Test Server Feedback

You're assuming that a 5000 player alliance will come into high sec?

It seems that if you want a Lot Of People to fight your war for you, you should try to recruit more into your alliance. CCP is trying to keep the current abusing of the wardec mechanic to dogpile "larger entities" (which, by the by, less than 1% of most actually live in highsec so your stating repeatedly of the entire number off denizens of the alliance is hilariously innaccurrate).

You've done something to your protocols again/the Socket Closed connection problem has returned. Can't keep a Sisi client connected for long. Last time it came and went with Sisi updates, so I'm blaming your end.

Is it occurring during active gameplay or are you leaving your client alone for periods of time?

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.

Read all feedback! Shift+x or something else is in NO WAY acceptable. Doubleclicks and right clicks MUST be re implemented. I do not demand a rollback. I demand a 85%-100% re build of the old UI with the new code! That is something different.
To remind you of something look here (2012.05.30 10:03:55 )



Where can I find this function?
I calm down, when you brought back the old UI. Not one second earlier.

This patch cycle? Will we see a sleeker window this cycle?

Thanks for the quick response SW.

I understand your thought process but I think you are prioritising addressing the wrong problems. You need to address the "massive group vs tiny group" imbalance that currently exists first before you worry about mercenaries.

If you nevertheless decide to stick to your current route vis-a-vis allies, you should instead re-visit the cost associated with wardeccing a 500 man alliance with a 5000 man one. The imbalance should have a cost associated with it, one that makes it very expensive to do.

Another, more nuanced mechanic might be to have the game identify aggressor entities that outnumber their targets significantly, and reduce the war cost against that aggressor for third party entities as a result until the number of "enemies" of the aggressor matched its own headcount. This would mean an entity could wardec who it liked as currently but if it was in highly imbalanced wars it would be opening itself up to cheaper counter-wardecs.

don't forget FW people. There are 20 threads around disussing issues with the current mechanics alowing no recovery and other well known issues like useless amarr npcs

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?