| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Pere Madeleine
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
23
   |
Posted - 2012.05.14 22:40:00 -
[241] - Quote
Har Harrison wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Quote:WeGÇÖve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first. How is this a fix for corp hopping? People leave the corp to avoid the war, so why would they want to rejoin before the war is over? This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot).
Whether you suggested it with that intention or not, it's still a problem. What's the point in declaring war on people in order to disrupt their operations if all they have to do is jump out of corp and mine/run missions in a NPC corp for a week? |
Nevigrofnu Mrots
Heroes of the Past
Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:00:00 -
[242] - Quote
my 2 cents...
new mods are cool, but the seeding metodology chosen is not and breaks with the established convention, if they are meta 0 then the only way to seed then is using BPOs, any other seeding method, these must not be meta 0 but something else!
about the war dec formula, seams better, but there are still room to improvement:
1 - War cost formula should go both ways to make this fair, if a small corp/alliance targets a big corp/alliance it will pay for that (because it has more targets to shoot, discussable, but valid argument) but the other way arround should also be expensive, (I can argument that big people preying on small people should also be expensive). Make this formula go both ways!
2 - the war cost uses the enemy size but in my opinion it should use the diference between the attacking force and defending force size, that should be the variable that defines the cost the war, for example my force is 4000, my enemies 7000 then the magic number should be 3000 not 7000! ( the argument here is that we should want equal size / powerfull forces declaring war and fighting each other as much as possible, when that is not possible war costs should be high and the diference between the 2 should be variable to use and not the total number of pilots of the force that Im declaring war).
resume: war formula should go both ways in terms of costs and the number of pilots used in the formula should be diference between both forces in war. |
Cordo Draken
ABOS Industrial Enterprises
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:06:00 -
[243] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Cordo Draken wrote:Coupled with the Rig drawback and the Adaptive Damage mod for Armor Buff, It's Clear they hate Caldari and Shield ships... There is no Invulnerability Field or Anciliary Shield Booster for armor, therefore CCP clearly hates Amarr and armor ships. Is it really so bad for armor and shield tanking to be different and work differently? Them being the same would be the oh-so-feared "dumbing down" of Eve.
I'm fairly certain you know about EAMNs right? Which take better advantage of your resist skills due to their passive nature where Shield Invuls do not because they are active.
All Energy & Electronics Riggings have no drawbacks. thus, no drawbacks to Power grid giving rigs. So the question is more to what category do the CPU rigs belong... Electronics? So why a penalty to shields now to have this? Advantage to Armor.
BTW, I'm not saying that everything should be the same, they shouldn't, but this inconsistency with what it does and given the drawback applied, sticks out like a sore thumb.
The New Ancillary shield booster proposed, well hell, who knows how practical it's going to be. Ever see anyone use a Hull repairer? It's a LOL mod... this could be the same thing. Given what I've seen in this blog, I can't imagine it to much more than blow smoke up our arses. This whole expansion has little to be desired and right now I feel like we're all seeing History repeat it'self with CCP not really Truly listening to the whole community. Applying experience and utilizing Logic, doesn't seem to be their strong suite... Is it really THAT Hard CCP? Do you guys even QC your work? Effectively?
eëÆWhomever said, "You only get one shot to make a good impression," was utterly wrong. I've made plenty of great impressions with my AutocannonseëÆ eÉà |
Myxx
Blacklight Incorporated
Broken Chains Alliance
523
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:07:00 -
[244] - Quote
you're not addressing the 'leave corp and create new corp' exploit... |
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
507
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:09:00 -
[245] - Quote
Har Harrison wrote:This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot).
So by "corp hopping", CCP didn't mean corp hopping, but joining/leaving corps in space? Yet another exploit fix marketed as a feature 
What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644 |
Soldarius
United Highsec Front
The 99 Percent
218
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:29:00 -
[246] - Quote
MagSheath Target Breaker I: So, basically another ECM Burst, but with a slight twist: Works better vs large fleets, worse vs small fleets or solo enemies. Since its a BPC loot only module, it will be fairly rare. So, do you wanna use that rare module that may not work in a large fleet fight, where more tank and incoming reps would probably be more reliable?
Unless this thing has uber range, I don't see this seeing much use.
Extrinsic Damage Mod: Good idea. Now make it a high slot item and reduce the CPU cost from 40 to 30tf like every Gallente pilot is asking. Can only use so many drone link augmentors. Then you'll have a useful and desireable damage mod for drone boats. Stacking penalties will prevent this from becoming abusable.
"How do you kill that which has no life?" |
ORCACommander
Obsidian Firelance Technologies
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:31:00 -
[247] - Quote
I will flay you if you nerf my missiles again |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q
Iron Oxide.
345
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 00:00:00 -
[248] - Quote
The edit for capacitor batteries in the blog and their description on SISSI leaves alot of confusion. For example, if you equip:
Micro or Small:
-15% Nos effect
-7.5% Nuet Effect
Medium:
-20% Nos effect
-10% Nuet Effect
Large:
-25% Nos Effect
-12.5% Nuet Effect
And of course you get the extra capacitor. Nowhere in the description though does it say that the aggressor is penalized more then a diminished effect. |
Iam Widdershins
Diq Holdings
688
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 00:03:00 -
[249] - Quote
Eternal Error wrote:
If you're worried about neutral alts jumping in and immediately shooting, that was declared an exploit a long time ago.
I'm not. Perhaps you aren't familiar with who I am or what I do, and that's forgivable. But I have been playing in on and around corp-hopping for ages now, just like they say not to do with dumpsters.
Sitting in space and being accepted into corp right next to your target or even elsewhere in space in the system is not OK, has never been OK, and should never become OK. But if you are logged off, or sitting in a station, or on the other side of a gate it's all good and you can pounce as fast as the game allows.
In fact, I think it would be good to have a 15 minute post-acceptance delay to get intoany player corporation. Even a 5 minute one would be acceptable. Right now you can go from doing nothing in station to swapping corps and killing a war target or someone who's taken your corp's can in less than twenty seconds' warning, and I think that virtually any kind of delay would prevent this from being feasible.
Lobbying for your right to delete your signature |
Aversun
Systems Federation
Coalition of Galactic Unity
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 01:01:00 -
[250] - Quote
can anyone point me toward where i can read more about the proposed, but mostly likely not included micro jump drive? |
|
|
Poetic Stanziel
The Fancy Hats Corporation
864
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 01:16:00 -
[251] - Quote
Good work on the wardec cost calculation.
http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.ca/2012/05/cost-of-war.html
The STAIN Travel Bookmark Collection - 451 Bookmarks |
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
331
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 02:16:00 -
[252] - Quote
The new Wardec system seems an improvement over the old one, but it still fails. The whole idea of the cost being a payment for targets is just bizarre. Even accepting that as a good place to begin from the system still doesn't make any sense, since if you pay for targets based on numbers of individuals surely the war should stick to the individuals for the duration, in that they remain war targets regardless of corp hoping or going into an NPC corp... Either that or the war declarer gets a refund for every player that bails. I know it sounds silly, but the whole thing is silly.
I just seems to me EVE would have a far better War System requiring far less effort from CCP if we just rolled back to before the P. Alliance Wardec Nerf and added further penalties for being in NPC corps. |
Sheol Duncan
B0rthole
Test Alliance Please Ignore
56
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 03:58:00 -
[253] - Quote
For war costs:
Don't count inactive accounts, they aren't targets and they whole premise of increasing costs is that you have access more targets.
An account should only count once per alliance/corp |
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 04:09:00 -
[254] - Quote
Petrus Blackshell wrote:Vanessa Vansen wrote:missiles already suck at PvP. Which rock have you been living under? Vanessa Vansen wrote:Petrus Blackshell wrote:Callidus Dux wrote:Yeah! Because all missile ships are the best available PvP ships now. So they need to be nerfed more.  I didn't say they were. There is no "best available PvP ship". However, you can't reasonably get "under" the missiles of a Hookbill, Hawk, Drake, or Tengu (all popular ships) using almost any ship. Hell, I've seen HMLs blow up Warrior IIs, which just doesn't happen with any medium turret weapon system. And yet... they are exempt from tracking disruption? That just doesn't make sense. Oh, you forgot about Sacrileg and Legion Noticed that there is only 1 T1 ship (Drake) in the list. Now, take your time and figure out that list for the different turrets The comparison in the number of missile boats vs the number of turret boats is unbalanced because there are fewer missile ships. Also, I was listing prominently popular ships, not "good" ships. Good missile ships: Kestrel, Inquisitor, Merlin/Tristan (half-missile), Hookbill, Hawk, Vengeance, Malediction, all bombers, Caracal, Sacrilege, Huginn/Lachesis (sort-of missile), Tengu, Legion, Drake, Nighthawk, Typhoon, Raven, Golem. Bad missile ships: Breacher (utter ****), Cerberus (missiles not great for sniping), Phoenix/Leviathan (can't do tracking bullshit like XL turrets can) Just because a ship is not popular does not mean it's bad. In fact, it may even be better than expected, because people don't expect it. T1 missile ships aren't on that list because... well... there just aren't that many of them.
You named a few ships but which of those have you ever seen in PVP (Golem?)? |
Echorest
Y N HUH
WUT ALLIANCE
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 04:23:00 -
[255] - Quote
I like all of the changes here.
The Lockbreaker module is clearly for use by lowsec mission runners, there you are with the whole of The Blockade on your ass and some joker flies in, webs you, points you and watches the mission rip you a new one in his T1 frig because you can't speed tank for example.
With the lockbreaker, you already have 80 ships targeting you, the last thing you need is a pirate gank squad, this gives you an out where previously there was none, and the locking time isn't much of a penalty in missions.
As for the war dec cost, who the hell is crying over 50m being too costly, thats one large level 4, a moderate exploration find, an hour of mining or some strip miners from the hulk you just ganked. It has been stated that it will cost 50m up to the 150 character mark or there abouts.
The per capita cost of declaring war is laughable, and if you in your 10 man corp really want to blow up goons, AAA, Uni, or RvB, hell i bet they would happy to declare war on you if you asked, or annoyed them enough.
Also, CCP asked for any new module ideas, here is mine.
An Auto Salvage Targeter, Basically like your standard auto targeter, but instead of hostile targets it automatically targets wreck and / or cargo containers. This would reduce the wear on my mouse from control clikcing all those wrecks after a mission. A small QOL module that i would like to see, with a 1.5s cycle time. |
RavenTesio
Liandri Corporation
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 04:34:00 -
[256] - Quote
You named a few ships but which of those have you ever seen in PVP (Golem?) while using missiles?[/quote]
Once, but didn't last very long... simply because Active Tank Battleships are honestly just too squishy for the amount of damage they receive.
I mean you can say "Oh but it has a passive / buffer similar to a Drake" or such, but reality is a Drake is (can't believe I'm saying this) nimble and small enough to shrug off alot of incoming damage. Battleships, even T2 get the full brunt of whatever is shooting them.
Honestly the Active Tanking on them is disproportional to the damage they can sustain. |
Mars Theran
EVE Rogues
EVE Rogues Alliance
216
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 05:00:00 -
[257] - Quote
I find the big, bold "This is the End, My Friend" a tad disturbing. Negative conotations much? Hopefully it doesn't spell out the future of EVE and hopefully the Devs aren't suggesting that is what they want or are trying to achieve with this.
I should relax more.
New modules are cool. I like the Magsheath and assume it is a Highsec capable module unlike the ECM burst which just gets you Concorded. Has a very good chance anyway.
Some of the other modules are cool too. Drone Rigs should go a long way to making all other Drone Rigs non-existent. What? Yes.. non-existent; but then they pretty much already are, so this is likely the first that will gain popularity.
..and stuff.
Much discussion has already occured surrounding the War changes. Not sure how the 50 million base cost will fly or affect things, but overall seems a good ideea.
I'm hesitant and will reserve judgement for now. It is a pretty major expansion with some serious changes there really isn't any way to know which way things are going to go, but at least it should add some fun stuff. More options is always good.
Also, I do like that professions will be boosted by the BPC drops. No need to seed the market if the BPCs are available that way in all Sec. If it was just Null, I think it would be a problem.
Cheers,
M
Alliance Auction - EVE Rogues: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1215438#post1215438 |
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
85
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 05:46:00 -
[258] - Quote
This blog just shows a fundamental failure to understand the reasons behind wars, the mechanics they operate in, why some people might prefer not to be hotdropped in low/null sec from across the universe at any moment and most importantly, how the war dec system ended up as it is now in the first place.
I even went out of my way to explain in length what the events leading to the current situation here. With none of the underlying issues addressed nothing will change other than people being disuaded by the ridiculous pricing scheme. High sec war deccers have to pay ISK as it stands for what is essentially low quality content that revolves around being in or near Jita which is unusual as most professions don't, raising the price by 1000% will just make them give up entirely.
SoniClover and team superfriends clearly have no clue about the evolution of EveOnline warfare. These changes bring nothing to the table that could restore what was once an enjoyable part of the game. CCPs only success here is to protect the 0.0 alliances that need protection the least and to look after alts in 0.0 running private highsec pos empires - they will afterall, be able to have their main alliance + whatever mercenaries join their war - team superfriends amirite?
Still, it's not the end of PvP quite yet, there's still 0.0 where no-one does anything unless a timer tells them too, where alpha and numbers are king. Or there's lowsec, where bored 0.0 alliances hotdrop their full super cap fleet because there isn't a timer for them that night and people camp gates with impunity thanks to CCPs lack of fundamental understanding of how Ship Maintenance Bays work - looking forward to the fix in 2016, which is around how long it took them to fix neutral remote reppers.
Another blog, more rapidly diminishing content. Looking forward to the coming blog on the mercenary interface that relies so heavily on war dec mechanics. |
POS Trader
Merchants of Lore
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 06:26:00 -
[259] - Quote
Har Harrison wrote:Just to confirm - locks only get broken between your ship and the person targetting you right? Any other lock they have will still hold?
Is breaking a lock considered a "hostile" act. E.g. someone is yellow boxing me in high sec and I activate my module. Will this get me concorded since I have not attacked them or aggressed them - just potentially broken the lock. An argument on if it should/shouldn't count as an aggressive act can technically be made both ways. No harm done to them and they can relock vs ECM counts as an aggressive act.
TD should not effect missiles. They are a different platform and have issues like time to apply DPS as their disadvantage AND the DEFENDER missile is already the counter. Note that a TD effects the SHIP and therefore the weapons. How can a TD effect MULTIPLE missiles in a volley???
The entire point of a module is to break away from the "primary, secondary" target calling PvP is in 0.0. Also very useful for command ships and stuff like that.
Defenders are not used at all because they suck and don't work against blobs. I hope this works against missiles too as otherwise we'll just get drake blobs.
I think the Great Hope for this module is to break up blobs into a large number of small PvP battles, like squads vs. squads instead of the stupid blobs we have today.
|
RubyPorto
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
1499
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 06:31:00 -
[260] - Quote
gfldex wrote:Quote:Trial accounts are not counted when counting corp membership. We considered extending this to inactive accounts too, but as this is a fairly low percentage overall, decided to not exclude them. Note also that members in corps/alliances allied to the defender are never counted. That means I can start a trial, untrial it with a PLEX and leave the char in my corp forever? I would go so far to say, that this is the most easy to game system in EVE then. Could you explain to me why T2 BPO holder are pretty much immune from wardecs while the 3-RL-friends-corp is not?
The cool thing is that with the Buddy invite program, you can make an unlimited number of inactive toons to put in your corp (3 per buddy account) and then you get your Plex back when you're done. I'll bet that it wouldn't take more than a day to fill a corp with a few hundred toons (a few thousand if you have some help). Let's go 10k inactive Dec Proof corps.
Single-Shard, Player Driven-áSandbox.
5 words. That's what makes it special. |
|
|
Captain Thunk
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 06:32:00 -
[261] - Quote
POS Trader wrote:Har Harrison wrote:Just to confirm - locks only get broken between your ship and the person targetting you right? Any other lock they have will still hold?
Is breaking a lock considered a "hostile" act. E.g. someone is yellow boxing me in high sec and I activate my module. Will this get me concorded since I have not attacked them or aggressed them - just potentially broken the lock. An argument on if it should/shouldn't count as an aggressive act can technically be made both ways. No harm done to them and they can relock vs ECM counts as an aggressive act.
TD should not effect missiles. They are a different platform and have issues like time to apply DPS as their disadvantage AND the DEFENDER missile is already the counter. Note that a TD effects the SHIP and therefore the weapons. How can a TD effect MULTIPLE missiles in a volley??? The entire point of a module is to break away from the "primary, secondary" target calling PvP is in 0.0. Also very useful for command ships and stuff like that. Defenders are not used at all because they suck and don't work against blobs. I hope this works against missiles too as otherwise we'll just get drake blobs. I think the Great Hope for this module is to break up blobs into a large number of small PvP battles, like squads vs. squads instead of the stupid blobs we have today.
Won't have a significant effect when there's 100+ maelstroms that have you locked and firing. This module is useless in traditional 0.0 warfare. |
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
45
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 06:58:00 -
[262] - Quote
I realy don't get this, this whole forum is chattering how bad the delayed damage is on Missile's that they're only PvE weapons and shoot now be used for anything else.
And all I've seen now is: Reducing load time on turrets, removing T2 penalties on on T2 turret weapons, boosting of Hybrid weapons, removing launcher hard point from the Merlin. (not that I'm against it)
and now talk of disrupting missiles and nerving the main missile PvP platform the Drake.
If missiles are so bad and only for PvE-ing carebears, why all this need to reduce their effectiveness?
Personaly I don't like the idea of TD's afecting missiles, not that I'm agains a module that defends against missiles just not "one module to rule them all"
and if TDs effact missiles will tracking computers, traking enhanchers and tracking links affect missiles as well? |
POS Trader
Merchants of Lore
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:07:00 -
[263] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:
If missiles are so bad and only for PvE-ing carebears, why all this need to reduce their effectiveness?
So that NPC rats can tracking disrupt your drake too
Some missions will become funny - can't shoot stuff with missiles AND guns.
|
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
151
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:07:00 -
[264] - Quote
Mike Whiite wrote:
If missiles are so bad and only for PvE-ing carebears, why all this need to reduce their effectiveness?
Show me the link where there was a demand for "Tracking Disrupt" missiles. Just because "There is a Drake I can not get down" is not a valid argument.
Can we than expect a module against this dirsuption? Similar to the turret mudules? Or is it only allowed to nerf missiles so bad, that they are bad in PvP AND PvE? You bring your new stylish models with launchers and stuff but nerf missiles so, that barely someone will use missiles again. Really Fxxx YOU!
CCP is maximum dull.  |
Wilson Yu
Masters of Ownage
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:21:00 -
[265] - Quote
I like the war mechanic change that is coming up although this dev blog does bring in concerns.
Tracking disruptor affect missiles which have no tracking what so ever, i don't think that is a good idea. Tracking disruptor have never ever been able to affect missiles, well for good reason and logically it makes sense. IF tracking disruptor can affect missiles, how will that work and i don't think that is a good idea. We all know that guns beat missiles in ever way possible.
I don't know what is going in the minds of ccp but that is the dumbest thing i heard int he dev blog.
Missiles should never be affected by tracking disruptor because missiles have no tracking. |
Onar Maldarian
WALLTREIPERS
WALLTREIPERS ALLIANCE
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:36:00 -
[266] - Quote
Point of Magsheath when there's already a module that does exactly the same (burst)?
Drone damage augmentor as lowslot is just retrded. All hail the new Gila-Sentry + huginn/scimitar sniping fleets.
I hope the "missiles affected by tracking disruption" is some kind of joke, otherwise there's someone having really bad ideas in there.
The rest seems find, unless you come up with some retrded attributes for the new shield boosters. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
6773
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:52:00 -
[267] - Quote
Onar Maldarian wrote:Point of Magsheath when there's already a module that does exactly the same (burst)? They don't do quite the same thing. The lockbreaker is much more powerful in what it can do, but also much more detrimental to fit.
Quote:Drone damage augmentor as lowslot is just retrded. All hail the new Gila-Sentry + huginn/scimitar sniping fleets. Meh. Most worth-while drone ships are better when shield tanked anyway, and it's not like drones will be any less easy to get rid off or any less awkward to deploy.
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Shift-click does nothing GÇö why the Unified Inventory isn't ready for primetime. |
Geil Ding
Perkone
Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 08:25:00 -
[268] - Quote
Can every ship now fit a jump drive? That would be great 
I would like to see a hauler sized jump enabled ship. A T3 hauler maybe? |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
Amarr 7th Fleet
160
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 08:34:00 -
[269] - Quote
Jack Dant wrote:Har Harrison wrote:This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot). So by "corp hopping", CCP didn't mean corp hopping, but joining/leaving corps in space? Yet another exploit fix marketed as a feature
The idea was presented to fix the issue of rejoining a corp you have left to gain an advantage whilst it was at war. CCP had already suggested that a pilot who left a corp whilst at war would have this marked on their employment history, so recruiters could see that they left corps frequently to avoid a war. This idea was to prevent some of the exploits and to make a consequence of leaving - you couldn't rejoin to pvp after leaving to do indy/pve etc...
Will the new FW be any good??? |
Har Harrison
Amarrian Retribution
Amarr 7th Fleet
160
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 08:36:00 -
[270] - Quote
Pere Madeleine wrote:Har Harrison wrote:Jack Dant wrote:Quote:WeGÇÖve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first. How is this a fix for corp hopping? People leave the corp to avoid the war, so why would they want to rejoin before the war is over? This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot). Whether you suggested it with that intention or not, it's still a problem. What's the point in declaring war on people in order to disrupt their operations if all they have to do is jump out of corp and mine/run missions in a NPC corp for a week?
An INDIVIDUAL might not be disrupted per se. The corp would be if they had a POS or corp assets for example. CCP an't stop a person leaving a corp. All they can do is tighten up on the mechanics around it to make it less desirable and/or exploitable.
Will the new FW be any good??? |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |