EVE Information Portal

I completely agree with your take on this situation:

1. The largest alliances haven't asked for this change. I'm not sure where you're getting this information but it has yet to reach me. From reading the thread on Sisi they seem to be making it abundantly clear that they don't care about this feature.

2. We're doing this change based on CSM and merc feedback, which was to restrict the option to get as many free allies as the defender wanted so mercs could profile their services more visibly. What we disagree with is the practical solution to this issue; they wanted one tailored to mercs and the option I chose was one that was more balanced. This means that corps and alliances have the option to go with a smaller group of elite people or simply throw a ton of cash at getting a lot of allies in. At the end of the day, this is the more flexible option, which is much healthier for EVE as a whole.

Why oh why are we still tlaking about the wardec system? and seriously do you honestly think the goons or ANY large allianc ein nullsec gives a f*ck about wardecs? Nullsec, only an idiot would be in highsec on his main hauling etc, thats why we all have alt corps and such.

:Hfive:

So would you care to comment on the following quote from the one CSM member present at your meeting on wardecs with the most actual experience of mercenary work and wardecs Soundwave?



I said it appears you have ignored the opinion of the CSM by implementing this particular set of changes. Alekseyev Karrde (who was at the meeting) says that you put the only suggested "solution" that the entire CSM present advised against directly onto the test server.

I don't really get how you can say I'm fabricating this without also calling your CSM member for fabricating things.

You're putting words in the CSM rep's mouth and then claiming they're being contradicted. Stop imagining conspiracies and work with the facts already, holy crap.

AS A NOTE TO CCP/Soundwave/devs:

I still think that most of nullsec would enjoy the ability to be able to set wardec-types...

Nullsec only = Free but no killrights or flagging in lowsec or highsec ... but you get the nice stat tracking and kill tracking etc, i'd say make this free or very low cost since theres no concord bribery

Nullsec + Lowsec = Lowsec kill rights so no gate agressions vs enemys, mid cost to low cost as its also not that big its more for stat tracking the war, and some bribery to gateguns :)

Standard wardec / high / null / low killrights, normal costs like it is now.....

I'm saying you're fabricating things because you're incorrectly making assumptions about meetings you have no information about. Unless you have read rights to the CSM forum you can't accurately gauge our communication with the CSM. Secondly a CSM member just posted on this page saying he supported the changes.

The function of the CSM has never been to dictate changes. If that was the case, we'd be building features to suit individual people, which isn't going to happen. The CSM meetings aren't where features are designed either, so if we talk about things at meetings that doesn't lock us into a certain development path. We had a chat with the CSM, we agreed on that a change was needed but at the end of the day we didn't chose the patch Alekseyev wanted because I felt it catered too much to a specific playstyle which very people engage in at the cost of everyone else.

Your assumption that we "don't listen" is entirely incorrect, and either grounded in the fact that you have no idea what goes on between us and the CSM at closed door or because you selectively choose to believe that "listen" means "do what they tell us", which it certainly doesn't. This topic has been discussed at length with the CSM on their forum, regardless of of what your theory about the subject is.

Anyway, I understand you disagree with the feature and that's fine, but after reviewing the feedback this is the direction that I at the end of the day chose.

You know there is a way to have our Mercs and eat the cake too. Go with the limits on allies after a wardec to help the merc market out (and a merc market interface!) and ohh lets see how to let smaller entities band together..... INSTAL A DAMN TREATY SYSTEM ALREADY. You could allow the corps or alliances that are all party to a specific treaty to join a war IF they where a party to the treaty prior to the war being declared for instance, and yet if the war goes south, mercs are an option. Let the players decide the terms of their treaties such as whom they will or will not come to support and which aggressors trigger that, and let the sand flow.

The entire ally system is totally bogus and has been right from the start. We already had allies, via alliances.

What we needed was a mercenary marketplace, not a redundant ally system that doesn't even really work.

Sure, and I was careful to say "CSM AT THE MEETING" opposed your change. As far as I'm aware the CSM member who supported your change on this thread was not at the meeting. And in any case, I'm just quoting what Alekseyev Karrde posted.



Obviously I can't comment on the patch Alekseyez wanted because he hasn't told us. My comment on this thread and elsewhere was that you chose to implement a change that Alekseyez told us the CSM at the meeting universally downvoted. I quite understand the CSM's role is not to dictate changes but to sanity check proposals and as I've pointed out here you went ahead with this change against the advise of the CSM on this specific "fix".



Okay. Well I asked yesterday who wanted it pushed through and you've answered me ... thanks. Obviously when I say "you didn't listen" I mean - you decided to disregard the CSM's collective advise not to adopt the fix you decided on.

Its clear you have made your mind up and there is no room for discussion or compromise here so be it.