Test Server Feedback

It is a positive; the 5 second cycle makes the mod much more useful, the cap cost perhaps needs to be adjusted though, whether that is through base stat mod or through another skill I am unsure.

I like the neut analogy, it’s not the same but perhaps it should be noted that running the existing mod is almost the same as being under small neut pressure and that training the new skill to level 5 will take it’s cap level close to the level of a medium neut. On a mod that is already really only useful to ships that are having prolonged engagements i.e. massive buffer or active tank this to me restricts the mod to battleship level and up ships (perhaps T3).

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson

All skills that give a negative duration bonus to an active module have the side effect that they use more cap, this isn't new like you suggest.

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.

that's a pretty reasonable argument.

Yanno, I didn't know nations had to pay the United Nations in order to participate in wars. Clearly I have been mistaken and this is all influenced by real world example. Read the first few pages of this thread and the only thing I got out of it was this:

A handful of people giving feedback about the new changes to the war-dec system.

Goonswarm members making a few underhanded remarks that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, as seen here: "Nice to see that you remain delusional enough to think we'd pay you 5b isk per ally to end a war though."

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).

I'm not entirely sure how any of this is beneficial, and just from reading I'm starting to agree that these changes seem to be geared toward the larger alliances. Which, makes sense because if you have hundreds/thousands of people all clamoring about the same non-sense, it's only expected that they have the majority vote when it comes to a particular issue at hand. If five people say Denny's, and one person says Waffle House, where the hell are we going to wind up..?

I'm not taking sides. I will say that this -does- seem a bit rushed and that these changes haven't even been out for more than three weeks and we're already changing ****? Took years to figure out how to make Gallente usable but all of a sudden we care enough to make "fixes" three weeks in?

Just saying..

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

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.

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson

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

internalaffairs@ccpgames.com

If you think there's a fairness issue, or some shady behaviour, or just want to request the above, these guys will check it out. I don't want this post replied to and I will delete any following discussion of IA or where developers play EVE. Back on topic.

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.