The Judge brings up a self destruct feature for the structures to bypass the reinforce restriction. CCP Fozzie says this is something the team considers an option and they have several they are considering.
Yes! Give us a self-destruction button for structures already!
Ctrl+F: âDriftersâ
Donât try to make it out like thatâs the majority of what wardecs are used for. Someone pisses someone off, so the annoyed person hires VMG or someone to go and sit on the offenderâs corp for a week. Or two. Or twenty. (Really, their rates are pretty reasonable.) And blow up whatever citadels theyâve got in highsec.
By about week 3, maybe they start bleeding members, losing people who want to get out and mine, or mission (maybe with friends)âbecause generally, the corps that get singled out for âretributionâ wardecs are people who know how to fight, theyâre just not interested in fighting. Blowing up some guyâs disposable gank-ship is like eating a funyon for them: thereâs a moment of âmehâ, but no real satisfaction.
Really, far more of the âwar decâ game is about people getting their jollies by picking on folks who wonât fight back. Donât even try to claim itâs some kind of noble crusade to get people out of âpredatoryâ high-sec corps.
Jinâtaan suggests a challenge involving industry and boosters. CCP Dragon wants to avoid a scenario where a player may not be able to complete one of the challenges of the event because they either cannot or refuse to do a certain activity.
Whatâs wrong with saying âyou choose not to do X activity, you donât get the reward for doing X activityâ? I choose not to do Agency stuff. I donât expect CCP Dragon to give me completion credit for them. âCannotâ is one thing. âRefuse toâ is something totally different.
ETA:
CCP Dragon mentions the time battleships and battlecruisers and shows the initial estimate of the market being crashed for 18 months was not found to be the case, but rather 3 months.
What was this sentence supposed to mean?
ETA II:
Potential upcoming changes include a AURA Voice Over
Is there any way to get RealAURA back? The one that used to mock you when you died?
Brisc Rubal adds that getting new missions would be great. Jinâtaan says that changes to the mission pools per agent would add diversity, CCP Optimal agrees that in the current system there is no reason to run for other agents.
Firstly: Shut up, Sort, missions are better than anoms for enjoyable income generation. 
Secondly: Wow, Brisc. Good point. 
Thirdly: What about if I do not want to run for other agents? Do you really want to force me to move around if my preferred agent doesnât provide any good missions any longer? Speak about bad design decisions. 
And with regards all the talk about the Agency: Can you please first and foremost make it actually usable before you throw more people into this mess?
The CSM mentions the super hidden merch store. Aryth has a deep desire for a scale model Thorax. General sentiment is more merch and make it more visible.
And maybe lower shipping cost? Up to 60 USD for shipping a 20 USD item is a little bit meh.
Right in every point.
VMG doesnt exist anymore they all merged into PIRAT.
Me and a friend are fighting this guys actively.
We also created a recruitment thread for it.
This guys invaded our thread with all their toxic â â â â as they fear everyone who fights back.
Did they? Damn, VMG at least provided quality thugs for oppressing people. PIRATâs just a bunch of trade-hub campers. Meh.
The former Leader of VMG Khromius got outsmarted by his own people and was kicked alongside with all other corps from VMG.
There is way too much info for me right now, so Iâll just ask one question for now:
When CCP I donât remember his name cause I am tired mentioned âBug Reportsâ for Citadel fights to tackle the server issues with themâŚ
Can we not do something about it âeasilyâ? Canât the big alliances be convinced to DEMAND bug reports from their members after those fights? If CCP basically begs for them?
3000-4000 players with 25% being disconnected is a lot of bug reports that should have some use.
Killah Bee feels the Ferox is still too strong and easily cost effective. It can shoot from a huge range variety. Enough Feroxes would beat any HAC or BC whilst staying extremely cheap. They are good over a wide variety of situations. They were coined the swiss army knives. CCP Rise asks what would replace them, and the CSM feels the Hurricanes would do that. A competent FC would also have means to counter bomber runs. The low SP cap for Feroxes is also a issue. The CSM has a sentiment that they should still be good, just not as powerful as they are. Jinâtaan states that two range bonuses on any ship has generally proven to be bad as they become too powerful. This also applies for the Eagle which has the double range bonus, but is less of an issue as the Eagle despite being the most powerful HAC is still not cost effective in trades against a Ferox fleet. Another issue is the Hybrid ammo being really strong at all ranges.
As was mentioned when the Ferox ânerfâ was announced, the entire change we needed to make was either 1 module, or 2 (which then made them even tankier and more potent). Yes, remove one of the range bonuses if you want to reduce the ubiquity of the Ferox. And then it will shift to the Hurricane, and you can worry about why everyoneâs using a ship thatâs inexpensive, reasonably tanky, and delivers the kind of volley damage Muninns put out (hint: itâs the same guns, working with a bigger falloff window to offset the 2.5% lower bonus).
Hereâs a part of the problem youâre running into: Youâre forking off âCruisersâ in 2 different directions: Heavy Assault Cruisers, and Battlecruisers. Both of these directions have more or less the same intent: âItâs a cruiser-sized hull, but tankier with better damageâ.
So youâre getting the same net effect. Only one of these directions requires T2 manufacturing and level 5 in the cruiser skill to use it, the other⌠doesnât. So itâs gonna be roughly equivalent, but cheaper. This is the problem with having 2 different versions of what amounts to âHeavy Cruiserâ designations. The Tier 3 Battlecruisers (you know, the actual CBsâcruiser-speed ships using Battleship guns, not just heavily armored ships using Cruiser guns) donât suffer this problem because theyâre their own niche.
Until that duplication of purpose is addressed, this problem will keep re-occuring.
And how do we verify that itâs been done? I mean, weâre already talking about clients where windows take 20 minutes (or 2 hours) to open up in heavy tidi. How long do you wait for the bug report to open? How do you penalize someone who says âI was trying, but my client crashed while I was typing up the bug reportâ?
Just because weâre big doesnât mean weâre all-powerful.
So everyone has to do every cancer damn mechanic in the game to thrive? Sod that crap. You want to benefit the game: Make it possible to thrive and succeed doing whatever part of Eve you enjoy the most. Just make the events more varied and voila. Some sites are very combat focused, some sites are more skewed towards hacking/exploration etc, some might require mining, some might require you building something from a provided blueprint, fucksakes the sky is the limit here.
If someone prefer only doing combat, they can finish the event just fine doing just combat. If someone prefers hacking/exploration, they can finish the event that way, etc.
Forcing any one particular gameplay mechanic onto an event is basically just a middle finger to everyone whoâs not into it, and itâs pointless antagonism that serves no purpose.
Thanks for Brisc and Jinâtaan for keeping with their pledge and bringing up the need for mission âremodelingâ and for The Judge for asking if the AS development ability could be modded/ported over for mission/exploration site generating ( canât believe Iâm thanking The JudgeâŚsigh). Much less encouraged by CCPâs answer that it is too costly in Dev/manhours to do.
Also thanks for bringing up the wardec issue; sad to see how bad an effect it has on player retention, isnât it?
That was the event where built hulls got dropped and people were very upset (fair enough) and predictions were made of the hull drops wrecking the market for those hulls for 18 months, which turned out to be about 3 months instead.
Now still, Built hulls dropping is very very bad, as we have events far more than every 3 months now, but itâs a nice report back on the effects of that incident.
Presumably war dec costs should rise with each dec?
At the very minimum:
1st Dec - 1x cost, 2nd wardec - 2x cost, 3rd wardec - 3x cost, 4th wardec - 4x cost etc.
If necessary, the costs could increase more rapidly:
1st Dec - 1x cost, 2nd wardec - 2x cost, 3rd wardec - 4x cost, 4th wardec - 8x cost etc.
If this is the case Brisc why did the CSM advocate for changes in the current âbalance passâ to make capitals safer?
No one who knows anything about game mech in EVE thinks that nerfing ECM into the ground and removing combat ceptors nullification (as well as advocating for the HIC changes so that WHerâs would get screwed, seems that sense has prevailed here) is anything other than making nullsec safer for crabbing.
Well, I didnt get what of that was, tbfh
Some chocolate and cooking notesâŚ
and heavy drugs.
very heavy.
There is already some pooling of missions (based on Faction).
If CCP add NEW missions which are Corporation specific then this would justify variation between agents. What they shouldnât do is just re-distribute the existing missions in an attempt to make the offerings more diversified.
CCP Guard randomly suggests a mosh-pit-free-for-all mechanic where everyone just joins a pool of corps in a war.
This sounds interesting, but Iâm not sure what it means, can somebody elaborate?
Bevore doing something in war System do something against all these Gankers around. Did CCP check the KB and how many Ganks are going dayly?
If they change war mechanic too extrem they are destroying a part of EvE. Special for these people who are not Trade Hub Campers, that are hunters.
Sad days incommingâŚ