Test Server Feedback

It wasn't what I originally asked you to do, which was add something effective rather than extending the flame war and making personal remarks, it's contradiction. This is a feedback thread. Offer up something that will suggest that it is good or bad rather than saying that a person is just plain wrong because it's what -you- believe. That person has absolutely nothing to do with your feedback on what is being proposed.

I checked, and I have made 42 (heh) posts in this thread supporting this change, as seen on Sisi, as a short term measure to stop the massive problem currently being seen and reported by mercenaries in highsec - with conditional statements that it will need iteration.

How is this not feedback?

You're the one here now claiming .... I don't know what. Which is why I am asking you if you have a point to make?

I like this. An excellent idea!

Wow that sounds great! if only there was a way to make sure the punch actually hits something when the weaker defender and his new allies strike, instead of the attacker simply dropping the war when it gets too hot in the kitchen.

Making the war mutual, locking the attacker into the war, pummeling him with your allies into a 'Treaty of Versailles'-style surrender or into disbandment. Finally! Inferno understands the consequence for war-dec agression!

WRONG!!!



You do realize that misplaced need for 'fair fighting' will make mutual wars as utterly useless as pre-Inferno right?

No weaker defender will EVER declare a war mutual if he can't get allies to help out (yes you can get additional wardecs, but winning mutual wars are too long-winded affairs for mercs, so you need 'free' allies).

No mega-corp entity will ever declare the wardecs of privateers or mercs mutual, being more happy to be rid of these annoying guerilla-style hub campers, forced to retract eventually by the the massive warbill.

Wars in between these situation SIMPLY DON'T HAPPEN, so there will be no wars to declared mutual EVER

One exception, as it was pre-Inferno: RvB war-dec and their never-ending gimped form of TF2-PvP.

Congratulations CCP, not only did you make CCP Soundwave's statement look totally ridiculous, with the additional removal of the dogpile consequence, you've managed to completely undo every new emergent gameplay and actual consequences from Inferno's war-dec update.

I guess I was wrong in thinking CCP finally understood high-sec war-dec gameplay.

I hate to say it, but this fix is not good.

Firstly it's revealed just after goons get their tails bitten; and we know they petition anything that is ever so slightly unfair (petitioning Thorn Syndicate's totlly legit (later confirmed by CCP) tactic of baiting logis to aggress and killing them, anyone?) Telling the people paying you to make their game (your customers) to basicaly STFU is neither professional nor a good idea, when what you should have said is 'We discovered a loophole a few weeks ago and are fixing it.' which at least would have been some evidence that you started trying to fix the issue before goons declared war.

Look at it from the rest of the playerbase's perception; when Goons exploit (wrong word really because you say exploits are bad - personally I think they are great and show real intelligence) the system and gank freighters with fleets of basically throwaway ships on throwaway characters that cost them about 1 hour of moon mining that's 'emergent content' but when another alliance figures out a way to lock the entire world in a war with the goons it's fixed coincidentally 2 days later.

It's really not a huge leap to make to connect the two.



Secondly (and the really important bit) its the wrong fix to the issue.

The fix should have been something like 'adding allies cannot be free if war is made mutual, making a war mutual will end ally membership of war and offer a reinvite' (minimum price maybe 1mil per member payable to concord?), combined with a 'allies can commit to a war for x days, and drop out after that unless they agree to continue'.

That would have fixed all the issues; and would not have brought CCP into disrepute.

• Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
• Allies can not be part of mutual wars – defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)

So Goon can seek to permanently fund Hulk killing in high sec, and to bully the tiny man with never ending wardecs, but people aren't allowed to band together behind The Star Fracture and hold them to account?????

Goon sponsored CCP nerf???

NC. Ladies and Gentleman. You realize that this has nothing to do with suicide ganking and the people who are doing the majority of the ganking aren't even in goons. It's almost like goons have unlimited money because of a mutually profitable cartel between several large 0.0 alliances, but NC. wouldn't have anything to do with that would they?

Also, "Goon sponsored CCP nerf?" would mean that Goons just nerfed CCP. English is a hard language.

I don't forsee any of the above changes affecting he REAL problem of why Vanguard participation. The Override Transfer Array's (OTA's) are the real issue now and end up stacking like pancakes like the NCN do in Assaults. This is true in lo,null, and hi SEC. The Sansha Inluence bar change will go towards helping null&lo especially but not until after something is done with the OTA's.
Also the Assaults in Escalation were promised to be sped up but only were in the NCNs (slightly) he OCDs were actually lengthened due to the addition of Augas and more Romi's. The NCS's times were actually lengthened due to the delay of waiting for all the triggers to be destroyed between each spawn causing the close range ships o wait for the long range ships to kill of every spawn ( evbenthough like right now every ship had to be destroyed this also has made the NCS's considerably more safer becausethey are not able to become 'pre-spawned' by griefers )

My last 0.02 ISK before UNSUBBing in protest of the Incursion Esclation NERF's destruction of so many communities and the lack of listening to the feedback by DEVs in the forums by people that actually do Incursions.
The 2 rollbacks are a slap in the ace DEVs

Feedback is only as good as the most vocal in the community. Hundreds, if not thousands, don't even browse the forums and don't have any clue as to what is going on in this discussion. Might like the changes, might not. I don't have a CSM representative from my alliance and am still waiting on a response to speak with -someone- about certain issues, so my voice isn't as privy here on the forums, it seems.

I think we should honestly just get a survey going and vote on these things. People throw out quotes like "the majority of people aren't going to like this" or "the majority of people -are- going to like this", but the simple fact of the matter is: The majority of the people are not -YOU-. Let statistics prove what's really going on.

I'm not one to seek validation from strangers to see whether or not I'm right or wrong, though. Despite disagreeing with the views, they don't even affect me what-so-ever. Watching from the side-lines, however, I'm still seeking an answer as to why we're implementing changes so quickly to a such a new feature other than 'x' amount of people (which are not the 250,000+ subscribers as a whole) complained.

I'll also point out that majority votes supported segregation, slavery, anti-women voting and just about everything else you can name before it got changed.

Statistics can only show you what the masses think and should never form policy directly.