EVE Information Portal

I no idea rag-tag groups of 'nobodies' were a serious threat to suposed 'real' mercenary groups. Food for thought I guess.

Allow aggressors AND defenders to hire allies. Both sides. It should cost for both sides, but not fixed costs, and it shouldn't matter how many wars you have running.

Keep the sand in the sandbox, and don't impose artificial restrictions.

Costs should scale depending on relative strengths. If you have a weak aggressor (low total-SP) declaring on a strong target (high total-SP), there should only be the minimal base cost. If the weak aggressor then adds strong allies, such that the total-SP balance is now on the aggressor side, the costs should dramatically rise.

Costs to add allies for the weaker side should always be less than costs to add allies for the stronger side, including at the tipping point of going weaker -> stronger. Remember, you're bribing/paying off Concord, and possibly the empires, with these payments, not any other player organization. Wardecs are meaningless and unnecessary in Nullsec/W-space.

Wardecs already last one week. Allies should last until the end of the wardec period, with an option to renew assistance if the war continues another week.

A special note about groups who are participating in multiple wars. When paying for allies, the total SP of all Aggressors is taken into account and compared against the total SP of all groups for whom you are Aggressors. A small corp might be the Target of the Goons, but themselves might also be griefing a mission-running corp. If they add allies, those allies will be defenders against Goons, but Aggressors against that mission-running corp.

This may be complicated for a human to try to figure out, but it's easy for a computer (when programmed correctly). All the warring corps need to know is the potential cost of adding a particular ally. If this is implemented on SiSi and actually given time to mature (unlike some other things lately), it can become a robust, easy-to-use, and very fair system for all.

Until you actually balance wars, it will always favour one side or the other. That's the very purpose of "balance", to minimize all bias. It's not a simple "flip a switch and turn on all happy-fun land".

Anyway, as someone pointed out on EN24, the first 5 allies will cost a mere 120M. For 1B, you get 8! And it's less than 4B for 10 allies. Seriously, if you need more than 10 allies to stand against whoever wardecs you, you should really HTFU or change your lifestyle so you're not a squishy pinata for all and sundry.

Edit: Off topic part removed, CCP Phantom

So please inform me. How is this not an improvement of a broken and unintended game mechanic. CCP flat out said they never intended defending other alliances as a "free wardec" against the attacker. As of current 82 alliances are getting 500mil each worth of free wardecs against goonswarm.

Just because the defending alliances are unable to recruit more then 100 people each is not the problem of the people who put the time and effort into forming a larger ingame alliance of like minded people. There is nothing stopping star fraction or others from growing just as large. Look at test alliance, look at -A-, these are examples of people who grew into larger alliances.

What this does is prevent choice from being taken away. The new system will force smaller alliances to CHOOSE wisely who they pickup to defend their space in empire, which they do not own, and live in stations, which they do not control, in order to fight back.

why? it's just a hardcap on how many allies you can have. If you want more defense make an allaince.

I guess my point is the tools are allready in the sandbox. The merc system needs to be tailored with the understanding that people like MC allready made money as a merc group in eve. The tools should help players do something they already do in game. Thus a limit on allies makes sense. In fact I'd be happier if you could only get ONE ALLY. which is how I figured it would work. Then different size merc alliances would pop up. you can only get one merc corp, so if you are in a big war, there is a market for alliances like MC to join in.

I'd point out I am also affected and have offered an opinion about how I would have preferred to have seen this changed. As has already been pointed out the CSM did offer alternatives but in the end we are advisory and not able to dictate to CCP how to change their game.

For me, its a disappointment, but I knew we could expect this to evolve somehow. I don't expect this is going to end up how it stays long term because I don't see it really addressing the problem with the current system. So all I think we can do is continue to offer feedback and suggestions for refinement. Then hope for the best.

Issler

not sure if i missed it

what about mutual wars ? will they be reset with 1.1 ?

During the old wardec system many alliances such as privateers, moar tears and others have been able to engage in active wars with multipul 3-4k member alliances ALONE at the same time. This system was intended to allow smaller groups who get wardec'd to recruit and hire groups such as these above to defend them from larger alliances with greater funds.

Not to say that one should make this argument, but one could say that by funding the destruction of a certain ship class in high security space on a permanent basis has a very similar effect to others as what this wardec system has done to you in your description. Both were also within the rules of the system at the time they were done as well.

Hum. Can anyone tell me how this new Hardener is affected by the Armor Compensation Skills?
Is this counted as an active or a passive Hardener?
I could not see any change at all while testing, but certainly it IS an armor hardener?!?