EVE Information Portal

Intresting. Nothing too game changing in there module wise yet its a good bast to start on.

I would olny ask for more information on the micro warp jump drive thingy. This is the module that had the potential to really change gameplay and a lot of us were intrested it the mechanics of it.

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?)

Hmm, wrong answer linked there sir.

The question asked if I fit that mod to my battleship will that cause supercapitals that are immune to electronic warfare to lose lock

1: If a bubble isn't involved the target often has time to warp out anyway.

2: If the entire fleet targets one person all the time yes, but if smaller groups (squadron or perhaps wing) are targetting that person (and the rest of the fleet is doing the same to other people) then targetting functions normally for the most part. This encourages splitting up targeting or using smaller fleets hitting different area's.

3: The drawback to have this module mounted is slower targetting speed. I don't believe it has to be active for this to apply.

If you watch the fanfest footage one of the Devs (forgotten his name) stated they wanted to bring out lots more modules on a regular basis with various effects to mix up game play.

Ok folks, time for a recap of the replies so far.

1) Shield tankers whine because the new CPU rig is designed so that you can't make OP shield fits with it

2) Wardeccers whine because new wardec costs more, making them actually consider before they declare war

3) Carebears whine because new wardec doesn't cost enough

4) Missile users whine because a module that previously affected only turrets gets fixed

5) Industrials whine, just because all the others whine and they don't want to be left out


Change. It's hard.

Oh, and by the way, are you still going with the idea that wars can only be declared mutual in the first 24 hours after declaration?

If so, stop going with it.

Or... your fleet fits a Passive Targeter in that mid-slot so that the enemy doesn't know who is being targeted so they won't know when to hit the anti-blob ecm module. 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.

Anyway, I'm not going to comment until the lock breaking probabilities are mapped out.

What I see is having a "primary" list that is several ships deep, so if you have Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Dave locked, and you lose your lock on Alice and Charlie, then you (and hopefully a lot of others) can still alpha Bob.


Uhm, do Drones count towards the lock breaking probabilities...?

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.

My two cents, in no particular order:

Target breaker:

I'm assuming this is going to be better than ECM (otherwise there would be no need for a new module), in which case this is just flat out stupid. As someone already mentioned, it would also make a lot more sense to change ECM burst rather than create a new module. This module is going to make Eve a much safer place, and even if you like that, you won't like the inflation and decreased demand it causes due to a decrease in ship kills. This is a cheap nod to the anti-suicide gank crowd (and PvErs in general) and also has the potential to ruin fleet fights.

TL;DR: Bad idea, change ECM burst instead. Eve should be dangerous.

Tracking disruptors affecting missiles:
I love the pilgrim and I fly it quite a bit. That being said, this (planned) change is also terrible. Target painters and sensor dampeners both suck, and ECM is far and away the best EWAR. For starters, you should work on rebalancing TPs and SDs (or nerfing ECM) before messing with TDs. Also, while I could see introducing some sort of small effect on missiles (i.e. engaging a missile ship would now be "probably" a bad idea vs. the "really" bad idea that it is now), making TDs straight work on missiles would be a little overpowered IMO. There's no reason an EWAR system shouldn't have drawbacks.

TL;DR: Don't do it. Fix SDs and TPs.

New war system:

1. You are still including the doubling (of the base cost or the overall cost? I'm not sure) depending on how many wars the aggressor is running. This is unnecessary and prohibitively expensive given the new costs. Additionally, as someone already mentioned, it makes deccing two 100 man corps far more expensive than a 200 man corp, which just doesn't make sense.

2. 50m base cost is too high, and provides incentive for small corps <20-30 people to try to just fly under the radar and be ignored. I would change the base cost to 20m, but change the cost formula so that the cost starts climbing around 30 or 50 members, maybe reaching 50m at 100 people.

3. Without arguing about whether larger or smaller entities should cost more to be decced (plenty of people are debating this), I think the cost should be capped around 200-250m per week. Alliances with thousands of members do provide more targets, but they are also more than capable of defending themselves if needed. If necessary, add an additional modifier based on the number of accounts in the deccing corp.

4. Don't count inactive accounts. Seriously.

5. I was really disappointed to hear your solution to people leaving corps. All the fanfest videos and devblogs I watched made it seem like you guys were going to have a real solution, and it turns out you're preventing them from rejoining (which they probably don't want to do anyway). I would prefer to see a system where the person who leaves is still a valid war target for a short period of time, or that they get a mark on their corp history as outlined in one of the videos. If the marking system was deemed too draconian, simply make it so that members kicked by the CEO do NOT receive a blemish. This way, if the corp as a whole wishes to dissolve or move members around for strategic reasons, it will not affect them negatively.

TL;DR: Costs are too high. Don't count inactive accounts. Don't double costs for aggressor wars (if the costs remain this high). Your solution to corp hopping sucks.

in one case the players decide supply (based on an economic rationale), in the other case CCP do.