Shiho Nishizumi

You mean the ones you invariably go radio silent on because you can't back up your stance? Given my grasp on the whole situation (I've been inquired a fair bit over the past week for stuff pertaining to this), it honestly sounds like you're just bypassing the disagreements by the dev team and coming here to try to gain some traction for stuff that only you and Pre think that is good.

Why do you pretend to care about feedback, when you just ignore that which you don't like, public or otherwise?

The point is that Under is a disliked and distrusted figure which automatically reduces the legitimacy/value of whatever he touches or is involved in. This isn't just because he was a jackass last war. This is also because he's inept and prone to trolling for the sake of it (this is simply overshadowed by the former). It's not for naught that his rep as a mod is far from stellar, and why the alliance he de-facto leads is a worthless husk. He has nothing worthwhile to contribute that only he could say, which is why people are even more baffled by you thinking that he'd make a good addition, especially in the face of criticism levied by people from virtually all the spheres which aren't tied to him. Once you have the time to do so, I'd suggest you sit down for a second, and reevaluate how much you think that you actually know about the game and the community which plays it. Because decisions like these, which are taken in spite of overwhelming opposition/disagreement from the community, come across as "I'm better informed than you lot, which is why I think that this is a good idea", which, to be blunt, you are not. And it's quite the arrogant position to think that you know better than the people who actually play the game and interact with the individuals you seemingly hold in high regard.

I have to genuinely wonder if this is him being his usual self, or is he actually taking the royal piss out of everyone.

The lack of proper direction and knowledge renders any seemingly noble intentions meaningless. This thread encapsulates the current SNAFU, if nothing else. Unpopular idea pushed by someone incapable of defending it from counterpoints seemingly gains the admin's attention/favor. With no clarification of what is to be about the previous suggestion, on top of that (and as Valk mentioned earlier). Then it's wondered why people can't be bothered to contribute.

Except the beige he's testing out is neutered in accordance to his priorities/considerations, which haven't changed. Expecting him not only to return to old beige (which he clearly doesn't intend to do), but implement one which, for his purposes/considerations, is even worse, is unrealistic. Before beige got removed, they could escape if they put the effort into it anyways. As for flaws, just to cite a few: People intentionally UF'ing (mind you, this was already happening to some degree last war), so to still kill units whilst not grinding resistance (so to deny beige to their foe). Thing is, there'd be a much higher incentive to do this now, since being just one res below the other guy would deny him the beige. Given that the infra/loot damage would also be fractioned, rather than the full value, taking this beige wouldn't be as punitive either. And no, the trade ratios wouldn't be that much of an issue with air, due to how dogfights work. It wouldn't just be a matter of people not wanting to win their wars (which seemingly bothers Alex); people wouldn't even want to win those individual battles. This is also a further nerf to aggression. Being the aggressor has it's own set of costs, which include political ones, if not properly justified (it doesn't matter that you're tired about that "old song and dance"; other people aren't, and it's a relevant matter for politics, and it'll continue to be a relevant matter for politics). It also takes genuine effort to put together a good offensive. These costs and efforts should come with a set of tangible benefits of their own. One of them being conventional control. This benefit has already been nerfed with the casualties reduction. Given that it's already harder to bring these nations down, they shouldn't just be able to rebound effortlessly. Else, there would be no incentive to be the aggressor, which would lead to no one wanting to be such, and with it, a staler (read:boring) game. And no, there isn't much disruption that'll happen, given that you'd be able to hold beige for 16 days. This is guaranteed two war cycles if all wars expires; else, it'd be more. It's simply too long for such to be possible, as you'd be all but guaranteed to get more than enough beige time for a comeback. I'd also suggest you actually try to address the point raised by them, rather than just smugly reduce them to one or two talking points and discard out of hand. You're the one trying to argue for this mechanic; make a proper defence for it.

If anything, it'd be worse in that regard. But yes, I fail to see the point in making a suggestion which so heavily runs counter to Alex's stance on the matter. Unless if Alex changed his mind (unlikely), it's just going to be rejected. That's nothing to say of the flaws already listed, and that others may list as well.

And again, if the concern is moderation, just rewrite the rule so that it only concerns itself with allies slot filling. What's defined as an ally? Direct ties and whoever is in their temporary coalition. It'd be easier to change (especially given the bugs that invariably follow an update), it'd net the same end result, and it'd avoid having another rather poor update be pushed out. It simply makes more sense as a whole.

It's evident they do not.

Again, I don't see what is preventing Alex from simply rewriting the rules to acknowledge the reality at hand. It'd be preferable as it's easier to modify that than it is to rewrite the code and have it not be bugged for weeks on end (on top of the initial time invested which is much more substantial).

Just have slot filling be limited to keeping allies from filling each other's slots, and call it a day. Maybe make an exception for some really obvious cases (example, guy in an AA at war declares on some people not at war, who would have the incentive to beige him ASAP to get rid of him) if you'd like. It definitely doesn't warrant making it nigh-impossible for someone downed to rebound.

He mentioned in Thalmor's Radio Show that all he gets from this, is being able to list it on his CV.

Meh. It's a largely superfluous (if not detrimental, mainly for raiders) mechanic, as implemented in that set of test changes (assuming that glaring flaw does get patched).

Whilst I appreciate the intent, this is worthless. For the simple reason that people can have one of the D slots rush a beige, and the other two peace out before that beige time ends (while pinning in between), thus resulting in no meaningful beige time for the defender. This doesn't even include the other problems present (no beige for off wars, 5 days of beige not actually being enough to rebuild to max [due to staggering], among other things).

Oh, he's using the community alright. Albeit just the unpaid labor and a middleman to take the heat for him. Understatement of the month. I mean; as was said above, it's getting implemented regardless. The reason being that Alex has an explicit, vested interest in *not* having a beige-like mechanic (because he cbf to properly moderate or hire someone to do it for him), so he's going to pick the more flawed, untested alternative to it simply due to that. And yes, it's unsurprising that people likewise cbf to provide more feedback when the heaps of pre-existing ones were rejected out of hand (due to the aforementioned interest, among over things). Especially in the manner in which it happened.