EVE Information Portal

Very good point, Active Characters in X time window would be a better representation of viable targets.

Someone also suggested that the war dec stick to the player (corp) for 7 days if they drop corp (alliance), I think this would also be a good suggestion.

I also liked the idea someone had about N being the difference in size between the two corps/alliances.

Is this a bad joke or are you just silly? Tracking Disruptors against missiles?
Since when do missiles have tracking?
Do not come live with this dull idea!

Well, Guess Team Superfriends just Confirmed for us the BLATANT ignoring of the universal arguement against Cost escalation! Even though "Reduced" in escalation, it's still plenty large enough to provide a CCP Dec Shield, WAY TO FAIL HARD. But, We all knew it was a bull leading this charge.

Take note as Wars drastically get reduced. Ironic how the "War Expansion" Kills the amount of Wars in Eve. Gee, ya think You Devs did something Wrong here? Do you need engraved Concrete to see the Writing on the Wall? How Does Cost scaling Improve War interactions? IT DOESN'T!

OH, and on the Mods:

Armor Adaptive Hardener I - Low slot. Armor Hardener that adjusts its resistance based on the damage received. Only one can be fitted. Just the tech I version now, but others will follow if this turns out well.

Cool, Where's the Mod for Shields like this?


Small/Medium/Large Overclocking Processor Unit I & II - A rig that increases the CPU output of your ship, at a cost of reduced shield recharge rate.

HUH... More dissadvantage towards shields. Why does this Rig impact Shields (Only)? I'm seeing a great Biased development against shields and in favor of Armor ships. Do you people even play Eve? Do you just pull disadvantages out of a hat or do you purposely hate and nerf certain ships and Races?

EVE Inferno = The rekindling Hate of Incarna, except to Large Corps, Alliances and the CSM they Elect in, misrepresenting all of EVE community.

Coupled with the Rig drawback and the Adaptive Damage mod for Armor Buff, It's Clear they hate Caldari and Shield ships... why not cripple the missiles as well, right?

FYI, I can fly everything race subcap, but this trend is so blatant it's ridiculous.

Why would that be an improvement? Because it forces more "fair fights"? I get what CCP is doing, but I don't like it or your idea, since both are lacking from my perspective. They both suffer from trying to fit every type of wardec under the umbrella of silly initial overarching premises. For CCP it's: wardecs are about getting targets to shoot at, and you want to enforce some concept of fair fights. My problem with this is, that the aggressive wars I've participated in have largely been about resource denial or shooting people(not corps or alliances, but specific people within them) we don't like and both proposals fit these war goals badly.

Let's take a simple situation as an example. Our corp is grinding a static complex in highsec, since it's near our staging area and provides good steady income for little effort. Members of another entity starts using the same complex. We dec them to force those complex farmers out of the system, so we can get all the loot. A simple example, but it doesn't really fit in with the initial premises for wardecs people have presented. We aren't looking for fights, fair or otherwise, or prey. We just want the few guys who came to farm our site out of there. If they leave without fighting, that is just fine with us.

The problem is that the numbers of members in their corp/alliance is irrelevant from our perspective. We aren't trying to wage total war or gank soft highsec targets. We just wanted to be able to try to leverage our superiority in that tiny corner of space in order to get rid of a few competing pilots and stop their operations there. Suicide ganking isn't good enough for this, so it needs to be a wardec. It really shouldn't matter if they were members of a small corp or a huge alliance. In CCPs proposal and yours we are forced to pay according to the ridiculous member count number instead of the practical amount of targets we are actually engaging.

From my perspective CCPs proposal is good, but only as a framework. It can propably deal with the meat and potato wardec cases fairly well with some tweaks. The problem is, that it's a one-size-fits-all -solution, so it doesn't work well in some cases. Your solution isn't really an improvement, since it's another type of one-size-fits-all -solution, that just caters to a different audience. I think a better solution would be to bring additional wardec tools to the table, instead of trying to get everything to fit under one ruleset.

Personally I would like to see additional wardec options to fill those niches. I'd be much happier with a wardec option, that entirely ignores member numbers in the cost and instead bills me a static wardec cost and then extra by the number of targets I've actually killed. This way I wouldn't have to pay half a billion to dec a huge alliance, if I only wanted to drive a few of their highsec members/assets away from a specific system. You know, pay for actual agressions I've committed, instead of getting billed by some maximum theoretical number of aggression violations, that I could have potentially committed, but not really.

There is no Invulnerability Field or Anciliary Shield Booster for armor, therefore CCP clearly hates Amarr and armor ships.

Is it really so bad for armor and shield tanking to be different and work differently? Them being the same would be the oh-so-feared "dumbing down" of Eve.

CCP read this ****.

This is exactly how the costs should work.

The missile version of this exists already and it's called defender

And is completely nonfunctional and useless in most PvP situations.

I didn't say they were. There is no "best available PvP ship".

However, you can't reasonably get "under" the missiles of a Hookbill, Hawk, Drake, or Tengu (all popular ships) using almost any ship. Hell, I've seen HMLs blow up Warrior IIs, which just doesn't happen with any medium turret weapon system. And yet... they are exempt from tracking disruption? That just doesn't make sense.