.
Not only do I not acknowledge it, I have and will continue to actively refute it. I want this thread to be relevant to teams collecting *valid* feedback on their features and so hereforth will be deleting any half baked conspiracy theories. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
1985
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:07:00 -
[37] - Quote
Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:09:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war? The Honda Accord wardec has been running for several weeks longer and has created the same precedent. CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways. What you have done is completely remove consequences from the largest entities in Eve. You have made it utterly impractical to add enough allies into a war to discomfort a very large alliance and made it impossible to lock such an alliance into a war so they are forced to consider surrender. And the thing is - who was complaining about the way this was working? Certainly not the hundreds of small corporations getting to try empire war against large territorial alliances for the first time. The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really. I don't think you have given the Inferno wardec system long enough in the wild to make any kind of rational assessments of how it is working in practise. And this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into. These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliances in Eve and to the huge detriment of the smaller entities. You have to acknowledge this stinks like a container of rotten fish in a cesspit. Not only do I not acknowledge it, I have and will continue to actively refute it. I want this thread to be relevant to teams collecting *valid* feedback on their features and so hereforth will be deleting any half baked conspiracy theories.
Right so how about we have a proper discussion of the numbers and implications of changes to the wardec system based around some solid examples and see if we can come to some useful conclusions?
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2426
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it
it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:14:00 -
[40] - Quote
Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
So lets make a change the impacts allied lockin - allow allies to leave a mutual war with a 7 day down or whatever. Disallowing any allieds in a mutual war means that a large entity wardeccing a small one can never be effectively mutualled and thus cannot ever really be brought to a meaningful surrender. This change is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and the issue you raise could be addressed without wielding a baseball bat rather than a scalpel.
Two step wrote:Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.
Okay so lets make another small change instead.
If aggressing entity has a membership larger than the defending entity (+all their allies) then the defending entity can call allies exactly as the system works now.
If the aggressing entity has a membership smaller than the defending entity then the defender can still call allies but for every ally who is added the attacker can also add an ally.
This allows escalation on both sides and will lead to a more dynamic and evolving war environment.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
|
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:15:00 -
[41] - Quote
Two step wrote:Come on Jade, being able to lock allies into mutual wars is clearly a really bad idea. Right now, I could form two alt corps, have them wardec each other, and then grab a bunch of free allies or even paid mercs, make the war mutual and never let them out. This is a bad thing, and these changes go a long way towards fixing that problem.
Limits on allies are not just about Goons, why would *any* corp wardec anyone else right now? If you do so, you are subjecting yourself to a possibly unlimtied number of allies. You talk about 9000 vs 100, but what about a 20 vs 20 wardec. Right now, the defender can pull in many hundreds or even thousands of allies, and there is no way a small corp would be able to deal with that.
In that case the only change needed is the 2 week rule for hires, the Mutual wars change is un-needed. see my above post as to why.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:16:00 -
[42] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2426
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:18:00 -
[43] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click
there's no right click on it... CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:21:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I would really like it if someone tried out the new UI control I added in the war lists and would give me feedback on how they like using it it's a new utility menu where you can change settings (like mark your war open for allies) without having to pop up a window and change the setting there. it also has an option to open the war report since some people felt it got lost because it wasn't in a right click, only on double clicking. Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click there's no right click on it... true but when people see that icon they think right click Overview works both ways.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. After all, someone who *wants* to fight the aggressor will likely just give the defender the ISK if its less than the cost of a wardec.
Also, as a real-world example, we had something like 30+ allies in a recent war, all offered free assistance, and none of who were involved in any kills/losses - its important to note that this isn't the 'mercenary marketplace' which was mentioned, and that should come later, but for now its a way to provide some repercussions for the aggressor.
All this will do is 'moderate' the numbers a little so the defender needs to be a little more selective.
Free 'mercs' != regular mercs who you hire to do stuff.
So once again.
A 9000 person entity wardecs a 100 person entity and needs to pay 50m a week (or something) They have enough isk (obviously) to maintain the wardec as long as they like.
To respond to this currently the defender has the option of adding an unlimited number of allies which might someday add up to a significant fraction of the aggressor entity.
But with these changes even if the concord fee per 2 week cycle was 1/2/4/8/16/32 etc for a baseline exponential increase it would cost a truly ridiculous sum of isk to add enough allies to reach that significant fraction.
Its just clumsy and poorly thought-out knee jerk change that is *EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath* There are other solutions to the perceived problems with Inferno Wardec system that do not involve *EDIT: I didn't listen to CCP Goliath*
Have the concord fee only kick in when the defender + allies has more total numbers than the aggressor (for example)
Keep the two week contract time and have the allies able to auto-renew if they like.
That solves all the issues raised without giving a vast advantage to people who really don't need it.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Mata1s
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:34:00 -
[46] - Quote
Fix Core Complexion skins |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
68
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:34:00 -
[47] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: Trilambda
GÇó Minmatar V3 GÇó Re-designed Caldari Drake
And STILL, no love for the Myrmidon texture bug. Fix it, pretty please? |
Kashe Kadeshe
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:37:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful. No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5). Cheers mate.
Hmmm, not sure if want, then. Not that it's an especially big deal for me (more interested in shield tanking, currently) - but perhaps consider introducing a skill that reduces capacitor cost of RAH, but one that needs ARP as a prerequisite?
|
Di Jiensai
Domination. En Garde
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:55:00 -
[49] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially.
Indeed. Then you probably wont mind giving me 1 grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard and double that for each field. After all, the cost is only one grain of rice and that should not be a problem, even when it scales exponentialy.
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 14:55:00 -
[50] - Quote
Removed a Inventory bug to its proper thread. |
|
Wu Jiaqiu
Heretic Army Heretic Nation
6
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:07:00 -
[51] - Quote
THE VAGOND AND TFI NO WINGY BITS . I CRY.
GIVE BACK THE SQUARE WINGY BITS NOOOUUUUUUUU...... |
c4 t
Push Pharmaceuticals Push Interstellar Network
48
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
filingo rapongo wrote:glad to see goons are ensuring that nothing like t20 ever happens again by placing goons into dev positions.
devswarm, its not good for goons - its good for all of us
Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:12:00 -
[53] - Quote
Wu Jiaqiu wrote:THE VAGOND AND TFI NO WINGY BITS . I CRY. GIVE BACK THE SQUARE WINGY BITS NOOOUUUUUUUU...... Its bug reported |
Zarnak Wulf
Amarrian Retribution Amarr 7th Fleet
367
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:12:00 -
[54] - Quote
War dec changes make sense. You should have to shop and compare allies in the mercenary market place. Not have a free dog pile. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2004
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
Di Jiensai wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote:Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. Indeed. Then you probably wont mind giving me 1 grain of rice for the first square on the chessboard and double that for each field. After all, the cost is only one grain of rice and that should not be a problem, even when it scales exponentialy.
Yeah, shouldn't be that bad should it. After all in Star Fraction's defensive war against Goonswarm we currently have 33 allies. Lets assume that CCP kindly allow the exponential cost to begin scaling at 1m isk for one ally.
We'll pay.
1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096 8192 16384
etc
Well it'll probably cost us more ISK than exists in the Eve universe by the time we get half way through our allies list.
Fair to say it'll be considerably more expensive than the 50m per week that Goonswarm have to pay though.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:17:00 -
[56] - Quote
Just going to jump in this thread to say that, on average, I receive 20 "Ally has joined a war" notifications on any given day, and none of them are friendly. Eve Online: A Bad Game. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2004
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:21:00 -
[57] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:War dec changes make sense. You should have to shop and compare allies in the mercenary market place. Not have a free dog pile.
They make sense if you are a huge alliance wanting consequence-free wardecs against small alliances sure. They make absolutely no sense if you actually want meaningful numerical balance by involving significant numbers of allies.
All that will happen in this new system is that things go back the way there were pre Inferno and trade hub raiders join Privateers, Orphange and shares the dec cost vs Goons (or whoever) on one alliance and camps trade hubs.
Anyone decced by anyone bigger simply ignores the dec because there is no way to effectively rebalance the numbers via allies without being charged a massive isk disparity over the cost of the initial wardec.
No consequence for declaring entities anymore because there will be no mutuals and aggressors are always free to :forget: the bill.
The casualty of all this is the lovely rainbow coloured allied counter tactic which will be priced out of the game.
And Inferno becomes Damp Squib.
Nobody is going to be "shopping around" to hire mercs from the mercenary marketplace when it becomes effectively impossible to match numbers of aggressors in a cost effective fashion.
At best people may well charge mercs the cost of the concord fee so they can join a war for 2 weeks.
So rather than being able to advertise "come join this war for free" we'll have to say ...
"rather than paying 500m a week to dec goons" come and ally with SF and it'll cost you 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128 or whatever for two weeks."
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:22:00 -
[58] - Quote
Now, imagine that I am not part of the most powerful group in Eve Online, and that I am not controlling your game. Instead, I am some 20-man "merc" corp that wants to make a reputation. So, my corporation declares war against a mid-sized alliance. The next day, there are 20 "Ally has joined a war" notifications. None of them are friendly.
Goonswarm doesn't really care about getting wardecced by every mom and pop operation out there. If we want to kill people, we will kill them. Wardecs have never stopped us from causing tears of unfathomable sadness. What this change does is keep things from getting out of hand for other, smaller groups that declare war. The way the system works now, you could theoretically have every other corporation in Eve ally against the aggressor at virtually no extra cost. And if there's anything the last 9 years should have taught everybody, it's that if there's a mechanic that can be abused, it will be abused. Eve Online: A Bad Game. |
Mara Tessidar
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
505
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:24:00 -
[59] - Quote
Although I get the feeling Jade is upset because we singled out the Honda Accord because, and this is according to Goonswarm official policy, "Jade Constantine is a huge tool and we hate him." Certainly not the worst reason Goonswarm Federation has ever fought someone. Eve Online: A Bad Game. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2004
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 15:28:00 -
[60] - Quote
Mara Tessidar wrote:Now, imagine that I am not part of the most powerful group in Eve Online, and that I am not controlling your game. Instead, I am some 20-man "merc" corp that wants to make a reputation. So, my corporation declares war against a mid-sized alliance. The next day, there are 20 "Ally has joined a war" notifications. None of them are friendly.
Goonswarm doesn't really care about getting wardecced by every mom and pop operation out there. If we want to kill people, we will kill them. Wardecs have never stopped us from causing tears of unfathomable sadness. What this change does is keep things from getting out of hand for other, smaller groups that declare war. The way the system works now, you could theoretically have every other corporation in Eve ally against the aggressor at virtually no extra cost. And if there's anything the last 9 years should have taught everybody, it's that if there's a mechanic that can be abused, it will be abused.
So.
1. Concord fee for allies only kicks in if the Defender + allies headcount is greater than the aggressor headcount. 2. For every defender ally that joins when their headcount is larger than aggressor headcount, the aggressors can add an ally too. 3. Ally contracts come up for renewal each 2 weeks, can be set to autorenewal and these don't cost concord fee unless defender outnumbers aggressor. 4. Mutual system contains as is and does not exclude allies.
Do you have a problem with that?
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |