I hope that's only for Low and Null sec Incursions. CCP should be aware that High Sec Incursions represent a serious flaw in EVE's risk vs reward balance and as such should be at the receiving end of further nerfs not rollbacks on old ones.

I do not dispute the reduced cycle time and cap usage increase trade off as a skill.

Look at repair systems, total reduction in repair duration of 25% this has an associated cap cost but it is useful.

If a mod requires a 50% reduction in cycle time then this doubles the cap cost. This suggests there is an issue with the original cycle time and cap cost. I support the skill but would like to see the cap cost adjusted to a sort of half-way house where the mod ultimately uses less cap than it does now but with a higher cap cost than the existing amount at level 5 due to the increased power of the mod. This mod at level five is broken for frigates and probably cruisers, you could perhaps use it on something like a cap boosting repping myrm, and anything battleship and above.

Paul, we have posted in your thread you created! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119503

you are correct - it's a 24 hour notice to start a war, right? So it takes 24 hours.

However, the argument you are trying to make is answered by "in nullsec" - because CONCORD.

The argument I AM making is that the diplomatic flexibility and tools available to nullsec entities to handle a hostile situation is severly restricted in highsec because of the wardec mechanic. War is unfair. Fine. But the artificial caps on how to handle a war situation in highsec means that the ally system is a really good addition to the game. Sure, unlimited allies are dumb. But just one free ally is equally moronic, given the fragmented nature of highsec organisation. CCP just have to nerf the ally system enough to make Mercs a viable solution, which is achieved when QUALITY instead of numbers becomes important. That threshold is reached with a parity situation.

Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...

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

Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping

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?

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.

It's hard for the developers to remember that they're supposed to be robots for you.

just from reading I'm starting to agree that these changes seem to be geared toward the larger alliances.

GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)
GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared)
GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.

Now, before you get yourself all worked up because CCP is favoring Goonswarm again, think it through. They NEED to make these changes. That little mutual war-dec dog-pile loop-hole isn't just usable to exact revenge on Goonswarm (or Test.) It can be used against every mercenary corporation that ever wanted to make a living from being mercenaries. And though you may find it odd for a carebear to say, they deserve the right to earn a living too. Frankly, mercenaries are some of the hardest working people I know. Dog-piling them because you don't like their chosen profession is no better than The Mittani sending out Death Squads because he doesn't like bad press from a high-sec carebear.

So CCP has to draw a line and the system has to be the same for everyone. There cannot be two separate war declaration systems - one for Goon size "aggressors" and one for everyone else.

"... So CCP has to draw a line and the system has to be the same for everyone. There cannot be two separate war declaration systems - one for Goon size "aggressors" and one for everyone else." ->This guy has managed to look beyond "how does this affect me?" and looked at the game as a larger whole. A lot of people in this thread could learn from this example.

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

Its about a single declaration and ally system that scales appropriately, allows attackers and defenders a competitive playing field

The simple solution I have proposed (defender allies are billed for only when the defensive coalition grows larger than the attacker) resolves the issue

Nobody thus far has been able to tell us convincingly why this is a bad idea

If Eve isn't fair and wardecs are not supposed to be balanced then WHY can't the defender sometimes turn the table on the attacker and bring a huge boatload of allies into the war and gain the advantage for a change?

So who the heck is driving this change and will they please stop

We've had it confirmed that the CSM was universally opposed to this wardec change. . .