EVE Information Portal

I'd be more in support of a cost/number of allies structure based on head count. Big alliances, small alliances, big corps, and small corps should not all be handled the same way.

What ship are you planning to use this on where you are running out of capacitor because of this new hardener, or where you need capacitor boosters in order to run normal active hardeners? Care to share your fit?

Just about anything that's under neut pressure. People use capacitor boosters to run modules under neut pressure all the time, since a single injection will let you run all your mods for a cycle before you get neuted back down again. A shorter cycle time would leave you vulnerable until you could inject more capacitor -- definitely not a good thing.

As for a ship that'd be troubled by the additional capacitor consumption? How about an Abaddon? They're already quite reliant on their cap boosters to run their lasers. Any additional pressure is just going to make them run through their charges that much faster. It's a factor, whether you admit it or not.

TBH, goonswarm doesn't care about empire for the most part. It's a playground to visit, buy stuff in, and cause chaos in general. Anyway, :words: because people are confused about this patch.

Here is a break down of our wars. We have approximately 8,901 members in Goonswarm Federation right now, though I'd be surprised if more than 50 were down in empire taking part in these wars. We do have a lot of dumb pilots who ignore war decs though and try to buy something in Jita, dying on the undock!



So, to replicate this circumstance in this new system, Honda and Star Fraction would have to spend approximately 1.4 Quintillion and 5.5 Quintillion respectively (short system). Versus the Inferno War dec system, which cost 0. Now, if you have significant resources to protect, 10 allies is 20 bil, which is somewhat reasonable. But you better choose your mercs wisely! I also assure you that we will have similar losses in the new system as well, we are bad at eve.

The current system is obviously broken, this is not the merc system as was requested. It's not like goonswarm is showing up in groups of 400 in empire to kill one small group either. We're showing up in packs of two's and four's to gank haulers and industrials. And we are losing tons of single pilots on jita undock, because we have dumb pilots.

In the end, you have to hire competent mercenaries that can protect your assets with small groups with a fleet doctrine and you'll be fine. Hiring the entire universe to defend you is crazy talk. Also, why would people hire mercenaries if they can get some people to randomly show up for free? Give people a reason to hire the best mercenaries rather than just gankers. Hiring a group like the Privateers is great if you want them to sit on Jita undock and pop random goons. But to protect you in the belts and hauling, that takes a real mercenary crew.

Also, I made this quick spreadsheet to demonstrate the lunacy of attempting 50 allies. This should go in the wiki but ... :effort:


PS, if CCP were working for us, Super Capitals and Titans would be removed from the game. Nice troll though!

So these are changes that needed to be made, and the game will be better for it. Up until now the new wardeck mechanics were a little silly. With everyone being able to dogpile into a war there was very little incentive to shop around and actually hire mercenaries. And being able to declare a war mutual and lock someone into a war against multiple alliances probably wasn't the best game mechanic.

But this whole fiasco comes down to a problem of perception. From the outside it looks like these desperately needed changes were not brought into the game because they were desperately needed changes, but rather because the goons whined about it.

In a very short amount of time people saw the goons wardeck some people in highsec. The people highsec asked for help. They got help (a lot of help). And then a nerf was announced to prevent them from getting the same kind of help again. No matter what CCP's intentions were with their patch, that's what people saw.

The same thing happened with the tracking titan nerf. tracking titans needed to be fixed. But they only got fixed because the goons were shouting about it.

If you want to prove once and for all that this game is being changed for the better, and not just for the betterment of one large alliance then you should work on one desperately needed change that the goons wouldn't be in favor of.

I would suggest making a Technetium Fix just as high a priority as the wardeck fix. Don't schedule it for "maybe summer". Don't put it on the back burner while you work on sleeve tattoos. Just like the wardeck fix, and tracking titans, let's see some results. Go into full on "OH ****" mode because it is an issue that is probably just as important (if not more so) an issue as fixing the amount of allies that can join a wardeck.

No no, I get it, stuff takes cap. I was just asking to find out whether you'd actually played with this in practice on a specific fit and tested it under such conditions, or were just talking in principle.

This must be one of the most boneheaded responses I have ever read.

So basically you are arguing that wars BY DESIGN (not by players striving to get an advantage) should be unfair, favouring the agressor.

Fine. Personelly I think The Caldari and and Amarr militia militia should be capped at 200 members while the obvioulsy sucessful Gallente and Minmatar militia should not be touched. That would make the current FW wars about the same level of unfair BY DESIGN. After all, this is what you are advocating.

Unfairness by DESIGN.

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.

Soundwave goes out of his way to acertain that the ONLY thing that he wanted to make sure of is that mercs was a viable proffesion, even if it means gutting the rest of the mechanic. And that with a feature that was the FLAGSHIP of the Inferno expansion. If that is not pampering to your playstyle, I dont know what is.

You might not agree with the implemenation, and this is confirmed by Soundwave as well:



So basically, he says that the ENTIRE CSM wanted an even more merc-tailored solution than the one we have got.

Honestly, I think constantly catering to public misconception and wasting extra time and resources trying to combat conspiracy theorists is more detrimental to the overall process than just asking players to screw their heads on straight and not leap to conclusions all the time.

The bottom line is that Goons are *NOT* the driving force behind every major decision in EVE, despite their numbers and despite all the erroneous hype. Going out of our way to select a feature change that “hurts Goons” is giving them exactly what they’re after: attention. If you don’t understand Goon motivations for why they do what they do, I don’t know where to start. They would be *thrilled* to know the game was changed on their behalf, whether its in support of or in spite of their efforts.

Besides, The Mittani has been one of the most outspoken supporters of a Technetium nerf, so that’s not even a place you can go to hit them “below the belt”. Again, its important that you understand Goon motivation for the tactics they employ, often using silly mechanics to their extreme end in order to make a statement about the game design in the first place. However, there is a critical difference between using behavior as an *example* to the developers, and using one’s insider influence to actually *control* the developers as so many have fearfully suggested.