These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: War, Modules & Super Friends

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mangala Solaris
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#101 - 2012-05-14 16:23:41 UTC
Quote:
Note that this rule only applies for non-mutual wars – mutual wars do not prohibit players from entering or leaving corporations


What if, there are two corporations (A & B for example) in a mutual war and along comes some dumb 3rd party who decs one or both sides, does the 7 day rule then kick in for players in corps A & B?
Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#102 - 2012-05-14 16:27:21 UTC
Vera Algaert wrote:
Quote:
Also, as the thinking is to start to add modules on a regular basis, so we're looking into ways of how we can fight the potential issues associated with it, such as bloating the market too much and introducing power creep. Seeding through loot drops gives us better control over where and when and how much to seed, which is an important feature for us to have for the future.

what happened to the mantra of a player-run economy?

How is a loot drop that requires a player to run a site and acquire the BPC less of a "player run economy" than an NPC seeded BPO?
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#103 - 2012-05-14 16:27:27 UTC
Mangala Solaris wrote:

What if, there are two corporations (A & B for example) in a mutual war and along comes some dumb 3rd party who decs one or both sides, does the 7 day rule then kick in for players in corps A & B?


I'm not sure that the 7-day rule should apply to the defenders. And that's a key reason why.

(Which might also be why the timer needs to be shortened to 3-days instead of 7-days.)
Cal Gin
State War Academy
Caldari State
#104 - 2012-05-14 16:27:43 UTC
Now I understand about the new Ancillary shield boosters, I know ive been after them for a long time since im a huge active tank fan so 2 thumbs up for that. My question is are there any plans to do the same thing for armor repair modules?
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#105 - 2012-05-14 16:30:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagehi
So... It'll cost about 450 million a week to war dec Test Alliance? I will miss my friends on the Jita undock. This doesn't make much sense to me, as it makes high sec incredibly safe for most null alliances, safer than most high sec corps/alliances. Meh, I guess, who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I guess it forces corps/alliances to grow.
Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko
#106 - 2012-05-14 16:33:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Paul Clancy
It seems Ancillary Shield Booster I not always receives it's ship bonus.

For example, Sleipnir have the ship's bonus applied to ASB, hawk have the bonus too, but Golem have not.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#107 - 2012-05-14 16:35:11 UTC
Quote:
We’ve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first.

How is this a fix for corp hopping? People leave the corp to avoid the war, so why would they want to rejoin before the war is over?

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club
#108 - 2012-05-14 16:36:55 UTC
Alx Warlord wrote:
2nd =D


And about the modules:

Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II: This doesn't sounds good, as a drone boat user, most of the drone boats use low slots as tank, ( except for the rattlesnake that will be overpower with lots of tank, torpedo dps and drones dps) so the gallente ships will not be that good again.... my sugestion was to make this a Hi-Slot module (since this is a drone augmentation module, not a ship dps module), so most of drone boats could really use it, removing the guns and replacing with it...



None Empty Quoting.

Like to see this discussed more.
Vanessa Vansen
Vandeo
#109 - 2012-05-14 16:37:39 UTC
Quote:
We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We haven’t found a good universal solution yet, so we’ll have to wait on this one.


"Don't do it" that's the good universal solution you are looking for!
Why?

Let's have a look

ECM - effects both missiles (besides f.o.f.) and turrets
Sensor Damps - effects both too
Tracking Disruption - effects turrets only but now
Defender - effects missiles only

Hence, no need to change anything.

Let's have another look.
Caldari tend to suck at PVP because of several missile related issues.
Add that and there will be another issue while Caldari missile ships suck at PVP.

And a question (not serious though):
When are you going to let the target disruptor effect drones?

Serious question:
Does the MagSheath Target Breaker I also break the "lock" of drones?

And finally, dropping Meta 1-4 BPCs ... good idea!
dropping T1 Meta 0 BPC ... bad idea ... just make them available!

And once more, we are paying for that game because we like it!
You better take care that you don't implement stuff that you, CCP, would like but us (the customers) won't like!
Captain Thunk
Explode. Now. Please.
Alliance. Now. Please.
#110 - 2012-05-14 16:38:56 UTC
Vincent Athena wrote:
I don't know why everyone thinks this makes it impossible to dec E-Uni. It will cost, what, 200-300 mil? So get your corp of 5 members to each run a few L4 missions one afternoon, and you get one week vs all of E-Uni.

CCP: I heard a rumor that if the target corp of a dec makes the war mutual, then the war can no longer be terminated by the aggressor, but only by a surrender. Is that true?


Eve-Uni is irrelevent, they will use the exploit already detailed earlier in this thread anyway.

The problem is why would anyone pay 200-500mil for a war which typically most defenders will just wait out. This will cause the war dec system to fail except for alliances wishing to take other alliances low sec tech moons or basic high sec alt corp tower removal. This in turn will cause the mercenary system to never take off. Without wars there's no demand for mercenaries and those that are going to try will regret it when they discover actually its just endless pos defence for private empires of already rich individuals most likely in one of the key 0.0 alliances.

So all in all, sounds like people at CCP have gone to a lot of effort for nothing.
Torak Dakos
The Reckless Masquerade
#111 - 2012-05-14 16:40:25 UTC
Capacitor Battery edits - All capacitor batteries now also provide a defense against Energy Vampires (Nos) and Energy Neutralizer (Neut) effects. A portion of the effect is reflected back on the aggressor.

so where is my moduel that deflect enemy fire back at them? :P
Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#112 - 2012-05-14 16:40:54 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
So... It'll cost about 450 million a week to war dec Test Alliance? I will miss my friends on the Jita undock. This doesn't make much sense to me, as it makes high sec incredibly safe for most null alliances, safer than most high sec corps/alliances. Meh, I guess, who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth.

I guess it forces corps/alliances to grow.


What is this? According to Dotlan there are three whole alliances with more than 4k members. So TEST, Goonswarm and Solar Citizens (lol) are at that 450 mill/week mark. If they pad themselves with alts, you might add in Intrepid Crossing and the AAA/AAA pets alliances. Wow. That's 6 whole alliances at that cost.

Unless I'm missing something, Those 6 alliances don't control all of nullsec (yet).
Brunaburh
Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
#113 - 2012-05-14 16:42:08 UTC
Torak Dakos wrote:
Capacitor Battery edits - All capacitor batteries now also provide a defense against Energy Vampires (Nos) and Energy Neutralizer (Neut) effects. A portion of the effect is reflected back on the aggressor.

so where is my moduel that deflect enemy fire back at them? :P


Do people even use the NOS since the nerf? I can see this as a good anti-neut feature, but isn't the NOS already weak enough?
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#114 - 2012-05-14 16:45:50 UTC
darmwand wrote:
Petrus Blackshell wrote:
Larger railguns are technically good (low damage, extreme range) but suffer from the fact that their range is so extreme that enemies can just warp right to them. Anything operating at higher than ~120 km range is very vulnerable since the minimum warp-in range is 150 km. A 200 km Eagle sniping gang is useless if all it takes to counter them is a single scanning ship and 20 seconds. Increase minimum warp range to 300 km. Boom, railguns fixed.


Ah, interesting point, hadn't thought of that.


Petrus, what you are saying is valid, however you are overlooking something.

On vessels that are bonused to hit at extreme range you (under current game mechanics) have little need to worry about carrying long range ammo.

You will primarily be using your higher damage short range ammo, which can easily hit out to ranges where everyone else is relying on their weaker longer range ammo.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Temmu Guerra
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#115 - 2012-05-14 16:46:39 UTC
From an engineer please for the love of all that is holy label your axis ;)


On a serious note the changes look really good!
Aramis Lynx
Udarnaya Brigada
#116 - 2012-05-14 16:47:03 UTC
The ecm is an interesting anti-bob warfare module. This is the only way I see this being used is in fleet battles:

Everyone fits one, stays aligned, as soon as called primary hits the ecm and spams warp until warp out. Rinse repeat. Nobody in either fleet ever dies.
Kari Trace
#117 - 2012-05-14 16:49:18 UTC
Quote:

We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We haven’t found a good universal solution yet, so we’ll have to wait on this one.


-1

Missiles are an entirely different offensive weapons platform than turret based systems. Each has a positive and negative, each has its own counter system.

Allowing this, and in relation all, anti-turret defensive systems to work verse missile based systems would then make missile systems gimped. As we all know railguns are a waste of space (still, even after a buff); if this is added missiles would be inferior as well.


I guess it is one way to get people to stop being Caldari :/.

I like making things explode.

Kari Trace
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#118 - 2012-05-14 16:50:35 UTC
I'll be interested to see how the target breaker works in missions. Get whole room aggro. have all the locks on you broken. repeat. maybe.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#119 - 2012-05-14 16:54:05 UTC
CCP: instead of

(Log(base 2.05831) of N)^2 * 300000 * N^.27

Why not

(Ln(N))^2 * 575685 *N^.27

?

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
M0therSky
Outback Steakhouse of Pancakes
Deepwater Hooligans
#120 - 2012-05-14 16:54:31 UTC
Sorry but i'm completely in opposition with your vision of wardec.
The larger the alliance is the lower the price for wardec this entity should be.