EVE Information Portal

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

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.

You could (and environmentalists would) argue that mining drones damage the asteroids. That's why I see it as my personal duty to preserve the geological richness that can only be found in Placid belts.

I love the new modules; I really do!

My question/concern is to do with the war mechanics though.

I'm assuming that N in

(log2.05831 N)^2 * 300000 * N^0.27

Is Number of Target corp members ?

If so then this equation benefits the bullies and griefers.

My belief is that this algorithm should be tweaked to be inversely proportional to the size of your own corp/alliance too.

As it stands with this graph, a 2000 man alliance can wardec a very small corp for practically nothing; You say "The increased cost reflects the easier access to multiple targets. "; but it doesn't answer the fact that in my scenario it will decrease the gameplay available to a small corp and perhaps even stop them logging in.

Would you undock if there are 4 of you and 50 of them ?

You say that the occurrences of griefing in the manner is low, but I think you might find its higher then you think. Also because this new chance allows wardecs to be taken against small corps for practically free, it will really become a common occurrence, the reason it's not so prevalent at the moment is because its expensive.

It's not just the negative side of open warfare either, my own alliance is small and dedicated, we roleplay as anarchistic freedom fighters and we've been known to get involved in war with entities much larger then ourselves. Of course, our style of gameplay doesn't appeal to everyone, so we are generally forced to fight with a large numerical disadvantage - we compensate for this by using innovative fits and a wide range of strategic tactics.
That's going to change though, we're often at war with entities at five times our size (Sev3rance, 7 times larger; CVA, 29 times larger) and we simply will not be able to afford that any more.

This equation punishes the small, the rp'ers, the innovate and people who just like to play in peace. It gives a lot of power to statists, bullies, griefers and kill board padders.
I'm worried that it removes a lot of gameplace decisions and I fear will affect subscription numbers in the long term.

Please reconsider the maths and make an allowance to protect small entities being swarmed by much larger entities and please rethink that having a larger cost will make up for having more targets because that's not how it works. It doesn't mean I'll have 50 more people to kill; it means I'll have 50 more people trying to fillet me.

Heh, true, but hardly worth all that ISK that would be much better invested in booze and ammo...

Can you read this ?

http://eve-radio.com/news-compendium/dev-blogs/1671-war-modules-a-super-friends?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=grn_everadio

Could see how this could make a HUGE impact to null sec warfare. *Primaried by 150 ships, Hit lock breaker and cackle* It sound like an interesting effect actually, especially if it JUST breaks your lock.

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 :)

He means to convert a trial to a paying account for one month and then let the subscription lapse. Do this 5 times per person and suddenly you have a superblob alliance that costs 600mil to wardec. I would do it, I'm pretty sure others would as well. In fact, if this goes live I will definitely do this.

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!