Test Server Feedback

You are my favorite CCP. EVER!

Ignoring the buildup of mostly useless back and forth...

I wanted to pitch in what few cents I have with my experiences. It was mentioned that having unlimited allies was not desirable, and yet now we have a lot of back and forth about Isk formulas and...other bits and bobs. Instead of all of those, why not set it so that a defending group can only have allies until they come close to matching half, or a fourth of the other side? In theory, the active pilots on each side would reflect this ratio to some degree - it can be difficult to get so many people together at once - and instead of bringing a full balance to things (which would go with what CCP Soundwave said in an earlier post), there would still be a difficult fight for the defender that chose to Mutual. After all, mutual-ing against stronger groups is just asking to have your hulls taken, and hiring a couple merc groups to bring in some additional firepower could work to tip the tides of war without it being a pushover (read: blob) fight on either side. (It may also bring some better focus to the point of a "Mercenary Marketplace", but that is not something in my experiences.)

In the end though, this isn't the only thing I'd like to pitch in a few pennies to. Though I wasn't around for pre-Inferno FW, I've noticed a couple key points about the current state from a bit of skinny dipping. Removal of Ewar effects from FW NPCs doesn't matter much in the context of the larger fleet battles, but when you're a soloist or a duo/trio (in friendly territory), those target dampeners can be a life saver; in addition, that is taking into effect the lack of incentive for defending a controlled system, yielding little or no LP for time spent. To contrast my own complaint though, I do understand one possible benefit, being that it's more likely to get an enemy to engage when there's damage being taken sans Ewar fx and that the LP rewards for killing enemies are likely being encouraged.

Though, in effect, one (or a fleet) may as well work to plex down enemy systems while not saving more than a couple key systems of their own. An issue for another precursor patch or expansion, but still a thought to be had.

*Throws half-isks...because it is amusing that ‘cents’ are still around.*

------- Cut by ISD Stensson -------

My question is, if fights are supposed to be one sided then what compulsion is there for new subscribers to give the game a chance? Play for a bit, get completely dominated, go to another game where they actually stand a chance of having fun.



Also, why is it mercs are supposed to have a functional role in Eve but high sec miners are expected to get roflstomped by anyone flying around in cheap, throw away ships. Oh wait... Eve isn't supposed to be fair so miners just have to suck it up and be willing to get owned by anyone in a destroyer or bigger.



Anyway, to make sure I follow the rules and provide some discussion.

I don't like the proposed changes to the war dec system. Allies should choose their own time frame for being allied, not have it artificially determined for them. When an ally signs up there should be one week, two week, one month, duration of war options and then they can negotiate the cost based on length of contract.

I think larger entities should have to pay more, a lot more, for declaring against someone smaller. Wars are a mechanic but they should be something that offers some interest in the game for both parties. Forcing smaller groups to suck it up and not log on or pay through the nose to get enough support is stupid.

All the current changes do is promote bullying, but since Eve isn't about fair fights I reckon bullying is actually what the Dev's want the players to participate in. Obviously the stronger/bigger group should have all the fun and everyone else is just there to provide targets.

I think allies should be allowed in mutual wars, again with the time limit established at the start of the contract.


As for mercs, seems to me the best way to revive the merc profession is to design a simple way for them to offer their services, have some form of accountability if the mercs fail to live up to the contract, and to allow the players to dictate times, fees, and what not. Building rigid stipulations on hiring mercs just makes it less likely to fool with hiring someone that may or may not be useful and will be gone if things turn bad.

Edit: Rumors removed - ISD Stensson

This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive.

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson

Reguarding the wardec situation

-Concords 'you have too many allies fee' be a one time charge
-Mutual wars can have allies (this is essential to making the people doing the wardeccing feel the same dread as the wardecced) causing a reversal and repercussions. No one should be able to get out of something they started so easily.
-At the end of each merc contract it can be negotiated and continued if the war hasn't ended
-Once the merc's drop out of a mutual war, they cannot re-enter it

This would let me have my cake and eat it too, and the only ones who get boned are grief-deccers. cough cough

Training that skill higher means the module adjusts its resistance balance quicker. Yet you choose to complain about capacitor cost?

You are not forced to use that module. This is the future that the EVE developers are considering: everything has a drawback, and the things that give you even better bonuses give you even worse drawbacks. So you really need to get used to looking at the positives.

I'm sorry, i'm off-topic but, with my poor english skill and my carebear eyes, i have some comments :

1) In the first part of the Topic, there is about Mercenarie's market. Can someone explain me how can it (will) work, with this wardec system ?

2) I'm new here , so i'm my mind, High is for the casu-peacefull player who want to enjoyed a low reward- low risk gameplay, and allow Null sec big alliance ( which choose high reward -not so risky gameplay ) to eternally wardec any high structure ( alliance or corpo ) to "deny" it grown and become a threat or simply for fun. I want to know what is the long term goal planned by ccp with the wardec tool : make a block tool, to change empire to a kind of low sec with everyone in npc corp or in powerblock one ( to avoid wardec ) or simply a new way to make pvp without low/null sec specificity.

3) It's strange but this topic remind me primary school, a lot of fighting , a lot of taunting, nobody listen , everybody shout and cry In one hand jade who want to defend her position which is honorable, in another hand the goon lobby and stuck in the middle the CCP dev who try to do their job. In not here to say something , but we all love EVE and to keep it as great game it's important to stay focus to the topic , i think we are all great people, and CCP are always listening to his userbase. In few word , i think it's not a place for personal or lobbying warfare.

So the skill makes your module cycle faster which in turn makes it shift resistance to block incoming damage more frequently.

It sounds like you are trying to compare the resist % vs. the cap cost to determine effectiveness of the module, but in this case wouldn't you have to compare the incoming damage reduction vs. cap cost to get a true gauge of the effectiveness?

Depending on the amount of incoming damage the higher cap cost could actually end up being more efficient then the slower cap burn with slower resist change. The efficiency of this module will only be seen when engaging foes with multiple damage types while fighting a homogeneous opponent isn't the most effective use. Then again you don't pick this module because you know what you're going against, you pick it because you want the advantage of having on the fly resist changes while using fewer slots to cover the resist holes. The added cap cost is basically the same as running a Neut on someone who's already capped out. You're not getting maximum return on each cycle of your neut but the cap cost is worth the benefit you receive.

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.

This thread needs one of those bad.