EVE Information Portal

Dear CCP:

This horsecrap about not seeding the new modules/rigs by BPO is EPIC FAIL. You cannot change the entire course of the marketplace, NOW, 9 years in. This sounds like a FAILISH attempt at an ISK sink. Yes I see through your Dev Blog....seeding via BPCs in sites, directly on the market, blah blah blah....this is an attempted ISK SINK. DO NOT, REPEAT, DO NOT alter the formula that has worked this well for 9+ years. Plenty of people will be after these BPOs come expansion day and plenty of ISK will be sunk in direct purchasing and researching of these new BPOS.

The BPOs please, thank you.

On the CPU rigs, the drawback is all wrong I think. Shield recharge? You can add PG without drawback, not quite understanding why this has a recharge drawback. How you balance this is like all the other electronics rigs. MASSIVE CALIBRATION to avoid mass stacking. Skill required Jury Rigging II for T1, Jury Rigging IV for T2.

IF you want to sink ISK, move POS fuel back to the market. PI is a dismal failure. Move the fuel components back to
market and leave T2 components on planets. PI reeks of "passive" income which you guys have been busy nerfing
with R&D agents and the like. Also, while you are at it, how about nerfing PASSIVE POCO tax income?

I'm dangerously close to unsubbing (again) and this time it will be permanent.

Have a nice day.

You clearly have no earthly idea what an Isk sink is. [Hint: BPOs are, BPC drops cannot be]



In what way is PI a failure? Are you mad your POS costs more to run? PI requires constant maintenance to follow hotspots, follow the market, empty the planet of stuff, shuffle stuff between planets, etc. Now this effort doesn't take more than a few hours a week, but compared to R&D's hour and a half (mostly AFK travel time) every time you cash in your cores (I never did it more than once every 6 months), it's dozens of times more time invested.



I will.
Enjoy playing WoW.
Bye.

"MagSheath Target Breaker I - Mid slot. A module that has a chance of breaking the lock of ships targeting you, the chance increases the more ships target you at one time. Also breaks your locks. Reduces scan resolution significantly as a downside. Only one can be fitted at a time and the can not be fitted to capital ships."


CCP you forget to fix freighters, add one fiting slot

I want a new toy. Simple enough: combine a tractor beam and salvager.

(For T1/T2). If the distance is over 5/6k, and within 20/24k tractor range, it tractors, and when it hits the salvage range, begins salvaging. If the wreck isn't white/blue, it simply acts as a salvager, with no tractor ability.

Components for the T1 version would simply be a T1 salvager/tractor set, plus random stuff.

Components for the T2 version would be T2 salvager/tractors, plus whatever.

Just make sure the Noctis/Marauder bonuses apply appropriately, and... well, who wouldn't be happy about this?

*Also, works as a plain tractor on jetcans. Forgot that.

For new modules, where CCP isn't quite sure whether they're a good idea, introducing them as Meta-1 BPC drops is a reasonable precaution as it:

- Allows them to control the flow
- Puts production of them into the hands of the player

As long all meta-zero T1 items have BPOs, which CCP has agreed to do, we're all on the same page. They're just being cautious with some of the new modules and will apparently introduce them as Meta-1 variants.

Hey Posting here about this issue as well Hoping to get a response. I believe some pre inferno code has slipped in and cause a issue where i had a legal WT shot him and got concorded. 6 days ago filed a petition/ bugreport but no response If a dev or someone could look into it id be appricated here is the link to the forum thread i made

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=109044

I really do not see this huge deal everyone is making against new war costs. To be honest it can actually be cheaper now to wardec big hated alliances as the number of wars against them plays no role. You could easily end up paying billions to dec an alliance if they have several active wardecs against them.
Wars aren't supposed to be oh lets casually wardec this large group of people so we can have random targets to shoot at once in a while. It's supposed to be "We really really want to damage these mofos so we will gather the force and funding and make sure that every ISK counts towards destroying them." Then these ISK costs become a non-issue. I remember high sec wars back in the day, they were real, they were personal, they had agendas and 2m/week was a joke. The kind of wars we used to fight against competitors and aggressors were fueled by so much fervor that even 100m would've been pennies. For a real corporation with a common goal thats an hour's worth of work.

But I do think that corporations not in alliance should have a base fee of 20m to dec. There really is a difference between a corp and an alliance.

A few of fellow pilots responded to my speculative post Possible Optimistic Outcomes Ignited by Inferno.

In #286, Callidus worries that Inferno will repeat the failure of Incarna.

In #287, Pinky responded to my first point with "a lot of groups have been more strategic with the groups they dec and have been for quite some time".

In #300, Eternal supports Pinky's comment by saying "Players are already making strategic decisions when picking their targets". He mentioned "no one is going to be in a war after its release", which I assume means the quantity of wardecs will extremely decrease. He followed that war should be "more prevalent, or at least a bigger deal".

He also suggested that "there is now no incentive" for small alliances to unify to a certain point as a defensive military strategy. He also proposes that there will be “sweet spot of ~50-150 members” targets where "most entities will bother wardeccing". Players will have better luck "staying under 30 members“ to make themselves not financially-worth targets.


Small alliances unification

I will address this first. I think I was wrong about it. Eternal maybe right, that protection from wardecs may not be an incentive to band together and get into the sweet spot he proposed. But again, corps that are not enjoying PvP will do whatever they can to not be in wars. They stay small, they create ghost alts, decshield etc.

We will have more fun fighting with someone who enjoy fighting than forcing ones who don't.

This might even be a good phenomenon. Because tiny corps with young members and no economic foundation to afford wars will be less attractive wardec targets. This allows them space to grow, and when they're ready and reach the sweet spot, they will join the fray.


Inferno will not be the next Incarna

I share Callidus's concern that Inferno won't be the best EVE expansion, but I don't think it will repeat the Incarna tragedy. In Incarna, the focus on avatar was, while adding a sense of immersion, did not add enough value to the gameplay. If avatars can, for example, assassinate CEOs during a meeting or infiltrate enemy ships and sabotage warp cores, things would have been different.

Changes in Inferno on the other hand, even with the many weaknesses, will be impactful to our gameplay.


Inferno may improve the quality, but not necessarily the quantity, of wars

I agree with Pinky and Eternal that players are making good decisions militarily. When I propose that Inferno will improve CEO's strategic decision-making, I'm not suggesting that they are not already good at it.

But the higher cost will realistically add another level of challenge to the military generals. Like in RL, economy is always a huge factor in warfare. They have to consider whether their alliance can afford it. Wars can no longer be a casual decision anymore.

Nico expresses this best in #334,



That's what I meant how Inferno will very likely make wars more meaningful.

While we all share Eternal's concern that "no one is going to be in a war after its release", I really don't think that will happen. Because wars are motivated by more than money. Nico reminisced his younger days in the same post,



The poetic capsuleer Sanka, phrased the same idea in his love letter to CCP SonicLover (#312)



By the way, I can even smell the lavender you sent from here, dear Sanka

This is the "spirit of EVE", as Eternal puts it. That wars should be "more prevalent, or at least a bigger deal".
Ideally we want both the prevalence (quantity) and the "bigger deal" (quality). But it's always challenging for us to get both perfect.

In their effor to balance quantity and quality, I hope CCP will always emphasize the latter.

I do however absolutely agree with the majority of posters of this thread, that the escalation cost formula should be revised.
The next time the Goons want to burn Jita, it would be more epic if hisec corps don't have to go bankrupt to afford a wardec and organize a defensive effort.

Thanks everyone, and good luck to Inferno!

P.S.: I apologize if I misquoted or misunderstood the comments form other players. Let me know if I did.

If there were a mechanic for actually damaging WTs who don't have POSes, then raising the price to encourage more significant wars might be justifiable.

But generally WTs in aggressive wars simply hop corp or dock up to avoid fighting. The cost of war is low because the cost of escaping war is low. If you're going to raise the cost of war, raise the cost of escaping it.

As for reasoning behind Wars re: Random Targets v Revenge, the game encourages conflict in all flavors and for any reason. A Dec for shits and giggles is just as valid as one for economic gain (mercs, freighter fighters, and ransoms) is just as valid as one for space (POS tear downs) is just as valid as one for tears (Vengeance or Tear extraction).

I understand your concerns but this is only the first step in the war iteration process. Highsec wars suck for many reasons. Dec Shields, corp hopping and self declared wars are one of the reasons they suck which CCP is fixing in this expansion. Next they're looking at other factors that make it suck like Neutral Remote Reps. It's part of an ongoing change and to be honest I'd rather pay 50m for a war that will last one week than 2m for a war that will end in 24h because the target keeps hopping alliances.