Assembly Hall

Exactly. ^^

I don't buy the "limiting allies helps mercs by forcing defenders to choose your allies well arguement.
If you allow it to be a numbers vs equal numbers mechanic, then you have to be smart with your ally choices because adding an ally means you attacker can too. So if you add a lazy one who has 100 members but does nothing vs 20members bit logs on actively, you are going to come out on top.

This mechanic ensures that lean mean mercs get jobs and dog piling of a lot of unskilled allies is just going to feed the veteran mercs more fresh meat.

Fixed it for you.
Now with 99% less tinfoil.

That's not easily quantifiable so its not really a viable fix.

Sure, as if you are not doing the same thing?

I mean, isn't the superiority complex of 0.0 equally weird?

Anyways, I point this thread to this thread:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=122238

Regardless of where you stand in the metadrama (And on the probably tinfoiled and over the top accusations from Jade), the reality is, in my view, that the Inferno change was largely a step in the right direction, and it was to be tweaked to fix some glaring holes.

I do, however, question the idea of "fairness" and "balance" as some argue it - CCP Soundwave is right in saying this game isn't meant to be fair.

But there is a difference between "very hard to survive/bad odds" and "impossible to surprise/zero odds" and the nerf takes an interesting mechanic and instead of a tweak, introduces the biggest nerf ever done in EVE.

In this sense, as I told Jade in the thread, why blame malice, when incompetence would do? CCP punched this one in and didn't think it through enough.

Some of the proposed changes by Jade, however, are clearly steps in the wrong direction. What is needed is a real merc market, maybe even auction style, where you can examine a merc's record. Also to allow attackers to bring allies of their own. And so on (read the thread). Jade is too fixated in the "little guy bites back" idea to see that there are already ways to effectively do this, and that in fact, some of the changes proposed would effectively remove the incentive for people to non-consensually wardec in highsec, destroying decpiracy as role. While this can be annoying, with a decent merc market, it is simply a business opportunity waiting to happen.

Attackers + Defenders is hard to count?

There was a huge thread about this in the test server feedback sub-forum and the general response; both from CCP -and- CSM was that they fully supported the changes.

After quite a bit of bickering between players, CCP/CSM just fuckin' vanished apart from the occasional troll response that benefited absolutely nothing to the discussion.

No feedback presented from the opposite spectrum (those of us who were against the changes) was taken in account, regarded with any actual propriety, and - as stated before - eventually was just entirely ignored.

They know about what they're doing. CSM supports it (at least the majority of them do) and CCP adhered to "the majority". The majority, in this case, being a few giant 0.0 alliances who all bitched in unison.

My main argument was that these changes absolutely -should not- have been implemented on such short notice. Just -THREE WEEKS- after the new war dec system was put in place and all of a sudden we went back and changed everything because of a few threadnaughts. It took them -years- to fix hybrid turrets after -numerous- nerfs to Gallente (drone nerf, sensor dampener nerf, etc).

What amazes me even further is that they suddenly went all PR on everyone who was against the changes, saying to drop the tin-foil hattery and to loosen up on the conspiracy theories. To which, I say in gross sarcasm, it's not like a CCP Dev abused their powers and gave a large alliance something (lmfao).

My point is: These changes made defenders -excruciatingly- expensive. To get enough allies to join in on the war you have to pay -BILLIONS- of isk -EVERY TWO WEEKS- in order to make a significant impact on a larger foe, and that larger foe will never have to pay more than -HALF A BILLION-. I'm waiting for the abuse of this game mechanic to flourish and bring back the inevitable ideal of, "welp, we can't win, time to re-make the corporation". To which I'd imagine anyone who ever supported the changes will simply smile and say, "that's just the way the game works".

In short: CSM isn't listening, at best they'll probably make an underhanded comment on how your delusional (see test server feedback). CCP fully supports the changes because, duh, they implemented them. If they delete my post, you'll know that I was right.

I'm in a null-sec alliance. These changes barely even affect me as a player, but I still advocate against them because they're absolutely ridiculous. It's rather embarrassing that 4% of the player-base is somehow considered the "majority" of the community.

to paraphrase soundwave: war isnt fair so if u wanna scratch my goon buddies that'll be three hundred thousand dollars, ty

At the very ******* least the rising costs for allies needs to be capped, so bringing in allies after x corps only sticks on a flat (but considerable) isk cost per new ally

It is a little disappointing to hear so little of countering arguements for the wardec fix.
I would really like to know the rationalization the the attacker pays less than the defender side for allies.

Is the idea to keep the defender in a war "on the defense"?

Let's go over why people go to war:
Disruption of highsec supply chain of enemy
Griefing carebear highsec corps
Bragging rights, and settling disputes between mutual participants.

Besides the last one, there really is little upside potential for warring from a defenders perspective.
Why bother fighting when you can just drop corp or dock up for a week?
And if you do so, attacker wins if his goal was #1.

Why not make the defender gain part of the wardec fee from the attacker if the attacker is forced to surrender?
In a mutual war where the defender has unfair ally costs they should be given unfair gains if they force the attacker to surrender.