Test Server Feedback

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 ?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?