EVE General Discussion

I find it hilarious you put the word "Just" in that sentence.

I hear a lot of this "new wardec system sucks because i wanna attack goonswarm", there's like 16 regions where you can attack them for free without paying .01 isk for a wardec.

Try asking Jade Constantine, I think they can set you up.

WARNING: You may be unable to leave the war until we drop it.

There you have it. Sign on the dotted line, please :)

I look forward to seeing the EVEmail from CONCORD.

Aww, they changed it? Oh well.

Then you'll have to refresh the alliance then. Keep at it though !

This extention to the merc system would go a long way to improving things. In short it would actually make it more of an actual market of course. Unsure how much more in terms of iterations this area of the game will have in the near future. But capabilities may be improved as per comments peole are making regarding expanding on the mercenary elements in game with real in game rich features to explore commercial contracts properly.

At the same time there is the Treaties feature seemingly ressurected by the CSM to potentially expand on "negociations" between organisations further.

The only complication I have personally about the application of a mercenary market is the aspect of trust and also the relative ease of being able to see who will actually be an effective option to choose. At present other than some IG knowledge their isnt realistically a simple way to understand reputations and effective merc options of such things as a result. As such I'm not sure what would be the answer to this IG that would allow quick and easy decisions by CEO's in responce to defending war decs to seriously be a useful easy to use tool to them. But if the intention is to limit the numbers of potential allies and you have to scrutinise the most effective help for purposes then you will need some form of easy to see metrics reagarding capabilites and perhaps recommendations following assistance to gauge reputations perhaps.

Certainly I don't understand the reason to really put a limit on it. But if there had to be one, I'd suggest to at least ensure the defender has a chance to allow allies in pilots numbers greater to some extent (by percentage if need be, e.g. 150%) than there attacker to justify the existing balance to the design for war mechanics. Else with certain threasholds options could easily be limited with large alliances not only then having more control with numbers if attacking, but with clever tactical use, can engage interested parties and concerns with ruse contracts and divert focus elsewhere as needs, also at present if you are already allied in a war with a defender against said attacker, you "cannot" then ally yourself in a similar war against the same attacker in another war. Which in itself is a another limiter I guess to political clout but also limiting mercenary payments as parallel payments could be valid here perhaps? Since the interests are supporting more than one entity in kind in theory.

Besides that it also seems just comercially bad sense to limit mercenary options in this way. It kind of could be seen as trying to monopolise the market also. Also the attacker can surrender the war if things become too much, so other than loss of epeen for then realising they bit off more than they can chew they can release themselves by simply not paying the bill. If the defender is purely limited to merc contracts then the attacker could simply outbid or pay off the contracts in secret negociations and thus the biggest wallet always wins period. Though to some extent that is an existing reality with the wars anyhow.

Also convictions need to be in place for allied help to support defender interests purely on ethical, moral or a politcal stance so to some extent besides mercenaries needing some helpfull mechanics to advetise and easy influence war situations with a valid service, the retention of having "free" allies I feel should remain as a valid option. Wether however said allies with serious convictions still need to have a small notional paid retainer even if they themselves may then end up paying for the privaledge.

All the above points I hope prove helpfull for discussion.

Personally with my 3 man corporation being a serious security issue to the largest alliance in EVE for some apparent reason (Mittens and Goons being shy to explain the cause for the war dec) I would personally need some way of answering in kind to this level of aggression wtithout going bankrupt. Funnily enough had free offers already from people eager to fight the Goons, but they are already engaged in hostilites against GSF in other wars so cannot ally them as a result at the present time.