We've had it confirmed that the CSM was universally opposed to this wardec change. . .

I am not opposed to this change, therefore the CSM can not be "universally opposed" to it.

It isn't just me saying it. Its the entirety of the CSM who have told us they rejected this change.

I am not opposed to this change, therefore the CSM can not be "universally opposed" to it.

It isn't just me saying it. Its the entirety of the CSM who have told us they rejected this change.

I'm saying that the current dog pile mechanic doesn't make sense from an all around general design style of Eve. In Eve there is nothing you can do that doesn't cost money or accept a risk. Currently there is zero cost or risk to you accepting an unlimited number of allies, this does not fit with the general design ideas of eve. You conveniently skipped over this question in my first post.

We've had it confirmed that the CSM was universally opposed to this wardec change. . .

Would it be fair to say that you have been pressuring for this apparently very unpopular change through your CSM rep?

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.

Sure it does. You could hire actually good mercs, who have proven their reputation before and shown they're worth the money. That's the whole point of the ally system, after all. That will, however, require you to put thought in, and make choices. That, you seem extremely adverse to doing.

Sorry, just had to comment...

(<-- Please note the CSM tag here.)



I am not opposed to this change, therefore the CSM can not be "universally opposed" to it.


Please, either try harder with the misinformation, or please, just give up Jade.

There are people much better at making stuff up and blowing things out of all proportion than you are, and you're just looking like an amateur.

[ But hope is not completely lost, since CCP is talking about how to fix this issue and if fixed the ally system will actually be a very cool feature for everyone involved (and the merc marketplace will be expanded to something like what you're talking about down the line). The gobsmackingly painful thing about it is the change to the ally system they have decided to put onto SiSi was the only proposed "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against during the summit two weeks ago, didn't get any traction from the CCP people at that meeting, and would seem to not address the design goals set forth by CCP Soundwave earlier in this thread in a meaningful or successful way.

You'll have to take it up with Alekseyev Karrde then. I was simply repeating what he said on this thread. I've bolded and underlined the quote for you. (You should probably note his CSM tag too and I think he was actually at the meeting)

Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.

1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.

2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.

3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).

4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.

I think that solves the problem.

Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.

Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.

This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.

Can you see anything wrong with this solution?

Hans, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on the speed-tanking issue. It's one of those things that seems obviously broken to me, but maybe as a non-FW guy I don't know why thats not a bad thing.