How is a reduced cycle time on Reactive Armor Hardeners a good thing?

Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance.

The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place!

Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani.

In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table.

And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out.

You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy.

Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful.

The Honda Accord wardec has been running for several weeks longer and has created the same precedent.



What you have done is completely remove consequences from the largest entities in Eve. You have made it utterly impractical to add enough allies into a war to discomfort a very large alliance and made it impossible to lock such an alliance into a war so they are forced to consider surrender.

And the thing is - who was complaining about the way this was working? Certainly not the hundreds of small corporations getting to try empire war against large territorial alliances for the first time. The only people complaining were ... well, Goonswarm really.

I don't think you have given the Inferno wardec system long enough in the wild to make any kind of rational assessments of how it is working in practise. And this rapid near-complete nerfing of the ally system does sound like a developer batphone being picked up and whined into.

These are changes purely to the benefit of the largest most powerful and best connected alliances in Eve and to the huge detriment of the smaller entities.

You have to acknowledge this stinks like a container of rotten fish in a cesspit.

Its good but needs to be mouse over not right click

I just noticed these and well done! All we need now is corpse dressing!

While everyone is having a field day with Jade's tinfoil hat, I've got another question about the wardec system:

Is the director/CEO who declares a war still anonymous? Eliminating the voting period for wars was a good thing, but it had the effect of also making any director/CEO be able to declare war against his corp/alliance's wishes without any real personal consequences (since it's impossible to know it was really him). More details here.

...Yeah, you asked for feedback... he gives you feedback, and you response this way??

What in gods' names is going on with the developers with this?

One thing is for sure, "Intrinsic motivation" is NOT working, Mr. Roy Lantz....

If it was, no one would be griping about updates exceeding once a week, after admitting there is a major problem is still in existence in the game..........

[sighs]

Yep All is good you understand the two suggestions I raised though This is Salpun cant search dev posts on my main right now for some reason

Yep two BR 138450 and 135680 "error while searching" Its like I hit the upper limit of searchs or something switching to an alt works

CCP Punkturis, 1 thing.

1) Make that lil thingy right clickable also so people dont spaz out and omg. Otherwise I like it. Was going to say that it needs the back arrow, but it opens it in a new window so not needed.

Ok, kinda disappointing with the clothes you added. Just some more sterling red jackets and some black coat. Enough of the recolored clothes. They look bad, they look unoriginal, and it is a slap in the face that you add the same cut of cloth with a different color into our LP store and say "hey, check em out" at least give us the bondage suit or some new clothes. You want people to think that Incarna isnt spaceshit, give us some new threads already. Please.

Now, because I was raised semi decently, I will give some positives on this change.

I think it is a good idea to start adding clothes and whatnot to LP stores. Considering the price of them in the LP store, and with the SISI fw lvls being what they are. The male/female sterling clothes (which are reskinned, and dont look that bad) cost more than a spaceship. +1 on that.

+1 on starting the iteration on people actually making the clothes. Gonna be sweet.

I've seen more and more clothing assets since the incarna inception, you have an awesome amount. Why still give us the same old stuff. Instead of the sterling shirts, what about racial tats, like the ones on the brand new website thats meant to draw in new players, then see that sweet Vherikor tat, then get in game and its 'lol no tats'.

Please, more variety, stuff that hasn't been seen before should be added to the FW LP store. Or, at least give me a minnie symbol on my shirt. It doesn't scream, 'I got this from TLF LP Store!1" right now as it should. It doesn't scream that someone actually 'worked' for the shirts instead of using the NEX store.

Goliath,

any word on if we're gonna get any new goodies in 1.1 as i thought there was going to be a trickle of new modules throughout inferno?

also is that really all five-0 are doing for 1.1? 2 rollbacks?

Well obviously, CCP Punkturis.... If you took claim you took it "unsuredly" not knowing how to take it, then what gives you the idea or right that I'm suddenly taking is "as negatively [...] as I seem to have done"?

All I was responding to was towards the reaction in which the (now-decidely claimed "unsuredly taken") feedback was taken... That's all.

[sighing] Seriously, if I got this quick of a response on the 9+ Issues/Feedback forums whom I've responded to with noted issues about the UI, then I'd be happy with the reactionary results.

You, CCP Punkturis are either very quick, freshly on the job for today (coffee in hand, if so, I envy you at the present moment [smirk] ), or you are selective in which things you wish to respond and further "jab" at. Please take a jab at the factual, non-"jabbing" posts that have gone unanswered in the following posts (over the course of the post-Inferno timeline and 10+2 patches):

[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]

from the original post:

And tell me when I've taken "jabs". If you (or others at CCP) can be this quick in response to the aforementioned posts, I'd be literally be "all ears"...

Because I've waited for over 3 weeks for responses.... and I have received none (lot of "likes" but no official CCP responses)... so please forward this along as an example of how quick you were able to assimilate, postulate, and publicly respond.... versus everyone else labeled "CCP _______" and I will be much more entertained by your your reponse.

No, really.... I'm being very seriously. One day i will make it to Iceland (if the game and corp still exists then) and I would love to have a beer with you and others... non-confrontational, as I seem to be "interpretted" by the vibes of...

I am just really, really trying to help, but cetain moments, or things I experience in-game or read out-of-game have me baffled at times...

I'm glad someone is working there in Iceland, right now... I just wish your dedication would be spread across the board.... However, "Thanks for responding and have a good one."

(Gods, I think I'm pulling an all-nighter going into the next day.... at past 9:30am.... ugh)

JT

If thats the case, which I dont mind either way tbh just giving feedback, should look different than the horizontal 3 bars. Cuz, when I see that, I right click. Just an idea.

Well obviously, CCP Punkturis.... If you took claim you took it "unsuredly" not knowing how to take it, then what gives you the idea or right that I'm suddenly taking is "as negatively [...] as I seem to have done"?

All I was responding to was towards the reaction in which the (now-decidely claimed "unsuredly taken") feedback was taken... That's all.

[sighing] Seriously, if I got this quick of a response on the 9+ Issues/Feedback forums whom I've responded to with noted issues about the UI, then I'd be happy with the reactionary results.

You, CCP Punkturis are either very quick, freshly on the job for today (coffee in hand, if so, I envy you at the present moment [smirk] ), or you are selective in which things you wish to respond and further "jab" at. Please take a jab at the factual, non-"jabbing" posts that have gone unanswered in the following posts (over the course of the post-Inferno timeline and 10+2 patches):

[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]
[constructive issues and feedback]

from the original post:

And tell me when I've taken "jabs". If you (or others at CCP) can be this quick in response to the aforementioned posts, I'd be literally be "all ears"...

Because I've waited for over 3 weeks for responses.... and I have received none (lot of "likes" but no official CCP responses)... so please forward this along as an example of how quick you were able to assimilate, postulate, and publicly respond.... versus everyone else labeled "CCP _______" and I will be much more entertained by your your reponse.

No, really.... I'm being very seriously. One day i will make it to Iceland (if the game and corp still exists then) and I would love to have a beer with you and others... non-confrontational, as I seem to be "interpretted" by the vibes of...

I am just really, really trying to help, but cetain moments, or things I experience in-game or read out-of-game have me baffled at times...

I'm glad someone is working there in Iceland, right now... I just wish your dedication would be spread across the board.... However, "Thanks for responding and have a good one."

(Gods, I think I'm pulling an all-nighter going into the next day.... at past 9:30am.... ugh)

JT

If thats the case, which I dont mind either way tbh just giving feedback, should look different than the horizontal 3 bars. Cuz, when I see that, I right click. Just an idea.

@CCP Goliath. Good to know, hope you guys add them in LP stores. Or w/e you do, I think the lp store clothes is an amazing idea, and harkens back to a player driven economy these clothes should be in.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 )



Where can I find this function?

Then surely if only 1% of a nullsec entity lives in hisec then only 1% of their membership should count when deciding how much the wardec fee is against that entity.

With goonswarm for example rather than paying 500m isk per week on the 9000 membership we should be paying 50m per week on the 1% (90 people) that live in hisec.

Fair enough?

Not acceptable. Why must I use my keyboard when it once was possible to open a new window with mouse? NO SHIFT+X or something. No "shift +click" or "shift+key" JUST double and right clicks. CCP must implement the SHIFT per default or per checkbox within the ESC-menue

Actually, it is.

Here's the situation: 9000 members are not attacking you. Not even 1% of that number, is attacking you.
All you need is a single 1000 member ally (hell, even a 100 member ally) and you have numbers parity.

You also blatantly ignore the vast majority of wars to look at edge cases.
Fact: the trade hub gankers want to be in as many wars as possible, to enable the maximum concord-free loot pinata kills they can do.
Therefore, they will offer to ally up in every war they can see, for free.
Who doesn't want free allies? Their offers will be accepted more often than not.
A 200 vs 100 war would then quickly find itself unbalanced by even adding two of these groups.

Moreover, real mercs would find themselves edged out by these groups. And small wardecs would still get a chilling effect because you're not doing anything to prevent dogpiling. 3 allies for most wars (where the allies aren't 3-man vanity corps) are more than sufficient.

Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now?

Said my two cents on the FW changes - should I go bring other interested parties to the thread to post on the subject as well?

Noted and rejected? No one says something about this demand. Just noted is not enough at this state. Are you working on this or have you just noted it and laugh about me now?
I repost ths demand so often because I feel ignored from CCP. I write something and CCP doesnt reply to that or say YES or NO. Than I must ask a few times more.

Its OK Soundwave. CCP does not only ignores me. Have a look at the forum and try to find out how many other players feel ignored from you.

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?

Not necessary. But thanks. A short list would be more than enough. If I know what they TRY to implement I can wait till it IS implemented. But to wait without ANY information is bad for me.
I would suggest a website with this list which would be updated with every further idea they want to TRY to implement. Nothing more.

I disagree.

GSF numbers are silly huge. But that's a result of a multi-region nulsec empire. You won't see those kinds of numbers in a hisec dwelling alliance--the closest AFAIK is Eve-U. Ha.
So trying to design for those edge cases is just dumb. Better to balance the system for smaller groups. Because, as has been stated, nulsec groups as a rule don't come into hisec en masse. Too many restrictions, too many station games, not enough interest, etc. So the numbers there would not be a concern--any competant merc group you could recruit using normal rules would still likely be a good match numerically for your OpFor.

Sounds good then. Well hold on, let me ask CCP if they will nerf that too...

CCP, Goons, TEST and the mighty CSM,

I would like to create an alliance for the purpose of letting those corps willing to fight the evil large null power blocks who think the new war dec system is a toy for them. Said alliance would not charge anything to ally with a defender. Such defenders that those large alliance war dec over some butt hurt post on the forums, different play style of the game or against someone who did not welcome having their online CV hacked and molested.

Mainly just to have fun. I hope fun is still ok.

Anyways, please let me know! Feel free to openly reply right here on the forums too. Considering the forums is where the real PvP happens.

Has those not involved in a war assisting those in combat via assist modules (remote repair, remote sensor boosting, etc) been addressed? As in not allowed?

So would you like to comment on the proposal where I offer a solution to the problem of mercs and hisec war situation?

something about man hugs

I doubt either side is going to convince the other in an endless forum slapfight; why don't you guys just duel on Sisi and have done with it?

In my mind, it will be something like this

how about you guys let us duel on the regular one...

like enhancing contracts to allow concord sanctioned duels... with clear and concise victory conditions?

oh I know! what about at Fanfest! with real swords!??!

Most excellent idea, and totally safe and non-lethal!

i haz been trolled...

i was thinking more of a personal war dec that lasts only a short time... like two peeps ina npc corp cant fight in high sec because they are in noob corps...

but setting up a concord sacntioned pvp fight that has clear victory conditions would allow this to happen...

though can we see punky and karuk have a sword fight at fanfest anyways?

i woould donate a plex and free booze to the winner

So hats are coming out for us in the 1.1 patch?

You are my favorite CCP. EVER!

@Punkturis.


I have a serious issue with 1.1 War Dec UI.

You need to make all EVE UI awesome like it.

CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).

Your actions indicate otherwise and as your CEO says it is actions that count not words...

Time for disclosure about how many Devs are in which major Alliances - not names just a headcount because as it stands there is a growing credibility gap.

Zag

Not really an issue; just you guys never addressed the issues that were still at hand =P

Dev thoughts on making allies/mercenaries two separate entities?

Listen Golitah, forget the conspiracy theorists. It is an unfortunate but not unexpected byproduct of the gameworld you have created. In a game where polittics means what it does in EVE, its is unavoidable that such accusations will arise with every descision you make. So just deal with it, HTFU and ignore them.

I'd be much more interessted in som serious DEV communication on the real issues. Sure, I understand you want to fix the merc marketplace, and I support that. But the proposed solution seems to treat a bleeding with an amputation.

Will the updated lighting make the Amarr ships look better? like this thread if you answer so I'll know to come back and check

Why would you want to balance a fight.? Fair question, let me answer.

ANYONE with ANY knowledge of war, or warfare ( being different from a " fight", singular) knows that when 2 forces are fairly evenly balanced, they fight. when they are not, they do not fight.It's very simple, really.

More Goon favoritism I guess - I never see CCP stomping up and down on any of the **** griefing bad posts the goons make.

How can you AFK cloak without local?!

I think there was a issue in one of the patch cycles that is not fixed by the launcher. I had a UI bug issue and reinstalled Sisi. The issue cleared up.