as the person who implemented this fix I must admit I had no idea the goons were war decced or had any problems with it. The only person I've been talking to about war decs is Alekseyev Karrde

v0v

maybe I should spend less time working on the expansion and more time getting involved in corp/alliance politics in EVE

Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.
We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war.
And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.

Recruitment for my corp is currently closed. For you however, we may consider an exception.

I hope you (all at CCP) don't restrict yourself to just Aleks.

Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.
We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war.
And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so.

They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.

...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing?

This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most.

First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses.

...and yet what happened to the ideals of transparency and consultation that you advocated in your white paper and CSM7 were meant to be championing?

This all appears to have been handled behind closed doors and only involving those that it would benefit most.

First the ally nerf, now this - it smells of something and it isn't roses.

Permanent war decs will be fixed in Retribution.
We have made it so that in a mutual war, the original aggressor has the option of retracting the war.
And by "we have made it so", I mean Punkturis has made it so. GOONSWARM DICTATED IT TOO US AFTER GETTING WARDECC'D & TRAPPED SO CCP HAS CAPITULATED YET AGAIN

They don't. The reason that is even an issue people are complaining about is because they haven't listened the hundreds of times Punkturis has stated that she's a programmer, not a game designer, and that she codes up what the game designers agree upon. The game designers being the team that interacts with the CSM and the playerbase on the forums. It's perfectly normal not only for the programmer to only have spoken with one individual, its also normal for the programmers to not speak with the CSM at all. Just because a few angry posters here don't understand this doesn't mean that CCP is saying they only get one opinion about an issue before making a decision.

FIXED

http://themittani.com/news/wardecs-complicate-ev0ke-sov-handover
Damn looking at the timstamps it took CCP a whole 45 minutes to jump after the Goons said jump

Seriously CCP's timing of these annoucements about the War Decc changes absolutely stink to high heaven of catering to the Goons. How many more 'coincidences' do you really expect Eve subscriber/customers to swallow?

I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.

fly safe! o7

That isn't a fix, it's removing a feature.

Perhaps a static payment option of oh, 200 million and then either party (the defender who made it mutual or the aggressor) could "buy out" of the mutual war-dec.

Putting it in the hands of the aggressor removes the entire reason to make a war mutual, which is to punish the aggressor for starting a war they could not handle. Now there's literally no reason to make a war mutual since your fix is more amounting to swinging a bat at the feature, smashing it, and calling it done.

Actions should have consequences in EVE, start a war that you can't handle, you should have to pay to get out of it. But I guess that's just pointless carping since the "some people don't like features!" cop-out is being thrown around already.

Right now it sounds like CCP have implemented our second best option to solve the wardec issue. "We continue as is, allowing perfect copying/transfer, instead preventing mutual infinite wardecs"

However I'm no longer sure what their intended design for the wardec system is. I thought they wanted declaring wars to be some sort of commitment, such as locking the aggressor in for at least a week. Now it sounds like we can declare war, kill an offline tower, retract the war, move on to next target. This is how it used to be, and I'm actually good with that.

That fix would solve 95% of all the issues. Which is good. But we were hoping to get lots of the smaller features fixed as well (wardec costs, wardec transfers (solved by the fix), exploits related to surprising enemies in space (semi addressed by notifications), dead corp fixes, surrender mechanic loopholes, etc).

However, it is awesome that they implemented notifications to warn deccers that their targets have joined an alliance. That was very much a step in the right direction, and was one of the little things on our list of awesome that they implemented. I hope they continue along this line and continue to push little changes into the game to make the system more intuitive and balanced.

Mutual wars having a 1 week cooldown would be a decent compromise, I'd think. It keeps the element of at least a little consequence for declaring war when you shouldn't, while fixing the core issue.
...

Thread cleaned somewhat.

Cut the discussion of CCP Bias,

I think I'll just stop posting in this thread, too many people just like to be angry and take what I say and twist my words. The initial problem in this thread has been solved (for Retribution), some people like the solution and some people don't, that's how it is with all our changes anyways.

fly safe! o7

Looks to me now that between the big NULL SEC alliances & the HEAVILY WEIGHTED NULL SEC CSM that the HIGH SEC war decc system has been whittled down to a way for BIG ALLIANCES TO GRIEF the little guy with impunity even though that was not your intentions DEVs/DESIGNERS that is nowwhat we got & either you got played or you let it happen
There is the perception that no one looking out for HI SEC interests presently and rightfully so

If you are not in a spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliance even though you are the majority subscription wise you are becomming the whipping boy in many eyes

oh well, good for the aggressors. Now they'll never have the tables turned and be forced into something *they* don't want.

I mean of course the infinite mutual decs were stupid, but the fix is a hamfisted one

Looks to me now that between the big NULL SEC alliances & the HEAVILY WEIGHTED NULL SEC CSM that the HIGH SEC war decc system has been whittled down to a way for BIG ALLIANCES TO GRIEF the little guy with impunity even though that was not your intentions DEVs/DESIGNERS that is nowwhat we got & either you got played or you let it happen
There is the perception that no one looking out for HI SEC interests presently and rightfully so

If you are not in a spacerich NULL/lo/WH alliance even though you are the majority subscription wise you are becomming the whipping boy in many eyes

A middling alliance in HI SEC acually is way worse off then a small corp though becuase now it becomes a target that can't fight back with the agressor consequences of dogpiling or mutual decc'ing which got eviscerated.

The way the war dec system is now growing a large HI SEC alliance capable of challenging any NULL alliance has too many barriers of entry & there will NEVER be a large enough HI SEC alliance that can put a loud enough voice into the CSM thus HI SEC politically will be too fragmented to ever have a say in CSM politics again