These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: With Friends Like These... - New Ally System

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#101 - 2012-05-19 10:44:56 UTC
Rome wasn't build in a day, but I think it's a step in the right direction.
I really, really would not abandon this but follow up for at least a year as people will find all the loopholes and abuse possiblities of course.
Thomas Kreshant
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#102 - 2012-05-19 11:58:07 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:

Or even better:

  • Create alt corp.
  • Find one of those highsec alliances who think they are tough and dangerous because they have a POS in a lowsec deadend.
  • Annoy the hell out of said alliance until they wardec the alt corp.
  • Join war with main corp.
  • Make war mutual.
  • Enjoy free unending war against the alliance until they disband.

If this kind of trick becomes common, hiring mercs will be much harder. But it won't matter, because few people will bother declaring wars.



That doesn't work, mutual wars can't have allies any existing contracts are also cancelled.
Aemonchichi
Limited Access
#103 - 2012-05-19 12:14:18 UTC
ccp doesnt want a commitment of the attacker^^
they seem to favor grps of players that decide to **** in the sandbox

i dare not to make speculations why they do that but its sad enough they do it

as long as the crimewatch is not in full effect the new wardec system is worth shiat, neuts can continue to do their thing

it would have been smart to implement the crimewatch first before bringing the new wardec system because the new system need the crimewatch to be based upon - other way around is just crap
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#104 - 2012-05-19 12:15:15 UTC
Thomas Kreshant wrote:
mutual wars can't have allies any existing contracts are also cancelled.

You are wrong. That's in the "future" side of the devblog, things CCP is thinking about doing post-expansion. My argument is that, without that safeguard, the war system will never work.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#105 - 2012-05-19 12:49:55 UTC
MY overall impression of these war changes is that CCP are revamping a system that not a single one of their employees actually uses at present.

That's understandable, because right now it sucks.

I think they have a hugely naive, idealistic vision of highsec warfare.

In CCP's world, wars exist either for highsec entities to increase their dominance over their rivals in a particular area, or for nullsec alliances to disrupt their nullsec rivals' highsec operations to gain a logistical advantage over them in sov warfare. Those are both noble enough intentions, but it's just not the way it happens.

In the real world, highsec wars exist as a way for players who want to play a bit more casually to get PVP without having to spend as much time running logistics and carebearing with alts just to support themselves as they do actually playing the part of the game they enjoy.

The biggest problem with highsec wars, which is also the one that these changes do absolutely nothing to address, is that there is no incentive for the defender in a war to fight. This is compounded by the fact that there are a myriad of ways for a defender to get out of the war with zero penalty. Until they do something about this, wars will always suck for the full time wardeccer. This is why I think it's a feature that CCP don't actively engage in at present, because this major issue is totally ignored in this expansion.

Now, it may be that is CCP's intention. If that's the case, I wish they'd come out and say it. Do they intend for wars to be a means rather than an end? Right now wars are a viable (just about) profession in themselves. A living can be made off shooting bears' POSes, blowing their ships up and taking the loot, and just holding them to ransom. If this is a profession that CCP don't want to exist in the game, please, please tell us this so as we can stop wasting our time, rather than just nerfing it to oblivion and pretending you're giving us a wardec boost.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#106 - 2012-05-19 12:55:50 UTC
Pere Madeleine wrote:
MY overall impression of these war changes is that CCP are revamping a system that not a single one of their employees actually uses at present.

That's understandable, because right now it sucks.

I think they have a hugely naive, idealistic vision of highsec warfare.

In CCP's world, wars exist either for highsec entities to increase their dominance over their rivals in a particular area, or for nullsec alliances to disrupt their nullsec rivals' highsec operations to gain a logistical advantage over them in sov warfare. Those are both noble enough intentions, but it's just not the way it happens.

In the real world, highsec wars exist as a way for players who want to play a bit more casually to get PVP without having to spend as much time running logistics and carebearing with alts just to support themselves as they do actually playing the part of the game they enjoy.

The biggest problem with highsec wars, which is also the one that these changes do absolutely nothing to address, is that there is no incentive for the defender in a war to fight. This is compounded by the fact that there are a myriad of ways for a defender to get out of the war with zero penalty. Until they do something about this, wars will always suck for the full time wardeccer. This is why I think it's a feature that CCP don't actively engage in at present, because this major issue is totally ignored in this expansion.

Now, it may be that is CCP's intention. If that's the case, I wish they'd come out and say it. Do they intend for wars to be a means rather than an end? Right now wars are a viable (just about) profession in themselves. A living can be made off shooting bears' POSes, blowing their ships up and taking the loot, and just holding them to ransom. If this is a profession that CCP don't want to exist in the game, please, please tell us this so as we can stop wasting our time, rather than just nerfing it to oblivion and pretending you're giving us a wardec boost.


I heard that you don't need to wardec in lowsec, so you can go PvP there if you got the right stuff.
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#107 - 2012-05-19 13:24:08 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:


I heard that you don't need to wardec in lowsec, so you can go PvP there if you got the right stuff.


Really? What is this lowsec of which you speak? I've never heard of such a thing. It must be a magical place with dragons, and unicorns, and all kinds of stuff, where the good fights flow from neverending fountains of awesomesauce!
Tex Bloodhunter
SciFiCentral Explorations Inc.
#108 - 2012-05-19 14:56:49 UTC
1. IMO enhancing the ally contract system is absolutely vital. When you agree on a contract both sides need to be clear about what they get and what they have to do. With the current implementation there is a fixed amount of ISK for a war that might last forever. This is really bad for mercenaries as they have an interest in maximizing their ISK/hour reward since PVP is their main profession.
Introducing fixed contract lengths is just one option here. There also might be recurring payments. There also should be an option for the ally to back out of a contract (after fixed length contract or after the current cycle of recurring extension).

2. The current system also just allows mercenaries become active by aiding a defending party. But this is just one side of the medal. As surely mercenaries will do anything as long as they get to fight and are paid in ISK, they gladly would like to offer their services in an aggressive role. So if a corp/alliance needs a POS removed or just wants to be the only one operating on a trade route they should be able to put out a war request. They would offer a fixed/recurring amount of money to mercenaries in exchange for war being waged on some poor corp/alliance.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#109 - 2012-05-19 16:35:51 UTC
Tex Bloodhunter wrote:
1. IMO enhancing the ally contract system is absolutely vital. When you agree on a contract both sides need to be clear about what they get and what they have to do. With the current implementation there is a fixed amount of ISK for a war that might last forever. This is really bad for mercenaries as they have an interest in maximizing their ISK/hour reward since PVP is their main profession.
Introducing fixed contract lengths is just one option here. There also might be recurring payments. There also should be an option for the ally to back out of a contract (after fixed length contract or after the current cycle of recurring extension).

2. The current system also just allows mercenaries become active by aiding a defending party. But this is just one side of the medal. As surely mercenaries will do anything as long as they get to fight and are paid in ISK, they gladly would like to offer their services in an aggressive role. So if a corp/alliance needs a POS removed or just wants to be the only one operating on a trade route they should be able to put out a war request. They would offer a fixed/recurring amount of money to mercenaries in exchange for war being waged on some poor corp/alliance.


Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world.

Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one. So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be.

Finally, there is nothing stopping people for hiring mercenaries to help them in a war they started. They just have to have the mercenaries declare war on whomever they are fighting (presumably footing the bill). This is business as usual for mercenary corps.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#110 - 2012-05-19 16:45:11 UTC
Pere Madeleine wrote:
MY overall impression of these war changes is that CCP are revamping a system that not a single one of their employees actually uses at present.

That's understandable, because right now it sucks.

I think they have a hugely naive, idealistic vision of highsec warfare.

In CCP's world, wars exist either for highsec entities to increase their dominance over their rivals in a particular area, or for nullsec alliances to disrupt their nullsec rivals' highsec operations to gain a logistical advantage over them in sov warfare. Those are both noble enough intentions, but it's just not the way it happens.

In the real world, highsec wars exist as a way for players who want to play a bit more casually to get PVP without having to spend as much time running logistics and carebearing with alts just to support themselves as they do actually playing the part of the game they enjoy.

The biggest problem with highsec wars, which is also the one that these changes do absolutely nothing to address, is that there is no incentive for the defender in a war to fight. This is compounded by the fact that there are a myriad of ways for a defender to get out of the war with zero penalty. Until they do something about this, wars will always suck for the full time wardeccer. This is why I think it's a feature that CCP don't actively engage in at present, because this major issue is totally ignored in this expansion.

Now, it may be that is CCP's intention. If that's the case, I wish they'd come out and say it. Do they intend for wars to be a means rather than an end? Right now wars are a viable (just about) profession in themselves. A living can be made off shooting bears' POSes, blowing their ships up and taking the loot, and just holding them to ransom. If this is a profession that CCP don't want to exist in the game, please, please tell us this so as we can stop wasting our time, rather than just nerfing it to oblivion and pretending you're giving us a wardec boost.


Regarding incentives to fight wars (whether as aggressor or defender), it is our belief that the main incentives should not be created by the war mechanic itself. The war mechanic is just a tool by which players can legally engage other players, but why they want to do so isn't handled by the war mechanic system itself (and shouldn't be). Now, it can be argued that Inferno isn't affecting the incentives much (and I won't deny that's the case), but the war theme lasts throughout the year, so we'll see what happens on that front later this year.

Whether fighting wars can be a career path, we belief it can (and want to support it to a point), but again, the war mechanic is just a tool, and it all depends on how you use the tool. Ideally, the biggest reward monetary and status wise should come from fighting those strong enough and interested enough to put up a fight, but EVE being what EVE is, this can of course never be guaranteed.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#111 - 2012-05-19 16:52:10 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world.

You completely obviated case d) the aggressor kicks the merc's ass and just keeps attacking the original defender. Way more common than you'd think.

Quote:
Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one.

Neither were mercs forced by CCP to stay in the war until the end. Right now, a merc corp has to declare war on the aggressor on their own, so they keep control over the length of the war. That's the control they lose with the ally system. Yes, they can keep using the current method. But if the best candidates for the ally system have to avoid using it, why did you implement it? :CCP:?

Quote:
So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be.

But the issue is not with the merc's reputation, but with the client's. Currently, if the client stops paying the bill, the mercs can just pull out of the war. With the ally system, they are stuck with it until the end.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#112 - 2012-05-19 16:55:32 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
My first thoughts:

The marketplace looks good so far, but I'm a bit confused that it's a buyer's market only. Why can a mercenary corporation not put up an order for its own services, giving a seller's market as well? This could definitely serve to drive up the prices of war assistance and consequently bring a better driving force to the mercenary economy. It would also allow both mercenaries and defenders both an active and a passive option to finding contracts and allies.

Simply turn it around and allow a corp to advertise itself as "For hire" with its war history, desired fee, and capabilities on display; potential customers could offer them bids and explain the situation of the war in their application, and the mercenaries could then choose which contracts to accept.

My only other question is:

Quote:
When you offer to ally someone, you must wait for them to respond, or 24 hours (which ever comes first) before making another formal offer.

Does this mean before you can make another offer to ANYONE, or only if you can make another offer to that same corp?


Regarding the marketplace - yes, we totally want to give mercenary corporations the ability to advertise themselves. Maybe we can add that for the August release (no promises though, all I'm saying is we'll look into whether it can be done). The mercenary marketplace term is a bit of a misnomer as it stands right now (and that term isn't used anywhere in the game itself). Hopefully we can take it all the way in the next few months.

As for the second question, this only applies for each ally offer sent, not overall. So you can have several ally offers on the table at the same time, but only one per corp.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#113 - 2012-05-19 17:03:30 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding incentives to fight wars (whether as aggressor or defender), it is our belief that the main incentives should not be created by the war mechanic itself. The war mechanic is just a tool by which players can legally engage other players, but why they want to do so isn't handled by the war mechanic system itself (and shouldn't be). Now, it can be argued that Inferno isn't affecting the incentives much (and I won't deny that's the case), but the war theme lasts throughout the year, so we'll see what happens on that front later this year.

No, you are not touching incentives much. But you are adding extra disincentives for the aggressors in the form of extra costs and extra risks. So it will most likely lead to less aggressors, and so fewer wars and less need for mercenaries.

Quote:
Ideally, the biggest reward monetary and status wise should come from fighting those strong enough and interested enough to put up a fight

Monetary reward? That is impossible in EVE's PVP model.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#114 - 2012-05-19 17:03:35 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world.

You completely obviated case d) the aggressor kicks the merc's ass and just keeps attacking the original defender. Way more common than you'd think.

Quote:
Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one.

Neither were mercs forced by CCP to stay in the war until the end. Right now, a merc corp has to declare war on the aggressor on their own, so they keep control over the length of the war. That's the control they lose with the ally system. Yes, they can keep using the current method. But if the best candidates for the ally system have to avoid using it, why did you implement it? :CCP:?

Quote:
So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be.

But the issue is not with the merc's reputation, but with the client's. Currently, if the client stops paying the bill, the mercs can just pull out of the war. With the ally system, they are stuck with it until the end.


The crux of the matter here is how much it matters for the mercenary corp to be in a war that they're not actively engaged in for whatever reason. Yes, having an active war that you're not pursuing is not ideal, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker either. What matters for the merc corps (and their clients) is where it's operating (and against whom). Again, this is one we're actively monitoring and looking into changing post-Inferno.
bornaa
GRiD.
#115 - 2012-05-19 19:09:43 UTC  |  Edited by: bornaa
@ CCP SoniClover

are you going to look at adding of possibility of paying ally by % of ISK damage they inflicted to attacker?


Many people have talked about that and i think it would be great.
[Yes, I'm an Amateur](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRa-69uBmIw&feature=relmfu)
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#116 - 2012-05-19 19:18:24 UTC
bornaa wrote:
@ CCP SoniClover

are you going to look at adding of possibility of paying ally by % of ISK damage they inflicted to attacker?


Many people have talked about that and i think it would be great.


We´ve discussed similar things in the past, such as the defender putting an X amount of ISK into escrow, which then is used to pay an ally for some events (reimbursement, kill reward, etc.). We scoped it out of the initial iteration that is coming out in Inferno, but maybe it can be added later (and then maybe as part of a bigger system for allowing people to make formal contracts of all kinds). We´ll see, personally I would love something like this, but one step at a time Smile
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#117 - 2012-05-19 20:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
CCP SoniClover wrote:

Regarding the ally contract, if you hire a mercenary as an ally, then (assuming you hired someone good), one of three things will happen: a) the aggressor will fight back, in which case the mercs just continue to blow stuff up; b) the merc will kick the aggressor's ass and the aggressor will not renew the war, in which case the mercs are free to go and do other things; or c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else. Yes, the last part is not ideal for the merc. corp, and that is one of the reasons why we are looking into addressing this with contract lengths, but neither is it the end of the world.

Mercenaries have existed in EVE for years without any formal, structured payment scheme set up by CCP and there is no reason to assume this won't continue to be the case. After all, the ally system is not, and has never been intended to be, a complete refactoring of the mercenary system - mercenaries offer many kinds of services, of which helping defending corps in a war is just one. So the ally system absolutely brushes against the mercenary system, but it is thought of as an addition, not a replacement. As before, players are able to negotiate whatever supplementary payments with mercenaries as they want, there is nothing in the new system preventing them from that. The fact that only the up-front payment is formalized just means that as before the most important currency for a mercenary corp is their reputation, and this is as it should be.

Finally, there is nothing stopping people for hiring mercenaries to help them in a war they started. They just have to have the mercenaries declare war on whomever they are fighting (presumably footing the bill). This is business as usual for mercenary corps.

......

Regarding the marketplace - yes, we totally want to give mercenary corporations the ability to advertise themselves. Maybe we can add that for the August release (no promises though, all I'm saying is we'll look into whether it can be done). The mercenary marketplace term is a bit of a misnomer as it stands right now (and that term isn't used anywhere in the game itself). Hopefully we can take it all the way in the next few months.

As for the second question, this only applies for each ally offer sent, not overall. So you can have several ally offers on the table at the same time, but only one per corp.

......

The crux of the matter here is how much it matters for the mercenary corp to be in a war that they're not actively engaged in for whatever reason. Yes, having an active war that you're not pursuing is not ideal, but it shouldn't be a deal breaker either. What matters for the merc corps (and their clients) is where it's operating (and against whom). Again, this is one we're actively monitoring and looking into changing post-Inferno.


First thing's first to the players, unfortunately the neutral RR changes can't make it into Inferno due to the complexity of Crimewatch. It would have been nice to have the RR and war mechanic changes hit at the same time but nothing to be done about it. Second, I agree the unlimited and cost-free nature of the ally system does shut out the middle-ground of empire players by making it unthinkably risky for anyone but a hardcore PVP corp to declare war. CSM did not have a look at this blog before it went out.

And now for CCP SoniClover. As I've tried to communicate several times, the ally system as proposed (and advertised) does more than just brush against the mercenary system.

1. Calling it the "Mercenary Marketplace" and so prominently featuring your war tracking feature as a way to identify good mercs does not add to what mercs are in EVE's informal system, it undermines it by pulling away the definition and confusing potential customers. New players and those unfamiliar with mercs are already unsure of who to trust or how it works. The mercenary community has worked hard to develop safe places for players to go for units (Merc Contracts Channel) and promote the mercenary option to players (see my article in EON Magazine for just one example). Now you're pushing this new mechanic of defender ally performance tracking as a major measure of finding a trustworthy merc, the merc marketplace as the way for mercs to find work and people to put their needs, and saying the only official use of the term merc will be for people who go through this system. A merc's rep is currently and probably should be equal parts kb numbers and employer satisfaction/word of mouth; this new system only tracks their performance on wardecs without consideration of how they do on other types of jobs if they are not a pure war dec corp (not supported) or on offensive wars (not supported) meaning mercs who still want to be mercs as EVE has understood them for years will still need to maintain an independent killboard/contract history AND have the additional burden of explaining to new players how the in game merc mechanic isnt the real one (kinda like the bounty system now) and how their in game war records aren't reflective of their abilities (which also opens another opportunity for players to get scammed by ****** "mercs")

2. Remember that word of mouth part of a merc corps rep? The ally system will also undermine that too. "c) the aggressor will hide/run away but still continue to pay for the war, in which case the mercs can also just go an do something else" Well no offense but **** you we can. When you accept a contract you are responsible for completing it and your performance while doing so. If the attackers dock up for a few days but extend the war, the mercs cant just up and leave. If the targets undock and blow up more of the client, that will be tracked on the war reports and the employers will be pissed the mercs didnt do their job. No recurring payments but no withdraw for allies means that a

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#118 - 2012-05-19 20:35:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
serious merc who actually does want to take such contracts will need to charge a massive fee upfront to make it worth the potentially substantial time investment and potenial boredom/hard fighting. They cant charge a normal weekly rate because the defender they're helping has no incentive to pay that second week; if the mercs refuse to fight the week they arnt paid it will look badly on their war record and the attackers can still shoot them, meanwhile the defender/client has no such permanent record. So having an "inactive" war is a no-win situation for a merc. As was mentioned pay per kill will not be supported on release so there's not even a way to mititgate the non recurring payments problem.

3. Recall above having to charge a large upfront fee for a merc to agree to the potential time and risk investment of an allies contract. Now contrast that with the approach taken by more casual PVP corps and alliances who seek to use the ally system not as a vehicle for the mercenary profession but a cheap way to get as many war targets as possible. They will offer free ally contracts to EVERYONE, literally as many as they can click. They may not fight or do great in any one of these wars, but there is no downside for them to offer help nor a downside for a a defender to accept their help so it will be accepted. So what would you rather have: one unit at current merc services rates which cost 1 bil- 2 bil a week (Noir. prices for reference, but wont be too far behind or above) increasing to likely 3b-6b (assuming a 2 week possible extension, which is the minimum pad I'd expect people to throw in) or infinite numbers of casual PVP corps/alliances looking for as many ally contracts as they can find for 0 cost to you (if one isnt enough just accept more and more and more ally contracts till your attacker is blobbed out and doesnt renew)?

All three taken together means this system will eliminate defensive empire mercing as a viable profession, limiting offensive empire mercing to all but the hardest core unit or units people are willing to pay billions upon billions for and who can handle fighting LARGE blobs, and undermining defensive empire mercs, offensive war mercs, and any mercs trying to offer combat services in W-space, 0.0, and lowsec and non-direct combat services (escort, training, etc) everywhere.

And not to mention all the potential exploits of infiniwars locking down mercs with "inactive" wars against alt corps that could flood w alts at the mechanic abuser's convenience as discussed in previous posts.

The CSM would really like to talk to you on the CCP/CSM forum https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=110792&find=unread so these concerns can be substantively addressed before players expectations (and fears) are set, and perhaps addressed before the Inferno patch.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises
Otherworld Empire
#119 - 2012-05-19 20:49:58 UTC
More blogs!! <333

★★★ Secure 3rd party service ★★★

Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'

Twitter @ChribbaVeldspar
Endeavour Starfleet
#120 - 2012-05-19 21:22:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
CCP lets make things clear.

The people whining about "OH NOES UNLIMITED ALLIES" and "GIVE THEM TEH CONCORD COST!" in my opinion are or have alts doing griefing against corps that don't know how to shred or fight back. So please continue to allow unlimited allies without any cost.

"But we will be blobbed by allies!!!" Oh you (I mean the players doing these current decs) mean for once you will get to experience what everyone you have deced has experienced? Weeks docked in station playing other games because someone needs a lol?

You are used to no risk decs. Now it will have risk. If you want CONCORD fee for more allies then there needs to be a massive increase in price to start a war to match it.