These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Inferno 1.1 Sisi features

First post First post First post
Author
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#181 - 2012-06-12 13:43:52 UTC
Jared Tobin wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:

I'm not going to respond in unified inventory threads because I have nothing to do with them implementation of it. I can't post for other people, but the war dec UI is "my" feature so I try to follow up on any feedback related to that. I'm sorry I can't be of more help for you. If you have any feedback on the new utility menu I implemented in the wars lists, I'll be happy to listen to what you have to say.


Understood... And so far, I have nothing positive or newgative to say. Luckily, your work has been focussed on something that is NOT troublesome to my gamining experience or my corp/alliance experience.

[needing a moke] Thanks for actually responding, though, even when I apparently posted int he wrong section! THANK YOU! You're one of the few CCP'ers to respond rather fast and punctually.

Cheers.


good we're on good terms here then, I just like everybody to be friends Blink


M'nu wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:


Maybe we should use another icon for this, I'm not sure. I didn't realize people usually right-clicked on the menu icon because I always left click on it.

We're talking about like in the top-left of the overview window, top-left of the mail window, left to the system name in the location info, etc?

Thanks for telling me about itBig smile


Exactly what I was talking about.

Then I left clicked on it, and it worked. For the first time since I have played EvE, I left clicked that button. Had no idea it was left clickable.

Oh well, it's your job to figure this out Big smile


haha okay, I didn't realize people right clicked on that Big smile

Thanks for your feedback

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

CCP Paradox
#182 - 2012-06-12 13:44:01 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.


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

CCP Paradox | EVE QA | Team Phenomenon

Space Magician

Jared Tobin
Bloodstone Industries
B.S.I.
#183 - 2012-06-12 13:44:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jared Tobin
CCP Goliath wrote:
Just because your post has not been directly responded to does not mean that it has not been read and taken on board by one of the Game of Drones team (which FYI Punkturis is not a part of). We as a company cannot possibly respond to each individual post made on any given topic. You may feel you are entitled to a response but I am afraid that it is not always possible. I would say though that, if some developer were to glance over your post without taking time to fully read it, they may be put off by the volume of caps which to us can appear like a rant. Not a criticism, nor saying that your feedback won't be read if it contains caps, or that it will be read if it does not, just a suggestion.


Thank you, and I understand. I've just been posting all observations, "seeming bugs/issues" as well as relevant feedback (instead of "rage quitting/cancelling" (?)...)

My capitalization is due to the fact that the limit of letters actually is "more" than what is allowable for a post... So I couldn't underline or bolden items, so for differentialization, I used caps when "citing" a main topic.... followed by the lowercase response... and happily, some of the issues have bee responded to and patch....

Cheers. [I am so tired and now the cigarette is eminent... FYI to readers: I'm not advocating smoking cigarettes to anyone... Don't due it if you don't want a risk of cancer in your future.... It's my personal choice after 37+ years...)

Jared Tobin
Haquer
Vorkuta Inc
#184 - 2012-06-12 13:44:42 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.


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).
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#185 - 2012-06-12 13:46:34 UTC
Callidus Dux wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).


In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Roll


Actually I deleted your previous post because it was a rant, it was extremely rude and totally non constructive. We have stated numerous times that while a rollback is not possible, we will do everything we can to work on the current functionality. There have been quite a few fixes in this update, there may be more. Noone at any time promised "hundreds of independant windows" (which you can get by the way, use shift click). I'm going to let this post stand as I'm replying to it directly. Improve your tone and calm down on the hyperbole if you choose to make a reply in this thread.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Daneel Trevize
Give my 11percent back
#186 - 2012-06-12 13:47:28 UTC
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.
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#187 - 2012-06-12 13:48:57 UTC
M'nu wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:


I agree. I think it's an interesting addition that fits very well in a flavour perspective and should provide a nice twist to LP. Will you be farming some up to buy them?



Only if its that black bondage suit. But if you throw something in there that hasn't been seen, like that Solid Snake eye patch, I am sure people would grind for it. I would grind for it.

I can see it now, have the LP/ISK for a Typhoon Fleet Issue, or that shirt that says 'Winmatar=Secksmatar'. Everyone would choose the shirt.


I am going to try to get one of my more artistically enabled friends to make me that shirt IRL. For some reason it makes me laugh a lot Big smile

Thanks for your feedback.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#188 - 2012-06-12 13:49:27 UTC
Daneel Trevize wrote:
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?

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#189 - 2012-06-12 13:50:11 UTC
CCP Explorer wrote:
salfun wrote:
CCP Explorer wrote:
salfun wrote:
Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though Cool This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reasonWhat?
Do you get some sort of an error?

Yep two BR 138450 and 135680 "error while searching" Its like I hit the upper limit of searchs or something switching to an alt worksWhat?
We're looking into this issue.

Its working again for me thanks Lol

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#190 - 2012-06-12 13:50:25 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrence of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.


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.
Markius TheShed
T.R.I.A.D
Ushra'Khan
#191 - 2012-06-12 14:00:04 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.


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


It's not just about the 5000 coming to high sec it's also the logistics and isk / purchasing power that said alliance has, They have unlimited reships available in high sec So how does that make for a good war??

All this will do is make people avoid wars again and we are back to before inferno.

What a waste.

**Murientor Tribe** a capsuleer organization composed of radical Minmatar. Since YC107

Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#192 - 2012-06-12 14:01:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Callidus Dux
CCP Goliath wrote:
Callidus Dux wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).


In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Roll


Actually I deleted your previous post because it was a rant, it was extremely rude and totally non constructive. We have stated numerous times that while a rollback is not possible, we will do everything we can to work on the current functionality. There have been quite a few fixes in this update, there may be more. Noone at any time promised "hundreds of independant windows" (which you can get by the way, use shift click). I'm going to let this post stand as I'm replying to it directly. Improve your tone and calm down on the hyperbole if you choose to make a reply in this thread.


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 )

CCP Soundwave wrote:

•When you want to open an inventory in a separate window, you can now drag and drop it out of the main window as an alternative to the shift + click way of opening it.


Where can I find this function?Roll
I calm down, when you brought back the old UI. Not one second earlier.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#193 - 2012-06-12 14:02:35 UTC
Callidus Dux wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Callidus Dux wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).


In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Roll


Actually I deleted your previous post because it was a rant, it was extremely rude and totally non constructive. We have stated numerous times that while a rollback is not possible, we will do everything we can to work on the current functionality. There have been quite a few fixes in this update, there may be more. Noone at any time promised "hundreds of independant windows" (which you can get by the way, use shift click). I'm going to let this post stand as I'm replying to it directly. Improve your tone and calm down on the hyperbole if you choose to make a reply in this thread.


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 )

CCP Soundwave wrote:

•When you want to open an inventory in a separate window, you can now drag and drop it out of the main window as an alternative to the shift + click way of opening it.


Where can I find this function?Roll


Not in yet due to bugs being fixed taking higher priority. Once we go back to general feature iteration (there are still some bigger bugs that need to be ironed out) this is a top 3 item.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#194 - 2012-06-12 14:07:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
CCP Soundwave wrote:

Not in yet due to bugs being fixed taking higher priority. Once we go back to general feature iteration (there are still some bigger bugs that need to be ironed out) this is a top 3 item.

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

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#195 - 2012-06-12 14:11:59 UTC
Callidus Dux wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
This thread is locked until I get into work tomorrow and get a hold of it again. I made extremely civil, decent requests to keep this thread relevant. Those requests were ignored, so tomorrow I will clean up the thread and reopen it for reasonable, constructive feedback on the Inferno 1.1 features currently on Singularity. For those unable to post said feedback, I apologise and the thread will be open again by 10am tomorrow (GMT).


In other words: You have deleted my post because you do not want to read / hear that you failed again to implement REAL player feedback! Where is this feedback from players who wants the old UI or its behavior with their hundreds of independent windows, adjustable in size and position back? Show it to me! Show me the influence of players feedback in this waste Inferno 1.1 sh!t!

NO hundreds of independent windows? No improvements! You lied to the customer again!

Feel free to delete it again. At least I can be sure that someone reads this. Roll



You should really get over it. We aren't going to go back to a less feature rich and un-refactored inventory system. To the extent you feel that usability has been lost or decreased you should propose specific changes to the new system, not the childish "GIVE ME BACK THE OLD SYSTEM" spam.

I prefer the new system. Lots of other people do too. Its demonstrably more powerful a tool than the old system. You should either help adapt the new system with constructive change suggestions or try adapting yourself.

A good suggestion to address what I translate your main issue to be could be as follows:

1) Create a "stripped down mode" that can be switched to in any inventory window in the same way chat windows can be switched to "condensed mode", which unexpands the tree panel.

2) Allow any number of instances of the new inventory screen. Allow the instances to be 'saved' which stores their location, size, and "stripped down or full toggle" value against a custom chosen name. Make these saves bindable to hotkeys (so "Ctrl C" could pop open a small inventory window focused on your current ship cargohold in the bottom right corner of the screen in stripped down mode).

That would give you back all the old functionality but be much, much more powerful and use the new system.

Constructive feedback - this is how it is done.

Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#196 - 2012-06-12 14:20:31 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrence of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.


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.


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.
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#197 - 2012-06-12 14:21:31 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Lallante wrote:
Dear CCP Superfriends.

With the new proposed war mechanics, note the following:

A 5000 man alliance can wardec a 500 man alliance.

The 500 man alliance can then ally a 4500 man alliance for free to even the odds, but it would have to pay a HUGE amount if it instead wanted to ally 9 other 500 man alliances.

This penalty against smaller, more numerous entities is surely not your intention?

Please could you adjust the mechanics so that none of the factors (but particularly cost) scale with number of "entities" (alliances or corps etc) but rather with number of players.

It should be free to call in allies until the number of "defender" players equals the number of "aggressor" players. Then it can escalate.


Its also important to note that the 2 week set contract for allies should automatically "roll over" if not cancelled by the defender or the ally (including recurrance of any fees, if applicable), otherwise you are creating a huge inconvenience in longer term wars.


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


Come on Paradox ... when we wardec the 5000 person alliance we have to pay ISK for EVERY MEMBER of the that organization regardless of how many of them come into HISEC. They all factor into the calculation that decides the wardec fee.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#198 - 2012-06-12 14:23:07 UTC
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

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Snow Axe
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#199 - 2012-06-12 14:25:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Snow Axe
Markius TheShed wrote:
It's not just about the 5000 coming to high sec it's also the logistics and isk / purchasing power that said alliance has, They have unlimited reships available in high sec So how does that make for a good war??

All this will do is make people avoid wars again and we are back to before inferno.

What a waste.


Any corp/alliance that gets wardecced that doesn't want to fight, won't. No amount of mechanic changes will fix that, and even this short-lived system of letting every 2-man "merc" corp dogpile onto a wardec didn't change that fact.

Also, for all of the "well they have X pilots, we should get free mercs until we have X as well!" folks, would you agree to a system that counted a "fighting force" by using killmail data to determine just how many people are fighting on either side of the war and adjust allowed ally totals that way? That'd be "fair", right? It'd also be really easy to manage for you too, since you'd only be able to hire about 15 pilots or so once real participation numbers started to show up.

It's all kind of a moot point though, since letting a bunch of tiny "merc" corps have a free wardec wasn't ever being used to even the score anyway. You can thank Jade Constantine and his thread for not only illuminating that point, but explaining it as well.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#200 - 2012-06-12 14:32:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Jade Constantine
CCP Soundwave wrote:
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.



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?

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom