Stuff about exploit

Why are the T1 not going onto the market.

This is r_tarded.

ALL T1 items should have a T1 BPO seeded onto the market. Otherwise how are people going to be able to produce BPC's and T2 variants in the future.

CCP how can you be doing so well to drop the ball at the last hurdle.

Does the magsheath break the locks of ships immune to electronic warfare (titans, supercarriers)?

I still maintain that the GÇ£pay for number of targetsGÇ¥ logic is wrong-headed GÇö no matter the base cost and any diminishing returns, it only ever means that small targets will be picked on and that dec-shielding will become the standard.

Make it a relative measure: you pay for number imbalance.

abs( ln( attacker size / target size ) / ln( size multiplier ) ) +ù imbalance cost + base cost.

In other words, for every [size multiplier] times larger or smaller the target is than the attacker, the cost increases by a factor of [imbalance cost], with a minimum price tag of [base cost]. This gives you a lot of variables to play with: how cheap will any war be (base cost)? How much do I have to pay to bully a small guy or annoy a large guy at the Jita undock (imbalance cost)? And, most interestingly, what actually counts as having an GÇ£unfair numerical advantageGÇ¥ (size multiplier)?

E.g.
A size multiplier of 1.5, imbalance cost of 50M and base cost of 5M GÇö for every 50% increase in the size difference between target and aggressor, the war becomes 50M ISK more expensive with a minimum cost of 5M for perfectly equal sizes.

-+ A 10-man corp attacking a 1-man corp (or vice versa): 289M ISK.
-+ A 10-man corp attacking a 20-man corp (or vice versa): 90M ISK.
-+ A 3,500-man corp attacking a 5,000-man corp: 49M ISK.
-+ A 5-man corp attacking a 5,000-man corp: 857M ISK.

I couldn't agree more. As primarily a fleet PvP player, I've had a lot of experience with small to mid size fleets and the need for DPS in addition to tank. Currently, at least within the FW community (and as I touched on in a recent guest opinion blog), Gallente ships are shunned from armor fleets for having delayed and/or low DPS from drones, short ranges, and low amounts of tankability in comparison with Amarr and Minmatar ships. Now finally CCP has decided to give a buff to drone boats but at the expense of the already weak Gallente fleet usability.

While I can understand not wanting to have it a high slot fitting (even if I disagree), at the very LEAST it should be a mid slot to harmonize fitting with omni-directional tracking links. This way it is no different than turret (or some missile) based systems that have both tracking and damage modifiers requiring the same slot. Gallente drone ships with their mid slots (5 on the Myrm, Ishtar, and Domi) would then have something to use those slots for other than EWAR and not gimp their already weak fleet abilities.

I thought I read on the test forums that the lock penalty is for fitting the module not for it being active, not tried it myself tho.

Bingo.

To be really clear: Fleet A members equip lock breakers in a mid-slot. Fleet B members equip a passive targeter in a mid-slot. Fleet A members won't know when to activate the lock breaker and will be suffering from lower scan res/lock times, giving Fleet B the advantage.

Ah well..

So that means I will now only dec corps where I don't need to pay more than 50mil.

Why keep they stacking charges though? Sometimes I wonder if the devs actually play this games.

Large alliances are going to get decced alot less... smaller corps is going to suffer more.

Just found out Crimewatch 2.0 will not be coming with inferno. So even with new war mechanics, we still have to put up with neutal rr.. is ccp going to do anything to fix that
with inferno. Or is war still going to be one sided?