Looking good, and I like the new Utility menu. No more panicing because regular members can see the 'Make Mutual' option in the rightclick, and less rightclicking...


Countdown to Jade in 3... 2... 1...

This makes more sense CCP. The larger alliances already have an advantage in manpower and resources to bring into a fight. Artificially giving them even more advantages preventing defenders from getting Allies by a game induced tax is unnecessary. Once some sort of parity is approached, you can start applying fees to keep the kitchen sink from being thrown.

Mercs will still be appealing, in their own niche. For example:

A 10 man high-sec piracy corp decs a 30 man mining corp, demanding ransom or exploding Orcas. At this point the defender is already over the manpower headcount of the aggressor with an apparent 3:1 "advantage." Make them pay an exorbitant fee to bring in an ally. Reality knows that they need some combat pilots. This is where the Mercs come into play. They could be hired for less than the cost of bringing in Allies.

Mercs would also be appealing to bring in an advantage once you have an approx. 1:1 headcount with your enemy for less than the cost of Allies.

We're in constant contact with the CSM about this feature. From our in person meeting in Iceland to previewing every devblog (including this one). Again, you're fabricating this to support your opinion.

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.

Dialogue on the internal CSM/CCP forums on this issue is ongoing but my expectations are not high.

You're putting words in the CSM rep's mouth and then claiming they're being contradicted. Stop imagining conspiracies and work with the facts already, holy crap.

I'm saying you're fabricating things because you're incorrectly making assumptions about meetings you have no information about. Unless you have read rights to the CSM forum you can't accurately gauge our communication with the CSM. Secondly a CSM member just posted on this page saying he supported the changes.

The function of the CSM has never been to dictate changes. If that was the case, we'd be building features to suit individual people, which isn't going to happen. The CSM meetings aren't where features are designed either, so if we talk about things at meetings that doesn't lock us into a certain development path. We had a chat with the CSM, we agreed on that a change was needed but at the end of the day we didn't chose the patch Alekseyev wanted because I felt it catered too much to a specific playstyle which very people engage in at the cost of everyone else.

Your assumption that we "don't listen" is entirely incorrect, and either grounded in the fact that you have no idea what goes on between us and the CSM at closed door or because you selectively choose to believe that "listen" means "do what they tell us", which it certainly doesn't. This topic has been discussed at length with the CSM on their forum, regardless of of what your theory about the subject is. Anyway, I understand you disagree with the feature and that's fine, but after reviewing the feedback this is the direction that I at the end of the day chose.

I hear that repeatedly attacking a developer of the game is now bannable. I would be careful how many times you attack soundwave, who has done nothing but promote great changes and fixes to this game ever since he has joined ccp games.

Im strongly opposed to the change to the ally system and CCP has ignored me.

So try again, it's not my fault nor has anything to do with a damn thing I've said.

If only there were an NPC buy order for pretentious words. Jade would have no problem paying those fees then.

well no you claimed "the entire csm" was against the change and naturally were ignored when you were repeatedly contradicted by csm member after csm member

And you can stop telling fibs as well Jade. Kelduum was most certainly present at the CSM summit in Iceland.

Also, saying that only one CSM member tried to contradict you is completely misleading. We certainly agree that the fees model was not ideal, but most of has have repeatedly rebuked your insistence that all of this was done to cater to Goon influence. There is no reason to suggest any kind of implied solidarity with your cause.

I haven't been reading what you have been posting because, frankly, it is boring and terrible. Please consider me to be contradicting everything you are saying everywhere.

I also concur. Jade, you're putting words into the mouths of the CSM and it's inexcusable, knock that off and stop trying to run your own "spin control"

Honestly neither of us are lying. I talked to Kel, he barely remembered the adding cost to allies discussion because it went by so quick. He certainly wasn't pushing for it, and I was not left with the impression he liked it till I talked to him about it today.

Kel explained his position to me as that the ally fees are better than nothing since they'd stop "things from going silly" (which they will). From the merc point of view they're better than nothing. But I feel the spending power advantage now granted to big/rich groups at the expense of small/poor groups (and the middle guys tbh) outweigh the meager gains mercs get from this.

The "merc tailored" option Soundwave referenced that I pushed for was a cap on allies (2-3 would have been nice) but you would not have any cost for taking them. If you wanted to hire a merc, you could at whatever price you negotiated. If you wanted to bring friends in, you could do it for free. If you wanted to accept free help from strangers you could do that too, or any combination of the three. I feel this would have restored the merc market (the real one, not the Inferno mechanic) close to where it was before Inferno while not further unleveling the playing field between the big guys and the little guys.

I'm sure most of the people opposed to this fees change would be equally opposed to any limiting factor on allies, and certainly would oppose a flat limit. My position is whatever limit to the allies system is put in place should achieve the goal of restoring the viability of the long established mercenary profession that was undermined when the system was launched. I didnt/dont expect the fee system and prices described in this blog to do that, and so would do more harm than good.

Your disrespectful and venom-filled language is far more of an attack than anything that has been directed at you, stop victimizing yourself. I've tried to be cordial to you throughout this process despite the outrageously false allegations you continue to hurl at the CSM who isn't even to blame for the changes you're so angry about.

Let's entertain the idea for a second that Aleks made a mistake - and didn't hear Kelduum's agreement with the proposal. After all, Aleks was observing the meeting via a Live Stream, and as someone who was in the same position, I can understand how its easy to mistake a statement or miss a few words. Aleks was present, but not physically in the room. He was speaking from what he remembered of the session, filtered through computer audio transmission.

That being said, why in the world have you lashed yourself to THE CSM IS LYING TO US? What difference does it make whether we were unanimous, or *mostly* unanimous, other than to play GOTCHA games and try to discredit us in the process? I fail to understand how clarification here changes the discussion in any kind of significant way.

I'd like to see CSM members stop beating up on Jade, who has some valid points, even if the conjecture about the motivations for the change may or may not be on the mark.

I'd also be a good thing if Jade could put aside the accusations, and lets have a constructive talk about the effects.

...

I agree with Aleks and CCP about the need to reform the "Ally system" to live up to the promise of the "Mercenary Marketplace".

It is interesting that the name change matched the functionality rather well. As predicted (by yours truly among others) it wasn't used by Mercs. Grudges and opportunities where the only thing that would entice people to being locked into a war they couldn't control getting out of. As a result, Mercenaries are an endangered species.

The two week contract time fixes that. Bravo!

The geometrically increasing charge for allies on the other hand may not call for cheers, however.

I am not sure it even helps the Mercs to have these charges to CONCORD. Sure a few companies will get business again, but it hurts smaller starter merc companies (choose your mercs wisely indeed).

It nukes the interesting defense coalitions that have sprung up around some of these wars. Where is the praise for emergent game play and sandbox systems in this regard?

I'd like to see the two week timer go in and leave the ally fees out. That may be enough to revive the Mercenary trade without disrupting the emerging allies. Doing both at the same time twists too many dials at once and I am not sure if we can be clear on the results. If fees are put in place (now or later), I don't think uncapped geometric is the way to go.

BTW - I've seen the 30+ allies called "absurd on its face" and ridiculous. Personally I'd think "karma" is a better description. I've only seen it reported to be happening with big alliances that have "ruining your game" as a reason for existence, attacking smaller entities. Its interesting to actually see people banding together to fight that.

The game shouldn't be balanced on the extreme outlier of "9000 vs 100" but should be balanced on the hundreds of allies that are dog piling onto every single wardec they can, regardless of whether they even like the people they are "allied" with.

Actually I just capped it at 20 allies, I doubt anyone will notice :P

Wardec for 0 isk is an exploit, stop raving.

So basically you're saying it just so happens that you believe this change, that would happen to benefit you, would be the best idea? Wow, that's new.

It doesn't help merc corps, when indie corps instead of limiting their options and choosing the "best" people for the job choose to just allow anyone into the war.

The whole idea of the merc marketplace is that a small, but rich, corp attacked by a big bunch of griefers can hire mercs as allies. Under your system you're just back to free allies and a free goon forever war.

My favourite fix is simply to allow infinite and free allies, but allow an ally to only join one war.

This would mean mercs would need to WANT to work for the aggressed party, and that may largely come down to an ISK incentive to do so.

I'm sure plenty of people would still dogpile GSF, but I don't think that's a bad thing for any of the involved parties on either side. For the majority case, mercs will be picking their ally of the week based on what the ally has to offer, whether that's helping E-Uni pro-bono or fighting against the 0rphanage for 500mil a week is really up to them.

No it's not the solution you proposed, because in your very next sentence you went and spilled the same crap about equal numbers.

All your solution would mean is that every war (in the common case) would gravitate towards equal numbers all the time, which is completely silly and open to gaming in utterly broken ways.

EG:

50 industrialists want to get back at a 5man corp of people that have been greifing and so wardec them. Industrialists have about 5-10 PVP capable pilots so this seems like a good idea.

Next day, several corps containing 45 PVPers have dog-piled into the war for free and the industrialists go back to ship spinning because their plan has been defeated.

You can keep on with your idea all you want, but you will never get any traction on it because it's completely silly. The only situation in which it makes sense is if you need massive numbers of allies to make up a huge number differential, which is ALL about you and your OVER 9000 baddies and nothing to do with proper mechanics.Everyone can see it, as well.

That's been suggested many times, the only reason against it seems to be that Eve isn't fair.

Wow, this whole forum is full of some pretty stupid people....

If you all are so eager to fight us get all your ally's and your cryboats to Deklein. So you can fight us for FREE!!

People are *still* talking about how this benefits large alliances and completely ignoring 99.9% of EvE.

Do you also realise the self same groups were wardeccing the Goons before the change, and paying a small 50-150mil a week to do it?

Jade keeps telling us about his "mighty coalition of allies who have banded together" but still dodges basic questions about them, such as whether he has even spoken to the people pressing "ally all" in their Neocom. Someone who wants to "shoot goons for free" (his words) is not an ally fighting for his ideals.

As a member of BUGRY, members 50, we were wardecced by a small corp, members 15, who had a massive grudge against us because we'd pulled down their space trousers and did our namesake.

Day 1-4 of the war led to a handful of engagements.

Day 5 saw inferno.

By Day 6, we had 15 allies for a total of 250-300 people. We actually also were the first corp to receive an ally under the new system, toot.

By Day 10 we had almost 900 allies from 25corps (mostly the exact same ones "helping" Jade and every single other corp. One of our allies was a 5man corp in 50wars).

We paid for none, we spoke to none.

The wartargets didn't bother undocking again, because any concept of who was fighting who was completely lost in the mire.

This story repeated itself across every war going, every aggressed party effectively had every "merc" working for them, for free.

he just wrote this: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/06/15/eve-online-inferno-scorches-the-mittani%E2%80%99s-knickers-ccp-turns-down-the-heat/

These changes aren't adequate to resolve the problems with the current system, but they are (just barely) better than nothing.

You still have the problem of the total cost to declare a war being multiplied by 1+ the number of active wars you have, so if you declare a war against a 5 man corp for 50 million it then costs you 1 billion to declare war on an 8000 man alliance, but if you declare war on the 500 man alliance first it costs you 500 million and the 5 man corp costs 100 million. (I **** you not this is a real thing).

Also because it's still much, much cheaper and considerably less risky to join wars as a defender than it is to declare your own wars people will straight up pay the bill for the defender to join their wars. Unless you bring up the cost for multiple allies to be in 50 million increments that's going to keep happening.

You also, at some point, need to accept that running your mouth off about an entity that is 90 times your size is going to result in repercussions, (sandbox 'n' all) and you shouldn't be expecting CCP to patch in changes that help you get out of it for free.

CCP is trying to make being a Merc corp profitable again. These changes are completely backwards from the way it should be done. Basic economics states if you want prices to increase you either need lower the supply or increase the demand. Current war dec mechanics has infinite supply and infinite demand. The price is at zero. With inferno 1.1 the number of allies a corp can have will be limited, thus lowering demand, but the supply will remain infinite. Normally that situation would result in even lower prices. With the price already at zero, Mercs would have to start paying to be allies to get an even lower price. That is something I don't expect to happen outside of a few rare conditions.

To fix this, you need to limit the supply of merc corps available to be an ally. Instead of limiting the number of allies a corp can have, you need to limit the number of wars a Merc Corp can be an ally to and keep the number of allies a corp can bring into a war infinite. If a Merc corp only has 2 free slots with which to be an ally, they will be much more picky which wars they become a part of. Additional wars can be added at the same exponential rate that allies can be added to under inferno 1.1. The trade hub gankers would flock to war decs involving large alliances as that would offer the most targets. The smaller scale wars would be free to pick from the merc corps with slots available that offer services they need. The best Merc corps could have lots of contracts with the cost being passed on to the customers for the extra slots.

Under the Inferno 1.1 system, I fully expect one alliance to spring up with around 1,000 members that will be an ally to the vast majority of wars in Eve. The members of such an alliance will be mostly "Trade hub Gankers". That alliance will just want as many wars as possible to get as many targets as possible. When that happens, we will be in the same position we are in now. People will be scared to war dec anyone as it would mean having to take on the 1,000 member alliance and Mercs still won't be getting paid. I predict at that point, CCP will indeed place a limit on the number of wars an alliance can be an allied.

We will then have a limit on both sides of the ally system. That will further help the large null sec alliances avoid threats in high sec as there will then not be enough large "trade hub ganker " alliances to go around. The game would have come full circle and things will be almost exactly like the pre-Inferno war dec system.

So you don't have any proof, or even evidence, aside from the voices in your head.

Thanks for clarifying.

It's a moot point, yet you're still writing walls of text on external media about it? O-KAY.

The entire thing has been completely manufactured in your head, and I laugh heartily that the forum rules got changed in the middle of this thread, that effectively make half your posts against the rules when it changes.

On topic, I would still suggest the solution to all this is to just leave the 1.0 pricing system in place but make it so any ally can only join one war under contract in a 2 week period. The only "exploited" part of this would be that people who were previously paying money to wardec Goons and gank AFK haulers in Jita would be able to attach to the war and do so for free, which isn't game breaking. Everywhere else, someone is going to want to see some money to have the only war they can take part in be a "us vs. 30man corp" affair.

As for Jade, well, he might find he needs to do more to "rally a brave and united highsec to fight the Goons" than ride on the coattails of people who just want to sit in Jita and lock every undocking red, whilst claiming this is emergent gameplay.

Why should anyone trust your "fair and balanced perspective" when it is fairly well known that you have a huge bias?

Why would any aggressor ever declare war against a completely unknown entity, especially one that lock them into permanent war and than balloon to infinite size?

you suggest CCP hire a military advisor, but a military advisor would never produce the "fair and balanced" set of mechanics many are striving here for. They would certainly know better than to declare war where an unlimited risk potential existed. They would understand that aggressor corps are only ever going to declare wars they think they can win.

Lastly, we can't just argue under the assumption that every wardec is a big bad griefer out to get noobs. Sure, it happens occasionally. And sure, we want to minimize this. But as I've said earlier, changing the entire set of mechanics to fit with this mentality must require that griefing be a persistent underlying motivation behind the majority of wardecs.

Regardless of whether any of us are happy with the 1.1 changes, the fact remains that CCP was aiming for a compromise in the final rules, a plan that would fit the *majority* of war decs - it isn't the hard cap requested by some, and it isn't the free-for-all advocated by those on the other end of the spectrum. It's something in between.

block of text

While I am sure that shuffling Team BFF around a bit would accomplish a lot, I feel like we might be a few steps (months) ahead of you there. Also you should definitely tune in to my development processes devblog series to learn about the "management" of teams.

Just read my post that you replied to initially about the war decs. It's in there https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=120106

Please note that in my links above, all words linked in "would accomplish a lot" were achieved by teams formed in the reorganisation, not BFF.

I have read a lot of you posting that you are not a fan, and a lot of people repeatedly posting to disagree with you. Other posters uniquely agreeing or disagreeing may have gotten lost in the throng, but I for one (as a stakeholder of the team) am a firm believer in the direction the team is heading in. SP and stakeholders are in every sprint review that the team holds and ask critical questions in those reviews. Note that I am not dismissing anyones feedback out of hand, just stating my personal preference.

That's not even a mental exercise. That would take me a very large chunk of my afternoon at a time when I am pretty darn busy. The reason it would take so long is that you and others continually reposted the same arguments despite me asking you all not to - for this exact reason! In any case, I have explained that I have faith in the team to do the right thing, and they *have* read the feedback.

I do enjoy the commitment that players show to EVE, it's the lifeblood of the game. I don't enjoy people tearing strips off each other (or us) and taking an "I'm right, you are wrong (usually accompanied by an insult)" approach to debate, which is what invariably occurs on these forums.

Seems that it's about converting people to one's viewpoint, or about silencing or rubbishing them altogether, rather than stating one's case, maybe answering one rebuttal and leaving it be. The latter is far more informative and useful to read than the former.

If we also skip people who have swallowed the false premise that this is a change to "aid large alliances" then there are very few posters other than the CSM (who agree it needs to change) and me.

So because I used "a large nullsec alliance" as an example of why unlimited allies are bad, the only reason to fix unlimited allies is because CCP is secretly beholden to Goons?

*I* (Two step, not the whole CSM, not CCP) think that unlimited allies was a bad idea. I'm not sure that the cost stuff that will be happening in Inferno 1.1 is the best solution, but it is certainly better than what we have right now. I, as a member of a 262 person alliance, would not be willing to wardec *anyone* right now, because I would face hundreds or thousands of "allies". This is dumb, and something that needs to be done about it.

Again, as I said above, and said many, many times in the *other* dumb thread you spammed about this, it isn't my job to comment on your "solution". You are not a special snowflake that is entitled to have ever member of the CSM and every person at CCP look over your ideas.

Nice dodge, ignoring 3/4 of my post where I completely refute what you had been saying.

I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in.

Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended.

where is that popcorn I asked for????

I thought I'd get as many free as you had?

And interesting ganks have been provided, ty Jade and your forever war. I have had the time of my life blowing up goons, something that was very difficult for me before without literally emptying my corporate coffers.

Wardecs should be risky, but all the risk should be on the defender's side? WTF?

You want to be a flaccid-phallus and wardec corps in hisec, then you want the poor fools you're wardeccing to stump the costs for defending a war they didn't want?

If wars are supposed to be risky, the defender should at the very least be allowed free allies up to the point that the defending team outnumbers the attacking team. Making a war mutual should not preclude the defenders having allies. You started the war, you wear the cost. The defender goes mutual, you're stuck in the war that you started. That's your risk.

Tuxford already said somewhere here he capped the number (I don't remember the amount)

Jade hasn't posted in this thread for a few hours, I hope he's okay

phew! welcome back

It's sad to see the Dev posts reduced to facetious comments. As a player, I always expect a forum thread with Dev posts to contain something interesting or useful.

As far as I can gather, Inferno is all about 'war' and making Mercenaries a valid profession in Eve. Why? It's a sandbox. If the game needs them, they will be available.

From a personal point of view it would be better to make the mechanics of Mercenary/Employer easier to use. Mercenaries need prospective Employers to post objectives and durations of contract on a suitable War Board. Employers need to be able to pick and choose Mercenary groups by looking at their accomplishments on the same board. Then just let them get on with it.

The 'dogpiling' of Allies sounded wonderful fun - just what the game needed to spice up highsec and make anyone declaring war think twice before pressing the button. Not everything Jade says is rubbish!

really? I hadn't noticed.....

As I said before on a post in this thread that can only have been deleted by mistake, as it was entirely constructive, unline a truckload od posts from Punkturis or whatever the name is regarding popcorn...

Just make it a free for all. Allow all sides both sides of the war dec to get unlimited allies for no cost at all, or for whatever cost is agreed amongst themselves and take your cute little isk sink somewhere else. Put it on clones' cost cause a whole lot more will be podded then. I really hope the purpose of the Inferno expansion was to be a war themed one and not just yet another jab at Diablo3. Saddly however, after much promise CCP has been behaving like the freaking UN.

On a side note, I now have this post saved on a .txt just so I can keep on posting it every time one of you mods deletes it just because.

We've explained pretty well why it can't be a free for all with unlimited allies - that option has proved to not be workable for where we want to go, nor is it healthy for the game.

goliath please allow me to wardec jade on the forums tia

[citation needed]

Using internet (fallacy) logic, since no one argued my point, I must be correct.

Seriously though, I'd like to hear someone counter my points by saying how important/good the wardec system is for hi-sec because I simply don't see the benefits.

Another suggestion...

What about separating mercs from allies

Allies are your "friends". They join the war because they are your friends. Friends stand by friends. They join for free. In unlimited numbers and have no way of backing out of the war. Friends to the end!

Mercenaries are not friends. They join the war for money. You buy them for 2 weeks at a time. Prices as described elsewhere in this horrible thread.

EDIT: Allies are not dropped from the war if the war goes mutual. Friends to the end!

Although after reading this a few times it suddenly dawned on me that the right way to do this would be to have treaties. Manage your friends a mutual defence treaty, and hire your mercs through this expensive wardec ally mechanic.

My personal preference is that 1.0 stays as it is, with the changes:
- Corps can declare war as normal
- Corps can only bind to one ally
- Allies auto-renew if the war is renewed, but can leave the war on a 7 day cooldown if they wish
- Leaving an ally should (probably) have you pay the bill you would have paid to wardec, to discourage farming free wardecs with no consequences.

Leave the devs alone.

Here are my thoughts on the Wardec System

- I agree the idea of aggregated costs for Alliances needs to be re-thought before implemented. Especially if the source of change is from the merc community. It's too early to claim ints killing the market and good mercs will always have a job. Not to mention people will pay for others to focus on a war. There needs to be a system that lets smaller corps leverage the political capitol they have and if friends want to help for free, they should be able to and the defender should not have to pay an absurd cost for this if the opposing force is vastly superior. Fee should go to the mercs, not the NPC system

Maybe the fee only activates once there is a huge discrepancy in the size of the corps fighting. A 10 man corp against a 1000 man corp will not get fees until their allies number equally to the opposing force. THEN the fees aggregate depending on the additional numbers of pilots the new ally brings. The 1000 man corp will need to pay a serious fee to bring new people in against a force 1/100 their size, This seem fair.

- I Do like the idea of a military consultant. The combat PVP part of this game IS just as important as the Economy. An outside perspective on the matter with someone who is not involved in the day to day team and gets warfare may be a good idea on many levels.

- While I agree with Pron Fron that war is its own cost, I do remember the Privateer Alliance fiasco, and the aggregated war cost system seemed to help with that tremendously. That is a good thing, but I dont think we should just use the same line of thought on the alliance system.

MORE Thoughts on the process

- Let us directly invite people to the war via link, as opposed to submitting a general request that can get lost (considering how many wars are going on.)

- War channel - Similar to channels that open up for Interdiction and normal alliances.

- Timer for joining allies needs to be reduced. A lot can happen in 24hrs. Maybe 6 or 12hrs. For war dec its great, again, dont apply the same solution across the board.

- More direct merc market. Should be able to brows for them in some location like I do with anything in the market.

- War history - I see lots of 0v0, possibly because we still need to build history int the new system.


The whole combat / aggro / war side of eve definitely needs careful though and much better tools in game to manage it. But I have faith in CCP, stop pestering them, stop trying to give them advice on management scenarios you are not privy to. Just give them thoughtful logical ideas and discussions. Dont wate their time by trolling them and getting them off topic.

BoBo Out

My sentiments almost exactly since I'm enough of a realist to realize that the wardec system is here to stay (sadly).

(in reply to question of balancing payments of small entities fighting back as allies vs large entities)

On the pilot topic. It's been an oft suggested idea, and not entirely without merit. It is not however as easy as people seem to think, as you then get issues with, for example, how to handle inactive accounts, or alts.

I assume that the "hefty isk payments" you are referring to are the ally costs and not the cost with setting up an Alliance, which, as many have stated, would be the obvious way to handle things. RvB and E-UNI had to start somewhere!

It shouldn't be as easy as "click button, incur no cost, be at war" - that's not a healthy system.

Notwithstanding, the current system does not "only benefit the big entities" - it just specifically doesn't benefit a dogpile of small entities. The system of small vs small, medium vs medium, or large vs large is still totally functional.

Oh wow, now big alliances will be able to grind and **** the **** out of smaller alliances. I guess goons didnt like the taste of their own medicine.

And forcing us to buy mercs who might not even get the job done when honda accord proved regular people could **** **** up is plain ********.

Funny how, at each expansion, the ball is always in the camp of big alliances and the small ones are left to die and defenceless. defenceless. defenceless.

**** you ccp, you just made the game suck more than it already did.

perhaps the 'defenders' should consider how much those random 3-man tax dodging corps are actually contributing to the 'defense' and base their decisions to accept assistance on that

also note the irony of you saying that aggressors should be billed only for the number of members in a given alliance active in empire while acting like you have the weight of our entire alliance coming down on you make up your mind

I suppose the intent is for a defending group to be more selective about who they accept assistance from instead of simply giving out free rides to everyone?

no, humor me, how much have corps like "Sons of Michael," "The Blacklist LTd," "Spontaneous Castigation," "Tremendous Fail Inc.," "Dukes of Noobs," "C.I.A. NRDS," "We help Noobs" and the other one-man tax dodging corps in your "alliance" contributed, compared to, say, Moar Tears and Double Tap? I mean you could literally boil down your entire "defense" to 3 groups and you'd still have all of those random Ibises and Badgers to brag about killing.

oh btw a bunch of the corps in your "defense" are closed, lol

edit: seriously when you can have 6 "quality" allies for the less than the price of a t2 fit battleship every other week i don't see why you're complaining

unless you find an ally with 9000 members, in which case, well, it's free

No, that's the intent of the game as a whole. Why shouldn't you have an advantage if you can get 9000 dudes (we don't actually have 9000 dudes, we have maybe 5000 and that's being optimistic) into one alliance under a common command structure and solid in-game and out-of-game communication?