These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Inferno 1.1 Sisi features

First post First post First post
Author
Clockwork Pineapple
#221 - 2012-06-12 15:34:13 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.

Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.

This is not a complex argument surely ?


Not even remotely. I guess if anything about this was "complex" it'd be your bleating about needing your ally list to be a "fair" number when in practice it was...well, I'll quote your sig: "sign up and shoot Goons for free!".

But back to non-complex things: surely you can recognize that the ally system was at least in part to invigorate the idea of being a professional mercenary corporation, and that "come shoot Goons for free!" accomplishes the exact opposite of that.


"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

C C P Alliance
#222 - 2012-06-12 15:35:45 UTC
Callidus Dux wrote:
Ponder Yonder wrote:

Callidus, do you realise that SHIFT-Click will accomplish all you ask for?


Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue


Your request has been noted. Cease reposting the same demand please.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Goonswarm Federation
#223 - 2012-06-12 15:38:53 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:


Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.

Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.

This is not a complex argument surely ?



Actually, it is.

Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you.
All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.

You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases.
Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do.
Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free.
Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not.
A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.

Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient.
C C P Alliance
#224 - 2012-06-12 15:42:16 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:


Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.

Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.

This is not a complex argument surely ?



Actually, it is.

Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you.
All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.

You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases.
Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do.
Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free.
Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not.
A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.

Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient.


I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance?

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

The Star Fraction
#225 - 2012-06-12 15:42:46 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:
Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.

Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.

This is not a complex argument surely ?


Not even remotely. I guess if anything about this was "complex" it'd be your bleating about needing your ally list to be a "fair" number when in practice it was...well, I'll quote your sig: "sign up and shoot Goons for free!".

But back to non-complex things: surely you can recognize that the ally system was at least in part to invigorate the idea of being a professional mercenary corporation, and that "come shoot Goons for free!" accomplishes the exact opposite of that.




If you would care to look at my proposal for resolving this problem you will see that it does both - it will invigorate the ideal of the merc corp while still allowing a small power decced by a massive power to invite for a free dogpile and fight back.

Quote:
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.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

The Mockers AO
#226 - 2012-06-12 15:45:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Here's a different take on the ideas presented for Warfare:

The issue of an XYZ sized alliance able to cheaply war dec a smaller alliance is totally irrelevant. You could do this before and you can still do it now.

The perceived unfairness is that for a smaller alliance to war dec a bigger alliance it costs a lot more than for a big alliance to war dec a smaller one. I think part of the reason for Inferno is to get allliances to GROW BIGGER! Which is probably a way to work towards more of tthe groups reaching out into Null sec by forming bigger alliances to go and fight for sov in null sec (people in hisec tend to cluster in small groups with little affiliations). Not everyone will do it, but the former system promoted people breaking up into tiny groups because it was more expensive to war dec 10 little alliances than one mega alliance.


I think the solution is simple, for Inferno.

Make the cost be the difference in members. Both ways.


For a smaller alliance to war dec a bigger one, you pay per member the difference. For a bigger alliance to war dec a smaller one, you pay the difference, per member.

Now, two BIG alliances, pay smaller payments. Two Small alliances of the same size, pay smaller payments.


Why do this? Well. One of the reasons to pay PER member is to stop one or two small corps from harassing a huge corp without any retaliation. And the concern of a huge alliance war deccing a smaller alliance. When the odds are the same, the war fees go down, and then we can truly have inferno.

Mega alliances that want mega alliance warfare will pay cheaply, and INFERNO happens because you better be ready to defend your mega huge size. Meanwhile small alliances that want small wars can have them and they should GROW bigger to defend themselves/make it more expensive to war dec.

So, what will happen is huge alliances will have an incentive to war dec other huge alliances, and smaller alliances will have an incentive to grow. The bigger alliances still get an advantage in terms of ISK and numbers. But, it motivates people to grow or shrink based on their environment.

Where I am.

Goonswarm Federation
#227 - 2012-06-12 15:46:29 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance?


Said my two cents on the FW changes - should I go bring other interested parties to the thread to post on the subject as well? Lol

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

C C P Alliance
#228 - 2012-06-12 15:47:26 UTC
corestwo wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance?


Said my two cents on the FW changes - should I go bring other interested parties to the thread to post on the subject as well? Lol


As long as it's constructive and on-topic, we're glad to hear from as many people who would like to post.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

The Star Fraction
#229 - 2012-06-12 15:47:56 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Fuujin wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:


Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.

Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.

This is not a complex argument surely ?



Actually, it is.

Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you.
All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.

You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases.
Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do.
Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free.
Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not.
A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.

Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient.


I think you guys might now be dealing with semantics and hypotheticals and are just circling around each other. While I'm pleased that it's been civil, you might want to invest your mental energies in a fresh direction. Maybe have a look at the new FW changes and see how they balance?


Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."

This Warfare change on the other hand is a pretty horrible thing. Its massively unbalanced in favour of the largest and richest alliances in Eve and gives them an even bigger advantage than the 50m -> 500m wardec fee did with Inferno 1.0.

What I'd like is for developers and goonswarm posters to actually look at the proposed solution I've put on the table and critique it. Let me know why you think it doesn't work if its no good - otherwise please consider adopting it.





The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Goonswarm Federation
#230 - 2012-06-12 15:49:33 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:

Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."

Discouraging warfare by allowing plexes to be soloed in frigates isn't actually well done. The thread has multiple topics, please stop trying to monopolize it for your own grievances. What?

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo

RvB - BLUE Republic
#231 - 2012-06-12 15:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Fuujin wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:


Again ... when I make a wardec I am charged based on how many members are in the target alliance.

Hence I believe the defensive ally system should look at how many allies I've got in my defensive coalition relative to the attacking force before charging me.

This is not a complex argument surely ?



Actually, it is.

Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you.
All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.

You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases.
Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do.
Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free.
Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not.
A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.

Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient.


Why should the system be biased in favour of the attacker though - if only 1% of the attacker is actually taking part in the attack surely thats the attacker's fault and therefore problem - why should the system compensate for that by not allowing the defender equal treatment?

Furthermore if I am the defender and bring in, say, 9 more 500 man allies who is to say more than 1% of the players in those allies will actually be involved in the fighting.

Its an argument that if you want to make, you need to apply evenly to both attackers and defenders. The principal should always be that it is not prohibitively costly to match the attacker's numbers. It should cost basically the same to bring in equal numbers as it cost the attacker to wardec the outnumbered enemy.


The real possibilities for abuse all relate to highsec warfare corps taking on loads of cheap wars through the ally mechanic. If this is undesirable then we should use a mechanic of escalating fees per war involvement NOT escalating fees per ally requested.
#232 - 2012-06-12 15:58:18 UTC
can someone reply to the request of adding MORE flare to the missiles also ? it is way to dark.
The Star Fraction
#233 - 2012-06-12 16:00:55 UTC
Fuujin wrote:
Actually, it is. Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you. All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.


Okay but we've already discussed that regardless of what your 9000 members are doing - it would cost 500m isk based on those 9000 members for anyone else to buy into a war with you. This becomes quite relevant given that the ally system proposed makes it cheaper to go that route than defensive allying after the first seven allies. And again its a bit of a silly defense given that no other corp in eve (pretty much) manages high percentage activity either!

Fuujin wrote:
You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases.
Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do. Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free.
Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not.
A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.


See I'm not ignoring it - the solution I have proposed expressly addresses it. By counting the relative numbers of aggressors vs defensive target + allies before deciding when the concord fees kick in it solves this problem. A small dec vs a similarly sized target will incur concord fees to the defender so they will pick and choose their allies.

Now yep, a huge alliance (goonswarm / test) vs a small corp/alliance will bring in the free ally hordes but thats just the price of being at the top of the food chain - everyone wants a piece of you. A system that can both work for sensibly-sized merc decs and for dogpile counter griefing decs - is good for everyone.

Fuujin wrote:
Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient.


Welll again, you are. Because I'm proposing the first ally you add when your numbers are greater than the attackers should cost isk. (and ideally) should allow for escalation of the wardec by the attacker on 1-1 parity of allies.

I did make a specific proposal to resolve this whole problem and I'd like you to go and read it please.



The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Goonswarm Federation
#234 - 2012-06-12 16:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Fuujin
Jade Constantine wrote:

This Warfare change on the other hand is a pretty horrible thing. Its massively unbalanced in favour of the largest and richest alliances in Eve and gives them an even bigger advantage than the 50m -> 500m wardec fee did with Inferno 1.0.

What I'd like is for developers and goonswarm posters to actually look at the proposed solution I've put on the table and critique it. Let me know why you think it doesn't work if its no good - otherwise please consider adopting it.



Because it merely takes blanket numbers into account. Inaccurate numbers at that.

It does nothing to force you to consider merc quality, just numbers. You're still consigning the "pro" merc groups to be on par with the mob and unable (or just difficult) to break out and shine.

Also, you ignore the war dec multiplier cost. A single alliance cannot wardec 10 targets for 50m apiece. The cost scales, rather quickly, for each concurrent war.


Edit: Here's a scenario: you (74 man alliance) dec a 10 man. That 10 man brings in goonswarm. Per your system, no concord fees (first ally, was below the cap prior).

Also, having to actively pay your allies as opposed to blanket man count also helps reduce the 1% issue on the part of your allies; if they aren't participating or pulling their weight you can fire them.



Just to reiterate, I don't care about GSF wars; I'm enjoying shooting the multitudes you've put together--I'd probably have chewed off my own arm out of boredom otherwise. My main concern is that you are devaluing the committed mercs from the :effort: gankers, and chilling out small/mid size corp wardecs.
Greater D.U.S.K. Coalition
#235 - 2012-06-12 16:01:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
The cannot open the main inventory when you open a ship cargo hold by using double click is bug report # 138465.

The main inventory needs a cargo holds to read like the drone bay does with the name of the thing you are viewing listed.

Maybe list it in the cargo area if it is empty?

A cargo hold for each ship that it remembers is good but if you double click to open a ships cargo hold it does not change over to teh next ship you make active.What?

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

The Star Fraction
#236 - 2012-06-12 16:06:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
corestwo wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:

Thing is the Faction Warfare stuff is excellent. Its easily the best content from Inferno and I've got an awful lot of faith in the developers involved with it. I look at their proposed changes and they are all good common sense. There isn't much to say there except "well done."

Discouraging warfare by allowing plexes to be soloed in frigates isn't actually well done. The thread has multiple topics, please stop trying to monopolize it for your own grievances. What?


Funnily enough it is a fix that solves a problem - small scale pvp in complexes was previously nerfed by the fact that npc ew has a significant impact on the outcome of small fights. Tracking disrupting, painting, damping and ecm all help one side or the other disproportionately. The frankly pitiful damage output of the npcs on their own without the EW effects will not really impact the outcome of player on player fights.

Thats the positive direction of these changes. Now you can say they don't go far enough because one side can't speed tank and one side can and thats certainly a worthwhile discussion for the future - but aren't we supposed to be talking specifically about the test server stuff for 1.1 here?

(and yes, I've spent most of my last couple of months playing faction warfare)

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

RvB - BLUE Republic
#237 - 2012-06-12 16:07:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Fuujin wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:

This Warfare change on the other hand is a pretty horrible thing. Its massively unbalanced in favour of the largest and richest alliances in Eve and gives them an even bigger advantage than the 50m -> 500m wardec fee did with Inferno 1.0.

What I'd like is for developers and goonswarm posters to actually look at the proposed solution I've put on the table and critique it. Let me know why you think it doesn't work if its no good - otherwise please consider adopting it.



Because it merely takes blanket numbers into account. Inaccurate numbers at that.

It does nothing to force you to consider merc quality, just numbers. You're still consigning the "pro" merc groups to be on par with the mob and unable (or just difficult) to break out and shine.

Also, you ignore the war dec multiplier cost. A single alliance cannot wardec 10 targets for 50m apiece. The cost scales, rather quickly, for each concurrent war.


I agree counting numbers alone doesnt account for merc quality, number of people in high-sec, number of people involved in the war actively, number of mains rather than alts, variety in ships/equipment used, player skill etc.

Its quite obviously a flawed method of measuring "power".

Its also pretty obviously the most accurate single measure - most of the factors I've described above aren't measurable at all, the rest are not measurable in any easy, sensible way.

I think you are right regarding the multiplier cost - in my view the cost of a wardec should scale with the size of a target so that deccing 10 x 100man corps costs the same as deccing 1x1000 man corp. This combined with equivalent changes to defender allies would be a way better system.


As I mentioned before, the underlying principle should be to not discourage reasonably even numbers on both sides. The current proposals basically make getting even numbers against a large single attacker (like goonswarm) impossibly expensive and that has to be wrong.
Caldari State
#238 - 2012-06-12 16:11:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Il Feytid
Is the first entity a defender allowed to ally with him free?
C C P Alliance
#239 - 2012-06-12 16:12:26 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
We've been talking to some of the merc corps/alliances and having no meaningful choice in terms of picking a defender basically nullifies their business. What we wanted to do was put in an incentive to look harder at exactly who you ally with, meaning that successful merc corps would be able to market themselves better.

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

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



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?


I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.

Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.
RvB - BLUE Republic
#240 - 2012-06-12 16:12:33 UTC
Marlona Sky wrote:
Is the first entity a defender allows to ally with him free?


I think so
Forum Jump