EVE Information Portal

Why chaning the T1 seeding method for these new modules?

This kind of decisions add only complexity to the game and will be changed back in 2 years time in a revamp...

"At the time we assumed that... we wanted to..."

Why are the T1 not going onto the market.

This is r_tarded.

ALL T1 items should have a T1 BPO seeded onto the market. Otherwise how are people going to be able to produce BPC's and T2 variants in the future.

CCP how can you be doing so well to drop the ball at the last hurdle.

Excellent devblog, lots of really great stuff in here.

I especially liked your implementation of war cost, and I think that's an excellent solution. I like how much math goes into it to give that nice curve.

I have a serious concern about this though: Until this point, there has never been any major advantage to using the buddy invite system as often as possible to give yourself short-term alts. However, with the advent of increased war costs per corp member, I see no reason not to:

1. Use the buddy invite as often as possible using PLEX, up to once per month, to pay for as much of your main subscription as possible


2. Create three characters with these now non-trial accounts and put them into a player corporation to inflate war declaration costs


3. Let the new 'buddy' accounts lapse without any intent to continue their use past paying the subscription

This mechanic has several serious drawbacks, both for the players at large and for CCP.

1. It allows a large and well-coordinated player organization to easily add upwards of 20,000 characters, all in non-trial accounts, to its ranks every year


2. It represents an abuse of the buddy invite system that is very difficult to combat without severely limiting the usage of the buddy system, one of the game's better recruitment avenues

I believe that it would be very wise not to count inactive accounts. This would not represent any really usable disclosure of subscriber information, especially since the difference would not be visible until there are at least 113 members in the target alliance. Edit: I see you're looking at addressing this. Excellent.



What happened to wars against corporations only costing 20,000,000 ISK? I think war costs increasing when they are against alliances rather than corporations is an important mechanic. Why not simply subtract 30,000,000 ISK from the cost if it is a corporation?

Edit: And please, can you please consider getting a de-escalating factor on the war cost multiplier for long and many wars, the same way you've got on the increased member count? Or removing it entirely and replacing it with something else?

What about the cost of wars that have dropped from alliances? We are assured that they will not add to the cost of the original war, sure, but can they not be subsidiary to it, residing under the same bill until you choose to cease warring against them? This could alleviate the serious issues many face in alliances collapsing completely in order to avoid a war by forcing the attacking corporation to pay exorbitant fees to keep them dec'd. (Currently they can't keep them dec'd at all, but in the future the fees are going to be the issue.)

Very soon CCP says trial buddy system is now over!

So, CCP, as part of your war-themed expansion you:

• Made wars 10 to 20 times more expensive for the aggressor.
• Allowed the defender, and the defender only, to bring allies into the war.
• Implemented a fix to corp hopping that doesn't penalize the defenders hopping corp.
• Added a new "get out of jail free card" module.

All that for the defender. The aggressor gets:

• Fixes for a couple exploits you knew about for years.
• Starting wars takes 24 hours less.

That's it? And to think I just fixed my sec status for the expansion...

guys soniclover is probs the best dev at ccp right now... i would say tied with the french guy and tallest...

this man needs more likes!

Does the magsheath break the locks of ships immune to electronic warfare (titans, supercarriers)?

Also does the magsheath scanres penalty apply only when trying to break locks, or does it apply whenever the module is fitted (like a cloak)

Does the magsheath break locking attempts as well, or only locks?

Just because they knew about the exploits does not reduce the advantage to the aggressor now that they are fixed. No matter how old an exploit is, fixing it is a good thing.

Defender cannot get out of the war by jumping into, then out of an alliance.
Defender cannot set up a bunch of fake war decs to up the cost to an aggressor.

Also: Number of wars the aggressor can declare no longer artificially limited to 3, but can be as high as the aggressor is willing to pay for.