Test Server Feedback

First off, let me apologize if this is not in the appropriate subforum. I figured this was the logical choice, as it is to be implemented shortly, to the best of my knowledge. This is not so much meant to be an idea, or a suggestion, but rather, to point out a potential major exploitable flaw with the new wardec system.


So, as it is outlined, in the recent war mechanics dev blog; [ http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28542 ]

A defender corp in a war can call an ally to their aid. The ally then joins the war on the side of the defender. To facilitate this we’ll add a ‘mercenary marketplace’ to the contract UI, where corps can find each other (defending corps can advertise they’re looking for an ally; mercenary corps can advertise their availability). Joining as an ally is a formal contract and can involve transfer of ISK. Once you’re an ally, you’re committed to the war until it ends.


Q: Mercs can't escape war?
A: That's true and the same goes for the aggressor - entering a war is now more of a commitment and not something you can hop in and out of on a whim.


If I am reading this correctly, then in a war, there can be three parties, party A being the agressor, party B being the defender, and the optional party C, the mercenary who comes to aid the defender.

That being said, when A declares war on B, B may call for help from C, however, once C agrees to help, C is in it for the long haul.

That is fine and dandy, but heres where it gets sketchy:

Only A, and B, are in control to any extent of when the war ends. If A and B like how the war is going (or not going), but C doesn't, C has no option.

So how is this really a problem?

If A and B are working together, or have a mutual agreement; C is stuck at the mercy of whatever is going on. That is, if I have two corps, (not in the same alliance, mind you), I can war dec corp B, with corp A. Then I can call in corp C, the merc corp, who is my actual target, with corp B, as an ally. Now, corp C is stuck in the war for as long as I like, as I control corp A and B, and if the war is free for being mutual, I now have an infinite duration war against corp C, that corp C has zero power to get out of.

Furthermore, if I don't actually want to fight them, I can just leave 1 person in corp A, 1 person in corp B, and string along corp C, in an eventless war for months on end. While this, as conditions are stated, does not prevent the mercenary corp from entering further wars, it does tarnish their reputation, showing them being in an extended war where they have no kills, making them look to be ineffective. Furthermore, it may increase their cost of future wardecs, for currently being in one? May need specification on that final point.

Not quite; B can negotiate a surrender with A, and B can declare the war mutual, both of which are some form of control over the war.
Neither of which C can do, therefore, no, I am not wrong.

However, even if B had absolutely no control, which you claim, despite us knowing this isn't true, it doesn't change anything about the concern I am addressing; that if B is working in coersion with A, C can be strung on indefinitely.

C is a merc. They can care less what A and B does, as long as C gets paid.

I absolutely think the merc contract should be week by week, and B should always have the option to cancel any recurring contracts with C if they suck, cutting wasteful future spending on a crap Merc corp and be able to find another.

I don't think the Mercs should be "bound" to any war that isn't directly decced on them anyway. It's the shady/scummy side of it all. When the going gets tough the mercs cut their losses and move on to more profitable ventures, leaving their previous customers pissed off and dying.

It should of course only be open after a complete weekly war cycle, and not take-the-money-and-run, just to be clear. Otherwise this would be a wayyyy bigger exploit.

It already is week by week for the mercs. The mers determine the duration of their involvement when they agree the contract.

No exploit detected.

I agree the problem is how does the merc corp calculate a price of their efforts if it's possible they could be at war forever? Giving C contract terms would help this out a lot. Maybe a war wallet that pays for C on a weekly basis or per ship kill and when it empties C is allowed to leave. This way the Merc is always profitable is always making something for being involved.

All contract systems need a way in and a way out or it's not a contract.

If that is true, then fortunately, this shouldnt be an issue, unless you're lucky enough to dupe a corp into an indefinate contract

From what CCP has said - it does not work week by week (yet). It's a one-time contract from the defender to the merc corp, after which the merc corp is stuck.

Merc contracts definitely need to have a duration - ideally something with some flexibility like 72h, 1-week, 2-week.