EVE Information Portal

You're missing the point. The point is those exploits could've been declared exploits and fixed when they first discovered them, rather than being official allowed, which turned wars into a total waste of time for so long. Now, even with decshield being stopped, targets can still corp hop, which is exactly what they did before they discovered decshield anyway. What's the point in a war where the targets can just decide they don't want to be in it and can make it so at will?

As for removing the limit, it's not really removed. 3 wars is still going to cost 300mil per week to maintain, minimum, which is way beyond practical for a small wardec corp. Do CCP want to limit highsec wars to cash rich nullsec alliances, or are they just finding stealthy ways to make more money off us by forcing us to buy plex to fund wars?

Quite frankly, I feel cheated by these changes. The biggest problems wars faced have always been:

1. Fake, unnecessary alliances to inflate war costs - Now these aren't necessary, because the war costs are at alliance levels for everyone all the time anyway
2. Corp hopping to avoid the fighting - Nothing has changed here, it just means they can't hop back in to rejoin the fighting they were trying to avoid in the first place
3. Decshield - Well done, CCP, you've fixed this one (but you should've declared it an exploit immediately, fixed it ASAP, and never publicly stated it was permitted, thereby popularising it)

There is literally NOTHING in this expansion that I can see making wars any better for corps that spend the majority of their time in Eve taking part in highsec wars. All you're doing is trying to promote merc corps, and making it harder to target nullsec alliances' highsec logistics operations.

And you're trying to sell this expansion based on the wardec changes? lol...

*sarcastic applause*

That will entirely depend on what you set the size multiplier to… I used a rather conservative 50% here. Reduce it to, say, 25 or 10% and the numbers will shoot up quite quickly as the difference in size goes up. At the same time, the idea isn't to make it impossible or prohibitive to attack a different-sized targets — just enough to make it something you think about twice.

Not really. They've just changed the mechanic for it to make it the default mechanism for wardecs in general. Decshielding was really only about increasing the cost for the aggressor to ridiculous levels — that can still be done.

Bingo.

To be really clear: Fleet A members equip lock breakers in a mid-slot. Fleet B members equip a passive targeter in a mid-slot. Fleet A members won't know when to activate the lock breaker and will be suffering from lower scan res/lock times, giving Fleet B the advantage.

edit: This assumes that Fleet B can damage a primary target enough that even if the targeted ship has time to activate the lock breaker, there will still be enough target locks remaining to finish off the primary target.

I can honestly see the addition of new 'experimental' modules via limited BPC drops as a fine way to test such things and yet give the devs an easier 'out' if it becomes clear they're just a terrible idea and too imbalanced. I could see the BPC drop system as being a trial period for the veterans to test these limited items out, and then, perhaps when they've been in circulation long enough a plain old tech 1 BPC can be added to the market (after corp XXX has reverse engineered the pirate technology)

Looks good.

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before; but, I'd like to reiterate this suggestion. For the formula you've determined:



I think it might be more reasonable to make N the number of accounts in the corp/alliance.

Let's take a look at this graph I made that shows the dec costs if you have 1 character from your account in the corp/alliance, and the cost if you have all 3 characters from your account in the corp/alliance:

http://imgur.com/iC031

As mentioned above, the black curve is the cost to war dec a corp/alliance having N members, in this case it is assumed that each member has only 1 character in the corp/alliance. The red curve is the cost to war dec that same corp/alliance when each member has all 3 of their characters available on their account in the corp/alliance. The Y axis is in isk, please note the 10^6 multiplier.

The bottom plot shows the ratio of Red Curve / Black Curve. Here we see that the war dec cost is increased by a factor of 2.0-1.9, and falls similarly to 1/x, and then approaches an asymptotic limit of ~1.5-1.6.

The reason I think the above is a problem is that if I have three characters in my corp/alliance (One is my main, and two are alts) the current formula treats me as contributing three viable targets to an opposing corp/alliance. But in actuality, the number of viable targets I represent for an opposing corp/alliance is only 1.

I imagine some corps/alliances might take advantage of this fact. This cost increase is definitely not negligible. I feel this is not in the spirit of Eve (i.e. to inspire conflict, not evading).

Thanks for your time.





TL;DR
Click the link above

Why not just release Meta Level 0 so us builders actually have stuff to build lol

And ya if you dont do it the right way by giving it over to the market, then atleast make it meta 1

Well, I meant the specific "dec washing" part of decshield where a corp could just join and leave decshield as soon as the war was declared, but before it was active, thereby ensuring that the war never goes live for them. That part has been fixed, at least. But it should never have been allowed to go on as long as it did.


Another question I have, about this magsheath module, we need more details. Not sure if someone's found out anythign precise on SiSi or something, but my understanding of what the dev blog says is that there is a percentage chance of it breaking all locks on the ship that uses it, and the chance increases with the number of incoming locks?

Given that the BPO is not seeded, it will be very limited in supply, and therefore will be expensive. If it's expensive, it will need to be highly effective, or else nobody will use it. If it's highly effective, the cost won't put people off fitting it, because it really will be a get out of jail free card, especially if combined with stabs.

What's the point of the module? The scan res penalty implies it's intended to avoid combat, so that leads me to assume it's either to help against suicide ganks (which it won't, because breaking a lock doesn't help if you get alphaed as soon as they lock), or at getting haulers through gatecamps (which again, it won't, ultimately, because campers will just use instalock HICs to stop the initial warp off, and then tornadoes to alpha the hauler before it can break their locks). Is it to let marauders run missions in lowsec without fear of being ganked?

On the other hand, I could be wrong about how it works. Perhaps it's intended that it has a %age chance of breaking a lock, and this increases with the number of incoming locks, but the roll is done per lock, which would usually break some locks, but not all. This would make it useful in combat, as it would mitigate damage, and might just break the right locks and allow you to escape. But the scan res penalty precludes that use. Could a dev please clarify this?

I very much thought by CCP refering to wanting to make modules like cards in magic the gathering that they intend to seed possibly hundreds of new modules of the next few months/years with niche/marginal uses/effects just to mix up what you might face and I see the lock breaker much like that you might make a fit that makes sense you might not.

Ah well..

So that means I will now only dec corps where I don't need to pay more than 50mil.

Why keep they stacking charges though? Sometimes I wonder if the devs actually play this games.

Large alliances are going to get decced alot less... smaller corps is going to suffer more.

I would think they would want that EWAR module to help with blob warfare, and it would fit the bill perfectly if it didn't have a locking penalty. The inability to lock targets while having it active already seems like a large enough penalty in itself, so why have the scan resolution penalty?