I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.

Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.

Wow, game mechanics changed because the Goons can't handle a fair fight.

Well you are a big hat space dictator. Your followers are supposed to follow you like some cult leader.

I on the other hand am a space anarchist and I prefer distributed asymetrical warfare and psychological traps. The heroic cells of freedom-loving anti-goon partizans may well never meet or share a cup of tea or indeed have to gather and listen to some speech by a "great leader" but that doesn't stop them being comrades-at-arms in the great struggle against eve imperialism encroaching on the capsuleer trade hubs.

Your big mistake is to assume everyone fights their wars the way you do.
(your second mistake is to overestimate the number of jaegerbombs you can sustain before critical balance failure)

more :words: than jade constantine

IJade have you ever thought that if you are making enemies out of 5000 man alliances, then it would logically be reasonable that in order to fight them maybe you should be good enough at making friends to have another large alliance ally you. Or you could have friends who are close enough to help split the costs with you. Eve is a social game bro, looks like you just need to work on your play style.

What's wrong with having 100 50-member alliances as friends? Why does everyone have to be in a 5000 member alliance in order to join a fight against a 9000 member alliance?

Do you understand the lack of social cohesion in hisec?

lack of social cohesion in highsec is largely based around any highsec corp that reached above 100 people was endlessly wardec'd due to highsec PVP corps practicing cost-effectiveness hth

Inferno wardec system was meant to GǪ

GǪ despite the fact Goonswarm's home region has zero CONCORD protection and they do all their logistics through alt corps anyway as an adaptation after years of managing highsec supply chains under the old, non-scaling wardec system.

No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).

This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive.

You've been given a shiny new module which adjusts the tank depending on the incoming damage. The adjustment simply means that the penalty of this one module is higher. You have options such as running a traditional tank, or running with logistics who can transfer cap.

Focus on the positives

There are always options, as you say, but no skill should have a negative effect. Because I cannot un-train the skill.

Training that skill higher means the module adjusts its resistance balance quicker. Yet you choose to complain about capacitor cost?

You are not forced to use that module. This is the future that the EVE developers are considering: everything has a drawback, and the things that give you even better bonuses give you even worse drawbacks. So you really need to get used to looking at the positives.

You are my favorite CCP. EVER!

@Punkturis.


I have a serious issue with 1.1 War Dec UI.

You need to make all EVE UI awesome like it.

There are always options, as you say, but no skill should have a negative effect. Because I cannot un-train the skill.

Inferno wardec system was meant to counter this by giving highsec communities a respite from being wardec-spammed but the attempt got hijacked by mental invalids who complained that "goonswarm is protected now" despite the fact Goonswarm's home region has zero CONCORD protection and they do all their logistics through alt corps anyway as an adaptation after years of managing highsec supply chains under the old, non-scaling wardec system.

first I was like
then I was like

thanks!

Five-0

GÇó Rollback of lowering the reward for vanguard sites by 10%

This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive.

How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying

Let me tell you about the repair systems skill or energy pulse weapons skill. This isnt a negative effect, it lets the RAH adjust to incoming damage quicker. thats a positive.

Not nearly as fun as large alliances getting beaten up by small alliances and their heroic allies - now that really is FUN, and frankly the large alliances create a far more impressive stream of tears.

So the skill makes your module cycle faster which in turn makes it shift resistance to block incoming damage more frequently.

It sounds like you are trying to compare the resist % vs. the cap cost to determine effectiveness of the module, but in this case wouldn't you have to compare the incoming damage reduction vs. cap cost to get a true gauge of the effectiveness?

Depending on the amount of incoming damage the higher cap cost could actually end up being more efficient then the slower cap burn with slower resist change. The efficiency of this module will only be seen when engaging foes with multiple damage types while fighting a homogeneous opponent isn't the most effective use. Then again you don't pick this module because you know what you're going against, you pick it because you want the advantage of having on the fly resist changes while using fewer slots to cover the resist holes. The added cap cost is basically the same as running a Neut on someone who's already capped out. You're not getting maximum return on each cycle of your neut but the cap cost is worth the benefit you receive.

This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive.

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson

All skills that give a negative duration bonus to an active module have the side effect that they use more cap, this isn't new like you suggest.