Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 40 post(s) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2474
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:48:00 -
[31] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote:Limiting the number of allies is feedback we've gotten from the merc industry, I'm not sure Goons care. If they do, they haven't voiced it to us vOv. I'm sure you realize that it appears that CCP bends to the will of Goons. I'm pretty sure that CCP is part of the goons at this point.
Why in the world would the Goons fight against a chance to gank everyone that ever complained about them, in highsec, without CONCORD interference?? This argument makes absolutely zero sense whatsoever. The idea that Goons quaked with fear and ran crying to CCP to bail them out is pretty ludicrous.
To this day, neither Jade nor any of the other tinfoil-conspiracy crowd have been able to produce a good reason why Goons stood to lose so much without bending the wardec system to "save" them. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Nirnaeth Ornoediad
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
115
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:48:00 -
[32] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:[quote=E man Industries] Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.
+1 for this. War dec mechanics should encourage social interaction (or at least the possibilities for interaction). If you want a large group of people to be allies for a long time, form an Alliance.
"The Mittani isn't even gone for a day and CCP's management is already making bad decisions."
THE MITTANI for CEO of CCP 1-800-273-8255 |
Max Swagger
State War Academy Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:50:00 -
[33] - Quote
Oh well back to where we started from. I guess we got a war report outta the deal???? |
Cid Tazer
The Green Cross Red Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:51:00 -
[34] - Quote
Would be nice to give defender's an objective besides don't undock until the war dec runs out. Even with the ally system, defenders can just turtle up and suffer nothing besides loss of potential gains. (Yes, they will not be able to do anything that they cannot do in station but until they are out of the station it is only a potential gain. So if you normally mine but are under a war dec as the defender, you are not losing anything but potential gains.) |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
37
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:51:00 -
[35] - Quote
This is a step in the right direction. However, I still think the entire cost structure is borked (doubling fee based on how many wars you have running, "more money for more targets" stupidity, 50m base fee for corporations, etc.) |
Selissa Shadoe
91
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 16:52:00 -
[36] - Quote
Nirnaeth Ornoediad wrote:Vincent Athena wrote:[quote=E man Industries] Given the price structure, I suggest those who wish to be allies form an alliance so only one ally contract is needed to get all of you involved.
+1 for this. War dec mechanics should encourage social interaction (or at least the possibilities for interaction). If you want a large group of people to be allies for a long time, form an Alliance.
No, because alliance indicates other things - one corp has to be the executor corp, and then the whole alliance can be dec'd for the same cost as just one of the participant corps. So no, not a good solution. Don't even get started on alliance access to certain assets etc. A 'working relationship' to help out in a war is not worth the cost and hassle associated with forming an alliance. |
LtCol Laurentius
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
30
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:02:00 -
[37] - Quote
Congratz on bringing the wardec mechanic back to the pure griefing tool it has always been. Obviously, providing non-pvp corporations with options to defend themselves was deemed very un-EVE like, so better rise the "war is unfair" banner as long is the advantage lies purely with the griefers.
Also, congratz on not considering any other design criteria than to pamper for Alek and Noir. I am sure thats the ONLY thing that shoud matter when discussing wardecs.. |
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
754
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:05:00 -
[38] - Quote
Quote:There is a cost now associated with hiring lots of allies. You are still free to hire as many allies as you want, but there is an increasing cost in doing so. Refer to this:
GÇóAlly #1 GÇô Free! GÇóAlly #2 GÇô 10 million GÇóAlly #3 GÇô 20 million GÇóAlly #4 GÇô 40 million GÇóAlly #5 GÇô 80 million GÇóand so onGǪ
its not clear how it adds up.
will 5 allies cost 5x80mil or 0+10+20+4+ƒ+80mil? a eve-style bounty system https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=359105 You fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail you fail to jump because you are cloaked |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2129
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:13:00 -
[39] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote: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...
Sigh tbh. It was pretty clear this change was set in stone the moment it was posted.
I obviously think its pretty terrible and it is caving into the needs of the largest alliances in Eve at the cost of the smaller entities while doing absolutely nothing to help out the merc profession in Eve online.
It was pointed out on the test server feedback thread that NO CSM MEMBER (who was at the meeting) was in favour of this change so its something CCP have foisted against the advise of the player council and (it must be said) against the huge majority of posters giving feedback so far.
This is nothing to celebrate over. Its simply a bad decision made on bad reasoning to the detriment of aspects of the game.
Still eventually we got the ship hanger back last year.
Maybe this will go the same way in six months.
Until then its back to pre-inferno wardec system with large alliances costing 10x as much to dec.
Business as usual.
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! |
Jypsie
Wandering Star Enterprises
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:17:00 -
[40] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote:From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it Quote:It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate. That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair. Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread.
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.
|
|
Mekhana
Spiritus Draconis Sicarius Draconis
466
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:19:00 -
[41] - Quote
CCP y u no buff Gallente hulls? |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2132
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:23:00 -
[42] - Quote
Jypsie wrote:Selissa Shadoe wrote:From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it Quote:It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate. That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair. Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread. 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.
Sadly Soundwave is 100% committed to this large-alliance boosting change and its pretty much set in stone. No feedback on revising the plan has been considered as far as I can tell - and the CSM itself (those who were at the meeting) was ignored completely when they gave the thumbs down to this particular "fix".
I strongly suspect we'll all be stuck with it for six months at least.
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 Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:25:00 -
[43] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Kelduum Revaan wrote: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... Sigh tbh. It was pretty clear this change was set in stone the moment it was posted. I obviously think its pretty terrible and it is caving into the needs of the largest alliances in Eve at the cost of the smaller entities while doing absolutely nothing to help out the merc profession in Eve online. It was pointed out on the test server feedback thread that NO CSM MEMBER (who was at the meeting) was in favour of this change so its something CCP have foisted against the advise of the player council and (it must be said) against the huge majority of posters giving feedback so far. This is nothing to celebrate over. Its simply a bad decision made on bad reasoning to the detriment of aspects of the game. Still eventually we got the ship hanger back last year. Maybe this will go the same way in six months. Until then its back to pre-inferno wardec system with large alliances costing 10x as much to dec. Business as usual.
I completely agree with your take on this situation:
1. The largest alliances haven't asked for this change. I'm not sure where you're getting this information but it has yet to reach me. From reading the thread on Sisi they seem to be making it abundantly clear that they don't care about this feature.
2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.
|
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:28:00 -
[44] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:Jypsie wrote:Selissa Shadoe wrote:From this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110428&p=12 , and I agree with it Quote:It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate. That to me makes sense, then unless you're overwhelming your attacker, you can gather whoever you need to stand up to them. If you want silly numbers on your side, then you have to pay for it. Sounds much more fair. Thank you, Lallante, who made that suggestion in the other thread. 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. Sadly Soundwave is 100% committed to this large-alliance boosting change and its pretty much set in stone. No feedback on revising the plan has been considered as far as I can tell - and the CSM itself (those who were at the meeting) was ignored completely when they gave the thumbs down to this particular "fix". I strongly suspect we'll all be stuck with it for six months at least.
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. |
|
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:29:00 -
[45] - Quote
Why oh why are we still tlaking about the wardec system? and seriously do you honestly think the goons or ANY large allianc ein nullsec gives a f*ck about wardecs? Nullsec, only an idiot would be in highsec on his main hauling etc, thats why we all have alt corps and such |
Darius III
Interstellar eXodus BricK sQuAD.
1424
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:29:00 -
[46] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:First!
This is the level some of the devs are on.....Pro
I am very glad to see some new cost structure for allies, as the changes gave getting allies in a war a "clown car" aspect that really killed the whole idea of mercenary marketplace off. I would like to put something conspiracy theory wise about Goons, CCP etc. but the merc/war dec changes are a good plan and endorsed by many of us who actually fight in wars/have an interest in seeing the merc marketplace tree bear some meaningful fruit.
As for the skillbook, I dont care one way or another as I think most of the new modules are superficial garbage and shouldn't have been included in this, or any other patch.
Glad that CCP is listening to community feedback though +1 for that Hmmm |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1396
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:31:00 -
[47] - Quote
Darius III wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:First! This is the level some of the devs are on.....Pro I am very glad to see some new cost structure for allies, as the changes gave getting allies in a war a "clown car" aspect that really killed the whole idea of mercenary marketplace off. I would like to put something conspiracy theory wise about Goons, CCP etc. but the merc/war dec changes are a good plan and endorsed by many of us who actually fight in wars/have an interest in seeing the merc marketplace tree bear some meaningful fruit. As for the skillbook, I dont care one way or another as I think most of the new modules are superficial garbage and shouldn't have been included in this, or any other patch. Glad that CCP is listening to community feedback though +1 for that
:Hfive: |
|
Kadl
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:32:00 -
[48] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:AMirrorDarkly wrote:Wow, this shifts War decs firmly back to the advantage of the aggressor, I expected some sort of rebalance in light of what's happend with Goons getting a taste of their own medicine but this seems like it's gone the other way again.... Shame The biggest issue was that being able to invite everyone and the kitchen sink to your war meant that hiring a merc became completely irrelevant. Hopefully limiting the options slightly will provide people with more incentives to hire mercs (but still let you throw a ton of money at allies).
I do not believe this will have your intended effect. In short the mercenaries you want to help provide a completely different service from the free allies. On the other hand this change clearly discourages small corporations from trying to gather allies to defend against significantly larger groups. More discouragement means fewer fights. I support the idea of waiving any war ally fees until the parties reach parity, since unlimited allies is correctly identified as a problem. I guess we will just have to see what actually happens.
As for the other changes, I am glad you are doing something to allow allies to leave wars. The rest looks like clean up. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2132
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:33:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: 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.
So would you care to comment on the following quote from the one CSM member present at your meeting on wardecs with the most actual experience of mercenary work and wardecs Soundwave?
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: 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.
I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against.
I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
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! |
Elende Brainfire
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
Selissa Shadoe wrote: No, because alliance indicates other things - one corp has to be the executor corp, and then the whole alliance can be dec'd for the same cost as just one of the participant corps. So no, not a good solution. Don't even get started on alliance access to certain assets etc. A 'working relationship' to help out in a war is not worth the cost and hassle associated with forming an alliance.
So your argument boils down to wanting a special advantage for not being in an alliance, when you fight against people who are in an alliance? |
|
Elende Brainfire
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:37:00 -
[51] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against.
I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
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. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2133
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:39:00 -
[52] - Quote
Elende Brainfire wrote:Jade Constantine wrote: I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against.
I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
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.
How exactly am I doing that by quoting a CSM member directly. I even underlined it for you.
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! |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
54
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:39:00 -
[53] - Quote
AS A NOTE TO CCP/Soundwave/devs:
I still think that most of nullsec would enjoy the ability to be able to set wardec-types...
Nullsec only = Free but no killrights or flagging in lowsec or highsec ... but you get the nice stat tracking and kill tracking etc, i'd say make this free or very low cost since theres no concord bribery
Nullsec + Lowsec = Lowsec kill rights so no gate agressions vs enemys, mid cost to low cost as its also not that big its more for stat tracking the war, and some bribery to gateguns :)
Standard wardec / high / null / low killrights, normal costs like it is now..... |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2474
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:42:00 -
[54] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote: :Hfive:
This is perhaps the only situation more alarming than GOONSPIRACY 2012 Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1398
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:42:00 -
[55] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Soundwave wrote: 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. So would you care to comment on the following quote from the one CSM member present at your meeting on wardecs with the most actual experience of mercenary work and wardecs Soundwave? Alekseyev Karrde wrote: 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.
I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against. I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.
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. |
|
Elende Brainfire
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:48:00 -
[56] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: How exactly am I doing that by quoting a CSM member directly. I even underlined it for you.
The passage you quoted says that a change was put into place that a lot of people didn't like (you underlined this part), and that CCP and the CSM are working together on coming up with a better solution (you didn't underline this part).
Your out-of-thin-air assertion is that CCP is ignoring the CSM, which is contradicted by the very post you quoted. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
97
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:48:00 -
[57] - Quote
You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow. |
|
CCP Soundwave
C C P C C P Alliance
1398
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
Manssell wrote:You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.
It's funny you should mention this................. |
|
Mechael
Ouroboros Executor Collective
117
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:51:00 -
[59] - Quote
The entire ally system is totally bogus and has been right from the start. We already had allies, via alliances.
What we needed was a mercenary marketplace, not a redundant ally system that doesn't even really work. I'd rather die in battle against a man who will lie to me, than for a man who will lie to me. |
Amdor Renevat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.06.13 17:53:00 -
[60] - Quote
Because the CSM is a fair and true sampling of the entire Eve population, thus their opinion should somehow matter more. Yeah, Right.
Anyway, the cost is way too high to bring in allies. You should get about 10 allies for free before you start getting charged. That way you can have your actual friends help you out when playing a massive multiplayer online game. Crazy I know to think some Corps/alliances might actually have some friends that want to support them.
There are better ways to make hiring mercs appealing then forcing people to pay to have their friends help them out.
As for the two weeks, why can't the duration be up to the players? Why does it have to be two weeks? Let the players decide if they want to help for a week, two, month, or duration of war.
Why should the balance of power go to the corner of the bigger group instead of on behalf of the defender? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |