EVE Information Portal

If we also skip people who have swallowed the false premise that this is a change to "aid large alliances" then there are very few posters other than the CSM (who agree it needs to change) and me.



You did, this is true.

You ALSO got schooled on your argument countless times yet still claim there has been no logical rebuttal of it. As soon as someone shoots down your proposal you just up and stop posting until it falls a couple of pages back, and then come back and say no-one has offered alternatives or reasons why it is wrong. You've not even denied this, either.

Frankly, if you were doing anything other than acting as a wholly self interested party you'd have backed down from the discussion by now. A low estimate of your posts so far on the subject would put it near 100,000 words.

If you discount the several folks posting in these threads, try this:

http://crossingzebras.com/post/25111790082/episodesix

Listen to Aleks explain how the CSM pretty much universally panned this solution and how Aleks was shocked and disappointed to see it rolled out to SiSi. Granted his preferred solution is probably more restrictive. But it still points to the currently planned 1.1 change as being rushed and not well thought out.

I agree that the "forever allied" feature was broken and needed fixing. The two week duration is a decent quick fix, but also think that their should not be a requirement for 24-48 timers before rejoining the war. That seems a bit silly.

This part should probably go out with 1.1. Being able to renew without a break should probably be worked on ASAP.



Somebody in your corp thought it was a good idea, even if you lament on it.

Many other situations come to mind. Indeed its already happened in several ways.

As an obvious example: If you just scale down the conflicts even say 50 man corp attacking a Vanity corp. He could rope in some of his friends and still be able to hire mercs without the bother of an Alliance (always troublesome since people may have to dissolve existing alliances to join, and its an added layer of politics). With this system he'd likely have to exclude at least some of his friends or just hire one corp instead of a couple of friends. It amuses (bemuses?) me that Jade is probably right. In many situations so-called "Mercs" (really PVP corps looking for targets of opportunity) will likely end up paying for the privilege of allying.



Two comments on this:

There are plenty more unbalanced conflicts and potential conflicts around. I do actually wish this wasn't just so focused on the Goon v Jade issue, because that's not the only place where the 1.0 and 1.1 wardec systems are broken.

Re goons and like-minded groups. Their MO is whenever they find a broken mechanic is to drive a Titan through it and extract as many pubbie tears as possible. Even while sometimes crying out for it to be fixed, to their credit. So if you don't include how something could be abused by the large alliances into design and game balance, you are opening yourself up to game breaking consequences. Shouldn't be the only consideration for sure, but it has to be evaluated.

In short:

I think, based on the negative reaction, analysis and counterproposals, CCP really ought to consider holding back on at least the Ally Fee structure, until something more palatable can be worked up. Two week duration is probably a good idea, but auto-renew should be added ASAP. I have mixed opinions on the mutual war excluding allies. I was never a fan of locking people into a forever war (unless a surrender is accepted) anyways.

PS - Ah well, Jade posted much of what I said. I'll leave this up here to reinforce that Jade is not alone here. I don't really want to agree with Jade, as I know that's not "cool". But unlike some folk, I believe that ideas should stand on their merits no matter where they come from.

I can understand that larger alliances want more risk free war decs

Don't try to put words in my mouth Twostep, its conduct unbecoming really. I have advised people to listen to what you had to say and make up their own minds as to what the motive for the exponential multiplier on defensive allies was. CCP soundwave said it was to boost the mercenary profession, I am merely pointing out that you certainly had another motive.



An equitable solution to the precise problem you point out has been offered, thus far you haven't provided any specific objection to that solution.

Even if the solution offered is evidently better than the changes we're currently looking at? I think you are letting your personal prejudices get in the way of doing the job you were elected to do. At this point you are not really achieving anything in your CSM role except painting the whole process in a rather unflattering light.

Given you have thus far "dodged" ANY substantive discussion on this issue I'm not sure you have the slightest cause for complaint.

You literally just summed up your time as CSM1 chair in a single sentence.

I agree that wardecs should be risky, but the risk should depend on the target actually expending some time and effort, not just clicking yes to a pile of free ally requests that come in. Basically there needs to be some costs or limits to allies so that a defender actually needs to choose which allies they invite into a war. Without that cost/limit, it will just be abused as a way to get cheap(er) wardecs against people that would normally be expensive to declare war on, which is clearly not what was intended.

I thought we weren't supposed to decide what the motivations and intentions were? Pretty unclear anyway considering the Merc Marketplace was changed to the Ally system at the last minute, and its primary function seemed to be to allow free allies almost to the exclusion of paid mercs. The logical inconsistencies around paying for targets vs restricting allies (aka targets) don't help.

Moot point anyway, since the people you are arguing with have proposed various alternatives to free allies, and no one seems to be in favor of it. Question is what's a reasonable response, and what's going to make it better?

It occurs that if a corp/alliance spends a lot of time making enemies and declares a war on someone, widespread volunteers for defending allies is a pretty reasonable response. Consequences to one's actions and all. Isn't that pretty consistent with the EVE way?

Honestly I think the "we aren't junior game designers" is over used and a bit of a cop out. It annoyed me during the campaign season as well. While true on the face of it, your function is to advise CCP. Ignoring alternative proposals to much criticized proposed changes doesn't seem like the best way to go about that, IMHO.

I'd just like to alert anyone who is not familiar with the depths of-----Edit----- that almost each and every member of the CSM has posted explicitly what they believe about this change in response to Jade, yet Jade-----Edit-----

No personal attacks, please

ISD Tyrozan
Ensign
Community Communications Liaisons
Interstellar Services Department