EVE Information Portal

regardless they will be forever known as killmails, so dont you dare change it

Hey Superfriends, will logistics now be included in the new Killmails and battlereports, this was mentioned at fanfest briefly I believe.

Thanks

What are the costs of war?

How much the wardeccing corp will have to pay for deccing war on someone?
Does that mean that by bringin 150 alts into an alliance into an alt corp will mean that we got another alt meat shield?

They can, every 7 days.

I hope you see where you just proved yourself wrong. That is, unless you believe that people who like to shoot things never buy or sell anything ... ever.

---

I really don't understand why people are complaining about not being able to jump in and out of an alliance to avoid a wardec. Do the people complaining about this 'change' not realize that up until not even half a year ago using alliances to shed a wardec was consider an exploit in game mechanics? Do they not realize that these changes are just mechanics going into place to fix a problem that has been around for years so that there are no longer petitions flooding GMs about people shedding wardecs? Do they not know that the recent change to policy to allow a corp to shed a wardec was done to see how it would actually effect the game as they worked in a way to solve the problem (which this patch does)?

Buying and a ship or their gains from PVP on the market isn't market pvp. It's the raw material for market PVP. It isn't .01 wars on price. It isn't going out and contracting ore from small corps. It isn't shipping large bulk orders to out of the way locations to open up new markets and feeding the combat player. It isn't anything that is actual market PvP. Combat PVP are the people we sell to, but it isn't the people we're competing against. Combat PVP players are simply the people who feed market PVP players money to keep score of who's winning and losing.

Also, doesn't really matter if its to fill a hole in faulty game design. There comes a point where fixing the hole breaks the game. That hole has been there for years and years. Patches to other systems have been added knowing the hole in that system was there. Entire types of gameplay have started because of that hole. EvE players if nothing else are inventive. Shutting that hole breaks other things that are dependent on it being there. RvB works because of that hole. The market for the last several years has assumed that hole is there because production corps use it. The many many alt corps of players for R&D and just a chill place to hang out when you need a breather from it all assumes that hole is there. And that's just off the top of my head, the game is interdependent on that hole being there, it's grown up with it and its a basic assumption in the entire game.

I'm not saying closing the hole is bad in and of itself. It could be good. But it's going to touch a whole lot of things and break other pieces of gameplay that CCP has built up over the years because they assumed it was there as well in game design. This is not some small isolated change as everyone seems to keep saying it is. Its a fundamental game design mechanic being changed. And I don't see a many people actually talking about the consequences of it beyond the superficial.

Having theses kludges in HiSec (like wars or Concord) at the moment sound more and more like a lie or trying to dance around the actual problems. HiSec, I think, has been thought at the beginning as a "Coffee Shop" (cf World of Darkness presentation in Fanfest, if you see what I mean), the actual Sandbox was not meant to be there.

Maybe at the end a better solution would be to put the losec limit to 0.8 instead of 0.5 ... war system then would be of no use and player would be more trained to "danger". Fanfest presentations clearly were towards PvP, if they actually want EVE to be mainly PvP, they have to do more changes to it. Yes, lots of people will quit, but it may be temporary (... or not). Or maybe you could be surprised as the fights would be diluted among more systems, thus having a "relative" security in certains areas (not including mercs doing the current Concord job). But all of this probably won't happen, too much impacts and too much people fearing the worst.

ok my statement was ... overly opiniated lol ...

let me rephrase ... i m not impressed with the INDY "improvements" CCP introduced ...

invention is a T2 BPO nerf. and CCP did NOT remove ALL ingame T2 BPO, so it is a very unbalanced change.
salvaging is a true extension but for ships
rig? you need to PVE salvage ... you cant mine them ... it became somthing for PVE player when marauders came on board ... even that was not very interesting for PVE players.
booster indy could be labelled as true indy add on
Orca could be labelled true indy add on. but with the buff for gankers, what is the use of orca if the miners are all dead? mittani was so happy to annouce that his minion was able to killed off 22-23 mackinaws with a couple of smarbombs?
PI? material spawn rates have been nerfed, again i feel CCP introduced a complexity into the game needlessly. and thereafter CCP introduced more changes to simplify things ... err wut? ow cmon ...
Rorqual ? its a jumpclone mothership bro ...

yea i know i whine too loud and i might be overly biased ... EVE isnt fair ... so are my statements? yes? maybe? :p

yes i know mittani himself said it before ... the way he suggest ideas to some people over beer in a pub ...

the way T2 BPO was introduced IS biased THAT is what i think ... i am just wondering what else can change ... i am still not seeing anything really ... it like almost always announcement for some patches or improvements, somewhere in the patch notes there a ton of fine print that gives 10 nerfs per 1 buff ...

but somehow the 10 nerfs seem in favor of a certain group of pilots ... or may be its me ...

*sigh*