SUPER FRIENDS BEST FRIENDS

Could someone repost the information here? I apologize for having to ask, but these devblogs only seem to go up WHILE im at work and I can't view the community pages with the 2001 internet we have :(

Trial accounts are not counted when counting corp membership.

Thank you Team Super Awesome Friends for giving me flights of light webber drones thus making me super awesome

Does the Extrinsic Damage Amplifier also increase drone mining yield?

That's good, but what about same-account blank alts? If every member of an alliance puts only one of their alts in a special alt corp in the alliance, the cost of a wardec against said alliance nearly doubles. Are the alts rare enough that they do not realistically have an impact? Even if that is true, I have heard rumors that E-Uni is already trying to pad its membership with alts; do you expect alts to remain non-problematic?

(not trolling, legit question)

I have to admit I'm not entirely convinced by the war-dec cost mechanics, making it crazy expensive to dec large corps / alliances and inviting people to grief small corps.

Then again, at -10 I could hardly care less

DAMAGE Amplifier.
"DAMAGE".

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.

Gate and station guns won't shoot at you, so there's at least that.

Could someone repost the information here? I apologize for having to ask, but these devblogs only seem to go up WHILE im at work and I can't view the community pages with the 2001 internet we have :(

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?

Awesome, a new toy that brings all the fun game play of ECM to every ship.

With the war mechanic, why has the multiple wars escalator been kept in? It was only ever put in to exclude Privateers from attacking many 0.0 alliances, that surprisingly were nowhere near as 0.0 as they wanted to people to think. With the exorbitant costing as it is, there's no need to keep the escalator as well.

Trial accounts will never count, whether they are active or inactive. As for the inactive member count, that was initially based on a bit iffy data that we're looking into right now, it was my fault for not editing the dev blog better to explain this. Once we have more accurate data in we can make a better call for whether to exclude inactive members or not. Can't say for sure now, but it is likely we will adjust this post Inferno.

MAKE THEM FACTION MODS

Cool new modules are cool. However I disagree with your method of seeding some of them as BPC drops. Mainly, because it breaks eve's consistancy of meta levels and where they respectively come from. T1 is freely player craftable, Meta 1 to 4 is normal NPC drops, Meta 5 is craftable, Meta 6+ is faction drops. This is clear to the playerbase, makes sense to everyone, and is consistant. Creating these mods as special cases adds confusion and inconsistancy for no good reason.

Bloating the market is a terrible reason, we all know it. There's probably 50,000 unique item slots on the market by now, a handful more BPO's either way means nothing. And if market bloat was a reason not to do something, you best have a strong word with one of the other teams who just seeded every officer and faction mod to the market. Your other reason, control of where mods drop, well you already have that system in place, so why not use it? If you want these mods to be faction level supply limited, MAKE THEM FACTION MODS. If you want them NPC drop supply limited, make em meta 2 or 3 or whatever! Tech 1 should always be the base level of mod, freely and easily craftable for new manufacturing players, and fittable and costed availability isk wise for new players. Making T1 mods that have a supply restriction at the BPO/BPC level breaks this (currently) consistant approach.

Also i can see this screwing yourselves up in the future, as if at any point to want to make named Meta 1 to 4 versions of these mods, they'd be more freely available than the T1 version!

Max

P.S. Extra points for spotting how many times i said consistant to get the point across :)

We're looking into also not counting inactive accounts (i.e. gathering data, etc.). If we decide to not count them (which right now is more likely than not), it won't make it in for Inferno, but in one of the post-Inferno patches.

We're looking into also not counting inactive accounts (i.e. gathering data, etc.). If we decide to not count them (which right now is more likely than not), it won't make it in for Inferno, but in one of the post-Inferno patches.

Trial accounts will never count, whether they are active or inactive. As for the inactive member count, that was initially based on a bit iffy data that we're looking into right now, it was my fault for not editing the dev blog better to explain this. Once we have more accurate data in we can make a better call for whether to exclude inactive members or not. Can't say for sure now, but it is likely we will adjust this post Inferno.

Also, as the thinking is to start to add modules on a regular basis, so we're looking into ways of how we can fight the potential issues associated with it, such as bloating the market too much and introducing power creep.

2nd =D

Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II: This doesn't sounds good, as a drone boat user, most of the drone boats use low slots as tank, ( except for the rattlesnake that will be overpower with lots of tank, torpedo dps and drones dps) so the gallente ships will not be that good again.... my sugestion was to make this a Hi-Slot module (since this is a drone augmentation module, not a ship dps module), so most of drone boats could really use it, removing the guns and replacing with it...

Also, as the thinking is to start to add modules on a regular basis, so we're looking into ways of how we can fight the potential issues associated with it, such as bloating the market too much and introducing power creep. Seeding through loot drops gives us better control over where and when and how much to seed, which is an important feature for us to have for the future.

Yep exactly my thoughts. Why ruin a good thing, make the game more confusing for players and make more work for yourselves later. We finally have a unified naming structure in EVE for Missiles for the same reason as well as other changes.

P.S. I see the responses are fast and consistent among players in the first two pages echoing this sentiment CCP. Just a thought - you might want to reconsider!

Seriously, rail-guns are terrible. Check them out some time. Heavy missiles, Beams/Tachs and Arties are all useful in PvP. Rails blow even on bonused ships.

That's not what I meant. I was talking about alt characters on the same (active) account as my main. For example, my corp CEO (Petria Benoit) is in fact my alt, dedicated to holding the corp, but otherwise completely inactive and useless. I do not have statistics, but I would say that from what I've seen, most people in my corp have 1-2 free character slots that they could use to create worthless alts and have them join my corp, bloating the membership from the current 20-ish into the 50s or 60s range, and making wardecs against us far less feasible.

Do you plan to do anything against this sort of gaming of the system?

Statistically, unsatisfied people complain more than satisfied people :)


But really... someone was complaining about the war cost scaling. This was covered in the devblog. They mentioned harassment of smaller entities doesn't happen so much that CCP is unsatisfied. the playerbase that gets harassed either doesn't complain enough, or there simply aren't enough of those players in the first place. in mmo games, majority complaints will always have a higher calling. Best Regards. This guy.

Not at this point. We do anticipate alt bloating, but as it is a one-time thing, and limits some alt behavior, we don't consider it a huge issue. Beside, the rise in cost only starts applying at the 130 member range or thereabouts.

Not sure about larger ones, but small rails seem to work quite well.

I tried to make a rails Brutix/Astarte/Deimos to hit at long point range, even edge of web range, isn't viable.

The Extrinsic Damage Amplifier, the CPU rig and the web drones will be seeded directly on market. Also note that to get the T2 drone damage module, you need to invent it using T1 BPCs.

We're looking into also not counting inactive accounts (i.e. gathering data, etc.). If we decide to not count them (which right now is more likely than not), it won't make it in for Inferno, but in one of the post-Inferno patches.

Not sure about larger ones, but small rails seem to work quite well.

I'd say that 10B is a reasonable price to allow you to start gaming the system.

Have you tried longer-range ammo?

You didn't mention Small Targeting Amplifier I. Will they be released on may 22th, are they just postponed like missile TDs / MJD, or completely off the drawing board already?

Larger railguns are technically good (low damage, extreme range) but suffer from the fact that their range is so extreme that enemies can just warp right to them. Anything operating at higher than ~120 km range is very vulnerable since the minimum warp-in range is 150 km. A 200 km Eagle sniping gang is useless if all it takes to counter them is a single scanning ship and 20 seconds. Increase minimum warp range to 300 km. Boom, railguns fixed.

This means you'll be seeding their BPO's right?

Why are you placing a low estimate on the lengths to which players will go for a competitive advantage?

War dec costs multiply if you declare more than one. But what if you get multiple decs by having corps join your alliance? That is:

5 small corps each make one war dec. Those 5 corps then join one alliance. Everyone in the alliance now gets 5 sets of targets and they did not have to pay the multiplied costs.

CCP, is that how it works?

If so, you may want to consider fixing it. For example:

A corp that has declared war cannot join an alliance until said war is over.

Or (and better in my option, as it leaves control in the player's hands):

If your corp has declared war and joins an alliance that has declared war, there is a joining fee: You got to pay the extra costs as though the alliance had declared two wars.

Edit: Other questions:

I dec once: 50 mil.
I dec another, 100 mil for #2. But does that also increase the cost of #1 to 100 mil? Does it increase it immediately, or for the second week, or not at all?

Here's the flaw in your logic. The wardec mechanics go out unchanged, so people start making tons of alts; some even buying PLEX to make 3 pilots on a trial. After spending several billion to pad their numbers, inactive accounts are removed from the wardec cost. Benefit for CCP as more people buy PLEX.

I'd say that 10B is a reasonable price to allow you to start gaming the system.

So since they're 20 billion each, we can go back to the old balance state for super capitals, right?

perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't this multiplier make it excessively easy to make large alliances immune to wardecs by small entities?

Let's say I've got an alliance of 3k people --> 320M per week war cost
We'll pretend there's 4 weeks in a month and say that this means 1.28B per month cost

In my alliance of 3k, I find 4 people to make 1 man corps
All corps then declare war on my alliance, and I pay the bills.

By my count then that's 4 people all having to pay 5 B (give or take) per month, so a cost to my alliance of some 20B per month. Then, if anyone else wants to wardec me, they have to now pay 6.4B per month for the honour (1.6B per week). Ok, sure other big alliances can do this and try and suppress my actions, but I only need to drop wars as needed to maintain the shield at the level I desire. Anyone small on the other hand would be completely shut out from being able to declare war on me, and for the most part all of this should be pocket change for my alliance.

Unless, like I said, I missed something.

Are the module bpcs for the non-seeded mods racial, or will they drop from all mag/radar sites?

The war cost multiplier will apply to all your wars equally, but only when a new bill comes up.

Reductio ad absurdum is unbecoming.

What's the logic behind this multiplier? Why should it be so much more expensive to go to war with 2 100 man corps than a single 200 man corp?

What's the logic behind this multiplier? Why should it be so much more expensive to go to war with 2 100 man corps than a single 200 man corp?

It's usually a pretty good technique for pointing out poor arguments; perceived expense is not what I would consider a good justification for this kind of meta-gaming.

perhaps I'm missing something, but doesn't this multiplier make it excessively easy to make large alliances immune to wardecs by small entities?

Let's say I've got an alliance of 3k people --> 320M per week war cost
We'll pretend there's 4 weeks in a month and say that this means 1.28B per month cost

In my alliance of 3k, I find 4 people to make 1 man corps
All corps then declare war on my alliance, and I pay the bills.

By my count then that's 4 people all having to pay 5 B (give or take) per month, so a cost to my alliance of some 20B per month. Then, if anyone else wants to wardec me, they have to now pay 6.4B per month for the honour (1.6B per week). Ok, sure other big alliances can do this and try and suppress my actions, but I only need to drop wars as needed to maintain the shield at the level I desire. Anyone small on the other hand would be completely shut out from being able to declare war on me, and for the most part all of this should be pocket change for my alliance.

Unless, like I said, I missed something.

I think the number of wars against an alliance is not relevant to your cost in deccing that alliance. What matters is how many wars you have declared.

So the original E-Uni dec shield method of having 10 fake wars against them will not work.

This meta gaming is only effective for the corps that want to try to reduce wardecs, and to do so, require massive expenses, and it doesn't stop anyone from wardeccing them anyway (since cost shouldn't be balancing, the price of a wardec is no more effective than the cost of adding alts to a corp). Yes it should be discouraged, but to compare it to a super cap that, even in small numbers, were extremely effective against everything is absurd.

You can't join an alliance if you're an aggressor in a war.

Trial accounts will never count, whether they are active or inactive. As for the inactive member count, that was initially based on a bit iffy data that we're looking into right now, it was my fault for not editing the dev blog better to explain this. Once we have more accurate data in we can make a better call for whether to exclude inactive members or not. Can't say for sure now, but it is likely we will adjust this post Inferno.

Even if you think the comparison goes too far, the creation of dec-cost-bloating alts is something that obviously reeks of trouble, the cost scaling is a blatant display of favoritism towards organizations that are large, and I haven't seen any active interest in mitigating these potentially serious problems in advance from CCP.

The war multiplier only applies the number of wars you have declared, the number of wars the target is in does not affect the cost.

The CPU rig sounds like a boon for Armor Tankers, but a bane for Passive Shield Tankers. Why should a CPU rig affect a non-related system, especially one that some people don't even care about? Amarr and Gallente ships can use these without any reservations. Caldari (especially) and Minmatar ships might need CPU too.

What's the logic behind this multiplier? Why should it be so much more expensive to go to war with 2 100 man corps than a single 200 man corp?

The CPU rig sounds like a boon for Armor Tankers, but a bane for Passive Shield Tankers. Why should a CPU rig affect a non-related system, especially one that some people don't even care about? Amarr and Gallente ships can use these without any reservations. Caldari (especially) and Minmatar ships might need CPU too.

Some favoritism towards larger entities is acceptable, especially if CCP wants to encourage hisec small corps to band together more often (which is a good thing because of increased player interaction). This encouragement coming at the cost of more metagaming and weird mechanics is the unacceptable part.

The actual logic behind the increasing of fees is that they are giving more protection to larger corps from "nuisance" wars. Now They can't openly admit this, but i'm convinced it's being done to give larger alliances easier logistics movement, and a war dec protection for Eve uni.

Good change. It prevents one of the possible exploits.

I'm not sure that the '7-day' lock out for corp member changes is completely good. It's probably too draconian when 3-day limits would have sufficed just as well.

But it doesn't solve the problem of:
- declare war
- scout out a target in a neutral alt
- join wardec, blow up target
- repeat with another neutral alt

And if you wardec the target from multiple shell corps, your neutral alts can:
- hop into corp #1, blow up target, leave corp #1
- find another target, hop into corp #2, blow up target, leavel corp #2
- repeat until your 7-day waiting period is up, rejoin corp #1

In fact, smart attackers will merely setup half a dozen different shell corps. Each shell corp will wardec a different target. All of the fighters stay in NPC corps until they have found a vulnerable enemy. They then insta-join the correct shell corporation which allows them to attack said enemy, then leave right away.

There needs to be a delay on joining an aggressor corporation - such as not being able to join the aggressor corporation until downtime. Which nips the "scout out target, insta-join, pop target" exploit in the bud.

Just imagine how much of this could be eliminated by restricting Eve to 1-player=1-character.

*ducks*

Note that this rule only applies for non-mutual wars GÇô mutual wars do not prohibit players from entering or leaving corporations

what happened to the mantra of a player-run economy?

What if, there are two corporations (A & B for example) in a mutual war and along comes some dumb 3rd party who decs one or both sides, does the 7 day rule then kick in for players in corps A & B?

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.

2nd =D


And about the modules:

Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II: This doesn't sounds good, as a drone boat user, most of the drone boats use low slots as tank, ( except for the rattlesnake that will be overpower with lots of tank, torpedo dps and drones dps) so the gallente ships will not be that good again.... my sugestion was to make this a Hi-Slot module (since this is a drone augmentation module, not a ship dps module), so most of drone boats could really use it, removing the guns and replacing with it...

We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.

I don't know why everyone thinks this makes it impossible to dec E-Uni. It will cost, what, 200-300 mil? So get your corp of 5 members to each run a few L4 missions one afternoon, and you get one week vs all of E-Uni.

CCP: I heard a rumor that if the target corp of a dec makes the war mutual, then the war can no longer be terminated by the aggressor, but only by a surrender. Is that true?

So... It'll cost about 450 million a week to war dec Test Alliance? I will miss my friends on the Jita undock. This doesn't make much sense to me, as it makes high sec incredibly safe for most null alliances, safer than most high sec corps/alliances. Meh, I guess, who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I guess it forces corps/alliances to grow.

Capacitor Battery edits - All capacitor batteries now also provide a defense against Energy Vampires (Nos) and Energy Neutralizer (Neut) effects. A portion of the effect is reflected back on the aggressor.

so where is my moduel that deflect enemy fire back at them? :P

Ah, interesting point, hadn't thought of that.

We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.

Some favoritism towards larger entities is acceptable, especially if CCP wants to encourage hisec small corps to band together more often (which is a good thing because of increased player interaction). This encouragement coming at the cost of more metagaming and weird mechanics is the unacceptable part.

The possible abuse gets more and more egregious with larger corp size. I do not expect Goonswarm to do this (they typically do not give enough fucks) but E-Uni, RvB, and other hisec/lowsec entities will. This will lead to artificially inflated membership counts, obnoxious "my corp is safer than yours because it's bigger" peen-waving, some corps requiring mandatory alt joining, and other nasties. My question to CCP SoniClover is whether this is intended and expected, or whether it's going to be addressed.

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.

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.

We tested this a bit and didn't feel it added a lot of value, so it's shelved for the time being.

So, CCP, as part of your war-themed expansion you:

• Made wars 10 to 20 times more expensive for the aggressor.
• Allowed the defender, and the defender only, to bring allies into the war.
• Implemented a fix to corp hopping that doesn't penalize the defenders hopping corp.
• Added a new "get out of jail free card" module.

All that for the defender. The aggressor gets:

• Fixes for a couple exploits you knew about for years.
• Starting wars takes 24 hours less.

That's it? And to think I just fixed my sec status for the expansion...

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

Also: Number of wars the aggressor can declare no longer artificially limited to 3, but can be as high as the aggressor is willing to pay for.

Really need to read the description a couple times...



Answered here

Really need to read the description a couple times...



Answered here

The ecm is an interesting anti-bob warfare module. This is the only way I see this being used is in fleet battles:

Everyone fits one, stays aligned, as soon as called primary hits the ecm and spams warp until warp out. Rinse repeat. Nobody in either fleet ever dies.

Would CCP share any more info on this? Also is this something you are planning to do every patch? (Test and add a couple of new modules each cycle?)

Good change. It prevents one of the possible exploits.

I'm not sure that the 7-day rule should apply to the defenders. And that's a key reason why.

(Which might also be why the timer needs to be shortened to 3-days instead of 7-days.)

That's, uh, not a change. It's been like that for a very long time.



I am absolutely opposed to a reduction in the cycle time of wars. They are 7 days for a reason: It covers all players' habits, it is short enough to not be forever, and it is long enough to be significant. A 3 day war would seem like a meaningless, passing, and frivolous affair and would not ever be taken seriously by the defenders until at least the second cycle because it simply has no weight to it.

Wars should have meaning and require a real investment of time and money.

The ecm is an interesting anti-bob warfare module. This is the only way I see this being used is in fleet battles:

Everyone fits one, stays aligned, as soon as called primary hits the ecm and spams warp until warp out. Rinse repeat. Nobody in either fleet ever dies.

Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II: This doesn't sounds good, as a drone boat user, most of the drone boats use low slots as tank, ( except for the rattlesnake that will be overpower with lots of tank, torpedo dps and drones dps) so the gallente ships will not be that good again.... my sugestion was to make this a Hi-Slot module (since this is a drone augmentation module, not a ship dps module), so most of drone boats could really use it, removing the guns and replacing with it...

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.

How is a loot drop that requires a player to run a site and acquire the BPC less of a "player run economy" than an NPC seeded BPO?

Just because they knew about the exploits does not reduce the advantage to the aggressor now that they are fixed. No matter how old an exploit is, fixing it is a good thing.

Defender cannot get out of the war by jumping into, then out of an alliance.
Defender cannot set up a bunch of fake war decs to up the cost to an aggressor.

Also: Number of wars the aggressor can declare no longer artificially limited to 3, but can be as high as the aggressor is willing to pay for.

Methinks the anti-blob module will need to be always on, which means your fleet will have "significantly" lower lock times which could put you at a disadvantage.

Your numbers dont change much except when the numbers get closer to eachother.

-+ Decshield - Well done, CCP, you've fixed this one (but you should've declared it an exploit immediately, fixed it ASAP, and never publicly stated it was permitted, thereby popularising it)

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.

If was always on you would not be able to lock someone since it breaks your lock????

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.

Good points all, I'll look into making them meta level 1 instead of 0

Inferno is burning towards New Eden, impacting on May 22nd, shaking up the Universe with improved war mechanics and a multitude of completely new modules, never seen before.

Read all about these changes and the new modules in this exciting dev blog by CCP SoniClover!


Additonal information:
It seems that The Scope news reporters are never asleep, they already have picked up rumors of our upcoming new modules! Read their story here.

The refined formula is: (log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27, where N is the number of corp members (see also comments below). The minimum is 50 million.

Does the lock breaker remove concord and gate guns lock as well?

Good points all, I'll look into making them meta level 1 instead of 0

If was always on you would not be able to lock someone since it breaks your lock????

Not really. They've just changed the mechanic for it to make it the default mechanism for wardecs in general. Decshielding was really only about increasing the cost for the aggressor to ridiculous levels GÇö that can still be done.

[...]Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II: This doesn't sounds good, as a drone boat user, most of the drone boats use low slots as tank, ( except for the rattlesnake that will be overpower with lots of tank, torpedo dps and drones dps) so the gallente ships will not be that good again.... my sugestion was to make this a Hi-Slot module (since this is a drone augmentation module, not a ship dps module), so most of drone boats could really use it, removing the guns and replacing with it...

None Empty Quoting.

Like to see this discussed more.

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.

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

Awesome, a new toy that brings all the fun game play of ECM to every ship.

Soo you think nobody will dec large alliances anymore. I guess we will have three alliances then...Reminds me of 2004

Not at this point. We do anticipate alt bloating, but as it is a one-time thing, and limits some alt behavior, we don't consider it a huge issue. Beside, the rise in cost only starts applying at the 130 member range or thereabouts.

(log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27, where N is the number of corp members

Guys, we have a game mechanic that is vastly underutilized and we want to make it more useful and accessible to players.

I know, let's increase the base cost by 2500% and keep all of the cost stacking mechanics that made it prohibitively expensive to maintain multiple wars at once.

I think that CCP marketing Inferno as being a "war fueled" expansion is about as disingenuous as you can possibly get as almost all of the changes to war mechanics are focused on making wars less attractive to people who would instigate them.

no, actually this means blobs get ****** up and encourages small ganks and better pvp :D

Looks good.

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before; but, I'd like to reiterate this suggestion. For the formula you've determined:



I think it might be more reasonable to make N the number of accounts in the corp/alliance.

Let's take a look at this graph I made that shows the dec costs if you have 1 character from your account in the corp/alliance, and the cost if you have all 3 characters from your account in the corp/alliance:

http://imgur.com/iC031

As mentioned above, the black curve is the cost to war dec a corp/alliance having N members, in this case it is assumed that each member has only 1 character in the corp/alliance. The red curve is the cost to war dec that same corp/alliance when each member has all 3 of their characters available on their account in the corp/alliance. The Y axis is in isk, please note the 10^6 multiplier.

The bottom plot shows the ratio of Red Curve / Black Curve. Here we see that the war dec cost is increased by a factor of 2.0-1.9, and falls similarly to 1/x, and then approaches an asymptotic limit of ~1.5-1.6.

The reason I think the above is a problem is that if I have three characters in my corp/alliance (One is my main, and two are alts) the current formula treats me as contributing three viable targets to an opposing corp/alliance. But in actuality, the number of viable targets I represent for an opposing corp/alliance is only 1.

I imagine some corps/alliances might take advantage of this fact. This cost increase is definitely not negligible. I feel this is not in the spirit of Eve (i.e. to inspire conflict, not evading).

Thanks for your time.

Figuring out how many players from a specific account are in a given alliance is a lot more difficult that simply only counting active characteers. Active characters in this case meaning characters that have logged on in the last 30 days.

We already have this information available to corp management, which means it is already tracked.

A handly add on would be to have on the corp info page (for those with appropriate roles) a readout that shows Total Members / Active Members.



TL;DR
Click the link above

Wrong... Wrong wrong wrong.

Don't you get it this will mean that that big alliances and corps can attack small corps and alliance cheaply. The issue is with different sized groups attacking each other it should be

WHERE N IS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF CORP MEMBERS.

Big vs Big CHEAP
smal vs small CHEAP
Big vs Small Expensive
small vs Big Expensive

War costs pricing as planned is still broken - CCP is heading straight for a credibility loss on this one.

There is no need to make the richest entities in the game the most expensive to declare war on - this is not how the mistakes of the past will be fixed but I guess marketing is all geared up now to tout this release as a war-centric enhancer.

Gort

Figuring out how many players from a specific account are in a given alliance is a lot more difficult that simply only counting active characteers. Active characters in this case meaning characters that have logged on in the last 30 days.

We already have this information available to corp management, which means it is already tracked.

A handly add on would be to have on the corp info page (for those with appropriate roles) a readout that shows Total Members / Active Members.

We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.

Is this a bad joke or are you just silly? Tracking Disruptors against missiles?
Since when do missiles have tracking?
Do not come live with this dull idea!

Missed the discussion, did you? I think the idea was that Tracking Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers would instead become Weapon Disruptors/Enhancers/Computers, affecting both turrets and missiles (so, being able to bonus/penalize explosion velocity and missile velocity just as they can bonus/penalize weapon tracking and range).