Test Server Feedback

I can't tell you precisely how it's done but the procedure involves a magnet, goldfish, jumping on one leg and single hair from CCP Hellmar's head.

= Totally understandable, I can picture that.




Once the game designer knows what value to change, why and to what number then it's a simple edit on the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam). The data is then ported for deployment along with other code and data changes tagged to a particular release and deployed to TQ in the form of code and database updates.

= This sounds like a weird Voodoo ritual.



Anyway, could you call your priest to a new session and do the magic, so that we can test the new module stats on Sisi, please?

... no, there is this game called EVE

So no introduction of Micro Jump Drive module?

EDA: New stats on Sisi, yay!

The new stats on the EDA (Extrinsic Damage Amp) are certainly a step in the right direction. After having tested some ships, here is what I found out:

CPU is ok with 35 req on the T2 module.

Damge Bonus should be:

- 16% for T1
- 19% for T2
- 21% for a faction EDA. I hope there will be a Fed Navy EDA. (Oh please do this!)

Ishtar and Domi would perform well, if the EDA gets the 21% damage bonus.

A droneboat, where it finally is more useful to mount dromemods instead of turretmods on lowslots could be very nice.
A Nos /Neut Domi with a better drone damage may also be a nice option for PvP.

The Ishtar can mount 2 EDAs, but only if you don't use a Sentry Rig and an additional CPU rig, which is balanced, because you can't tank and do 700 DPS, without either gimping your fit with supportrigs, or using only Faction/ Deadspace stuff on that Ishtar and still having only 3 tankslots.

Rattlesnake and Gila:

The RS will get a significant boost, but won't be unbalanced at all. ~1000 DPS and a nice tank will be in line with a 1300 DPS Machariel.

Gila will be in line with the Ishtar where you have to sacrifice tank over the EDA and/ or use very expensive mods to compensate.

Another thing is the Skill requirement for the T2 EDA. If you don't want, that everybody and his dog can fit the T2 version, it should have higher req. than Drones IV, WU IV and Gunnery II.

I'd suggest Drones V and Drone Interfacing V.


o/

Hmm k, you're right. Never mind.

If for example, the Dominix had a role bonus of 99% reduction in the cpu and powergrid needs for drone control units, 250 bandwith and a drone ba of about 700~900, the bonuses of the EDA would be fine. Doing this would also remove the 5% damage bonus to large hybrid turrets. Because the drone control units are restricted by skill level/DCU this still makes it so that there is a similar amount of training to achieve maximum dps form the ship.

I just tried out the wardec system and i'm quite curious about the prices.

I wardecced a 1-man corp and that was 50m isk, but the CONCORD mail says:

Also when wardeccing larger corporations or alliances, the 20m or 50m isk + 500k/member rule doesn't seem to apply. Small corps cost either 50 or 100m ISK but it isn't clear why. Yet EVE Uni with 1806 members costs 484.649.761 ISK, TEST with 6483 costs 942.306.241 ISK, Goons with 8498 costs1.071.672.973 ISK. IT'S A BLOODY MESS.

I still think a MUCH better way to calculate the war-bill is this:

Divide corporations and alliances into size-classes with individual price tags
1-10 (15 M)
10-25 (25 M) - this is a rather crucial corp-size so it should not be 10-50 or something
25-50 (40 M)
50-100 (75 M)
100-250 (150 M)
250-500 (350 M)
500-1000 (600 M)
1000+ (750 M) - no ISK decshield for corps and alliances big enough to be able to just defend themselves

The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.

Small corporations are protected against larger corporations because it's just not worth doing it.
84 member corp declares war on 8 member corporation: 150 + 15 = 165m ISK per week, 20.6M / target

Going after similar-sized targets is stimulated by a good burder/member to cost/target ratio
4 member corp declares war on a 7 member corporation: 15+ 15 = 30m ISK per week, 4.3M / target
175 member corp declares war on a 125 member corporation 150 + 150 = 300m ISK per week 2.4M / target

If they can finance the burden/member, small corporations will go after larger corporations (that can defend better)
18 member corp declares war on 890 member alliance: 25 + 600 = 625m ISK per week , 700k / target


The size brackets make it a LOT more comprehensible then the very messy way it is now on SiSi and it also protects smaller corps against larger corps, while not giving mega corporations a ISK decshield against small corporations. It even reduces the effect of member-padding. It's also very easy to later adjust individual price tags to influence size-specific corp-behavior. Something simply not possible for the current logarithmic 'solution' on SiSi.

No offense, but L2Read



It only doesn't count individual members, but uses the pricetags of the size-classes belonging to the attacking and the defending corp.

edit: IMHO much more elegant then the lump sump, with a minimum price, combined with a logarithmic member-modifier as it seems to be now on SiSi.

Yes. The inherent pricetag of your own (attacking) corporation makes it less attractive to go after much smaller corporations, while not being a big factor when going after larger corporations that have their own inherent big pricetags. Basically your best targets are in your own size-class or close to it.

And that goes pretty much for every size class, except the 1000+ ones. But when a corporation or alliance reaches that size, it should be able to defend itself properly, instead of hiding behind a ISK decshield.

the surrender icon should be shown with a ! for both parties when a surrender offer has been made.

if it doesn't I should probably fix it