Test Server Feedback

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 patchnotes 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.

Which devblog are you referring to?

Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. After all, someone who *wants* to fight the aggressor will likely just give the defender the ISK if its less than the cost of a wardec.

Also, as a real-world example, we had something like 30+ allies in a recent war, all offered free assistance, and none of who were involved in any kills/losses - its important to note that this isn't the 'mercenary marketplace' which was mentioned, and that should come later, but for now its a way to provide some repercussions for the aggressor.

All this will do is 'moderate' the numbers a little so the defender needs to be a little more selective.

Free 'mercs' != regular mercs who you hire to do stuff.

Even though I've always liked the idea of seeing missiles come from the old Drake's build in Missile Launchers I think the redesign looks pretty good. I'm kind of satisfied with it.

But my favorite feature on SISI right now is the Missile Flares. Finally Missiles aren't only almost unnoticable smokey trails on dark backgrounds.

Now just please redesign the Torpedo Explosion Effects, because they just look silly for a missile of that size. Almost undistinguishable compared to cruise or heavy missiles.

No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).

I love the V3'd minmatar ships, however the T1 ships I always imagined to be a bit darker, like the Tornado on TQ. With all the new shaders being brighter I also see another problem. The Caldari and Amarr ships I can live with, but Gallente ships does not look as good as they did once the first version of the new shaders came out. Personly I like the darker textures. Why? New Eden is not a stroll in the park, it is a dark universe we live in. I think that the darker textures fits better with that theme.

You are TOTALLY missing the point - with all due respect. Its not the defnders ability to defend them selves thats at issue here.

Its the fact that your system had a built in consiquence for getting in over your head. Pressing the "I want to go to war" button should be something you think about as it is on TQ right now that is the case.

You could find yourself you cant get out of untill you surrender or leave your corp/allaince.

What these changes do is remove that consiquence, wars are now back to "it not a important decision, its a random gameplay distratction". In essance you have made war less important and i am dam sure that wasnt part of your original design - It sure as hell wasnt part of what we were told the design was, but i start to digress.

Defenders dont want additional toys, you gave them everything they need - they want to know if they go *all in* and get help from a wide range of people - that they can make sure that the allaince/corp/entity in question that agressed knows there are lasting consiquences.

A 100 man allaince (for example) might never do enough damage to seriously harm a 1000 man allaince - But if that 100 man allaince knows they might get stuck with a war forever - that is on terms they cant dictate - they might think twice about pushing that button.

consiquence's are core to eve stop removing them. (infuriatingly just affer you added them).

/trying not be be rant, just rather disapointed.

Not only do I not acknowledge it, I have and will continue to actively refute it. I want this thread to be relevant to teams collecting *valid* feedback on their features and so hereforth will be deleting any half baked conspiracy theories.

Right so how about we have a proper discussion of the numbers and implications of changes to the wardec system based around some solid examples and see if we can come to some useful conclusions?

So lets make a change the impacts allied lockin - allow allies to leave a mutual war with a 7 day down or whatever. Disallowing any allieds in a mutual war means that a large entity wardeccing a small one can never be effectively mutualled and thus cannot ever really be brought to a meaningful surrender. This change is throwing out the baby with the bathwater and the issue you raise could be addressed without wielding a baseball bat rather than a scalpel. (alternatively of course the 2 week contract period solves that first problem completely, allow auto renewal at preference and all is good).



Okay so lets make another small change instead.

If aggressing entity has a membership larger than the defending entity (+all their allies) then the defending entity can call allies exactly as the system works now.

If the aggressing entity has a membership smaller than the defending entity then the defender can still call allies but for every ally who is added the attacker can also add an ally.

This allows escalation on both sides and will lead to a more dynamic and evolving war environment.