Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 106 post(s) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1910
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Team Super Friends have been working on the New War Dec system, new Kill Reports and some new Modules and we'd love to see all the feedback and issues gathered here in this thread so it will be easier for us to monitor it.
HAVE FUN (and don't break anything too badly) CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
1555
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
Are the new Kill Reports in 3D? CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1912
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Seleene wrote:Are the new Kill Reports in 3D?
you can spin your Kill Reports in station, but only if you are in captains quarters CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1912
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:43:00 -
[4] - Quote
btw if it wasn't clear ^^^ was a lie CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
825
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:43:00 -
[5] - Quote
Regarding the drone damage upgrade, did you find there was a pressing need for drones to be more damaging? Not disputing it, just interested. Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
326
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:46:00 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Punkturis, can you repost what changes your team is bringing out on Sisi? Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
Arcane Sun
Absense of Imagination
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:49:00 -
[7] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Regarding the drone damage upgrade, did you find there was a pressing need for drones to be more damaging? Not disputing it, just interested. They probably just ran out of ideas for balancing gallente, they are mostly drones afterall. |
Miss Yanumano
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
I'd love to provide feedback, however, there seems to be some problems *cough* with connectivity to SiSi ;) |
Kyoko Sakoda
Veto. Veto Corp
79
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
As a UI nerd I am excite and may have comments. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:50:00 -
[10] - Quote
Lapine Davion wrote:CCP Punkturis, can you repost what changes your team is bringing out on Sisi?
added it in the first post CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:51:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kyoko Sakoda wrote:As a UI nerd I am excite and may have comments.
uh-oh! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Capitol One
Wolfsbrigade Lost Obsession
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:51:00 -
[12] - Quote
Totally the best dev. |
Thomas Gallant
Eyes In The Dark Lunar Industries Partnership
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? |
Tess La'Coil
Lightbringer's Sanctuary Fatal Ascension
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
I might have missed it, will these kill reports only be for corps/alliances in FW, or also for all other mails/reports? Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother.-á |
Wey'oun
The Knights Templar Intrepid Crossing
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:52:00 -
[15] - Quote
will the new adaptive armor hardener have faction/deadspace/officer variations? and if so how do you plan on seeding them,
love the ideas here btw, looking forward to seeing the fueled booster. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:56:00 -
[16] - Quote
Tess La'Coil wrote:I might have missed it, will these kill reports only be for corps/alliances in FW, or also for all other mails/reports?
all of them CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Shang Fei
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
what slot is the drone dmg mod going into, what's the fitting requirements and what skill does it need? thanks! |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:56:00 -
[18] - Quote
regarding the kill reports, as the current killmails and subsequent killboard battle reports suffer severely with inaccurate and sometimes totally wrong details of who's on who's side, will the war/battle reports take into account the involved parties standings towards each other and in some cases not limit statistics of the report (isk lost/isk killed/players involved etc..) to just 2 sides?
ie are we still going to have to rely on manual separation of the involved parties into the different sides involved in the battles? |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here?
Yeah it's been changed, it'll be described better in a dev blog soon, I'm not sure the latest version is in this sisi update though CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:58:00 -
[20] - Quote
GeeShizzle MacCloud wrote:regarding the kill reports, as the current killmails and subsequent killboard battle reports suffer severely with inaccurate and sometimes totally wrong details of who's on who's side, will the war/battle reports take into account the involved parties standings towards each other and in some cases not limit statistics of the report (isk lost/isk killed/players involved etc..) to just 2 sides?
ie are we still going to have to rely on manual separation of the involved parties into the different sides involved in the battles?
there was no work done on the backend of kill reports, it's only a UI change CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
45
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:59:00 -
[21] - Quote
Do you happen to have stats/fitting or info onhand for the new mods (ideally the adaptive hardeners and the shield boosters) so i can ponder them while waiting for Sisi to come up? |
Blake Armitage
Procyon Holdings
140
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 19:59:00 -
[22] - Quote
Will old 'killmails' that are displayed on the Character panel show up as new Kill Reports?
Also, is the value of the kill priced at the time of the kill? As you know, prices change over time and it would be nice to have that number recorded. |
Azura Solus
D.A.M.A.G.E.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
Drone Modules are a great idea and IMO will allow for more diversity in both PVE and PVP aspects of the game. Seriously cant wait to test out some drone boats with these new modules.
Now the best for last I have some major concerns with the new wardeccing changes, Me being a wardeccer myself, I agree with making it so people can no longer pop neut alts into the aggressors corp for surpise attacks. That is a lame Tactic IMO and Never should have been allowed. Now some of the biggest concerns is the cost of the decs. Our normal Dec is corps from around 20 - 100 members, preferring one around 50 members. Now being a 7-8 man corp the cost of this is our biggest concern. If we were a big 100 man corp or alliance the cost would be as big as a issue. But it seems to me at least that these changes will kill us people that prefer to fight 3 of us vs 10.
Another concern going along those lines is that the defenders are able to call in unlimited backup if they pay. While i do like the new merc contracts that will be implemented. I feel that allowing a defender to call in unlimited backup is just a bit too far. An option that would be nice to see is that the defender is limited to a certain amount of merc contracts per war or month. Like 3 merc contracts per war (Depending on how exactly the merc contracts will be set up). if the defender can just hire all of the orphanage then there is no hope for us small scale wardeccers to survive ( unless that is the goal of the changes).
All i would ask is dont kill it for us small scale war deccers. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:00:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ampoliros wrote:Do you happen to have stats/fitting or info onhand for the new mods (ideally the adaptive hardeners and the shield boosters) so i can ponder them while waiting for Sisi to come up?
I don't know too much about the new modules and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person from the team looking at this thread now (it's 8 at night) but I'm sure SoniClover will reply to you module guys sometime later CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:01:00 -
[25] - Quote
Blake Armitage wrote:Will old 'killmails' that are displayed on the Character panel show up as new Kill Reports?
Also, is the value of the kill priced at the time of the kill? As you know, prices change over time and it would be nice to have that number of the cost of a historical kill.
Old "killmails" will show up as new Kill Reports but with 0.0ISK value since it's the price at the time the kill is made CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
326
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:04:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Ampoliros wrote:Do you happen to have stats/fitting or info onhand for the new mods (ideally the adaptive hardeners and the shield boosters) so i can ponder them while waiting for Sisi to come up? I don't know too much about the new modules and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person from the team looking at this thread now (it's 8 at night) but I'm sure SoniClover will reply to you module guys sometime later
So which Sonic does SoniClover love more? Sonic? Or Sonic? Can't tell just by looking at him. Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1914
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:05:00 -
[27] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
wait wait wait.. no info has been added to the Kill Reports except for the ISK lost..
you can read my dev blog to get more info CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:05:00 -
[28] - Quote
Capitol One wrote:Totally the best dev.
damn straight!
ohh and have any dev's given thought on war dev costs being based on the war dec'd corps standings towards the 4 highsec races and concord, as war dec's are basically bribes to the faction navies and concord to 'look the other way' when u attack someone in their space. so it makes sense that itd take more isk to 'bribe' a faction to look the other way if theyre good friends (read higher standings) with the victim.
not entirely sure how alliances would work but would say it should work on a macro version of the corp standings towards factions. Average of the pilots in the corp, changing daily by a small amount over time.
mentioned it to Guard the other day and he seemed to like it =)
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
402
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:07:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Seleene wrote:Are the new Kill Reports in 3D? you can spin your Kill Reports in station, but only if you are in captains quarters BEST. FEATURE. IN. INFERNO! Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Thomas Gallant
Eyes In The Dark Lunar Industries Partnership
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:07:00 -
[30] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
Drone Modules are a great idea and IMO will allow for more diversity in both PVE and PVP aspects of the game. Seriously cant wait to test out some drone boats with these new modules.
Now the best for last I have some major concerns with the new wardeccing changes, Me being a wardeccer myself, I agree with making it so people can no longer pop neut alts into the aggressors corp for surpise attacks. That is a lame Tactic IMO and Never should have been allowed. Now some of the biggest concerns is the cost of the decs. Our normal Dec is corps from around 20 - 100 members, preferring one around 50 members. Now being a 7-8 man corp the cost of this is our biggest concern. If we were a big 100 man corp or alliance the cost would be as big as a issue. But it seems to me at least that these changes will kill us people that prefer to fight 3 of us vs 10.
Another concern going along those lines is that the defenders are able to call in unlimited backup if they pay. While i do like the new merc contracts that will be implemented. I feel that allowing a defender to call in unlimited backup is just a bit too far. An option that would be nice to see is that the defender is limited to a certain amount of merc contracts per war or month. Like 3 merc contracts per war (Depending on how exactly the merc contracts will be set up). if the defender can just hire all of the orphanage then there is no hope for us small scale wardeccers to survive ( unless that is the goal of the changes).
All i would ask is dont kill it for us small scale war deccers.
Hmm, interesting, didn't think of that much, but it works both ways too, tiny corps could be easily targeted by large war dec corps as well, given the cost is based on number of members, meaning a large war dec corp could dec dozens if not hundreds of 1 man tax evading corps, so either way you look at it, small corps will take a hurting on the war dec changes. (be it the giving or receiving side)
|
|
Goatfather
HOMELE55 Double Tap.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:08:00 -
[31] - Quote
I dunno if this goes here or along with crimewatch changes.
Are there any plans to give corps/alliances legally @ war rights to loot wrecks?
A + B are at war, a wreck appears from B. Both A + B should have loot rights, not just B.
The reason I bring this up is simply due to what happens in fights small to large in Hi-Sec in which there are countless times if nto almost always that those of us fighting on either side are unable to loot one another, due to neutral scavengers.
Is there ever going to be a system in which those of us that are LEGALLY at war with one another, can destroy scavengers for looting? I can understand the non-legal system for scavengers, but being able to loot wrecks of fallen war targets is an incentive to fight a war, it's also one of the only ways some people can make money, per the time they have to play eve.
Again sorry if this is the wrong place to ask... Looking forward to these war changes, hoping they are good. Thanks for your time. |
Azura Solus
D.A.M.A.G.E.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:11:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
wait wait wait.. no info has been added to the Kill Reports except for the ISK lost.. you can read my dev blog to get more info
Aye meant to mention the war history with that basic thought ts more total info will be available easier a bit high so hard to get allthought through the key board but would love to hear back ( if you can ) about some of the finer details of the new deccing system Have read the posts, but was wondering if any specifics such as cost has been finialized |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:13:00 -
[33] - Quote
umm will my extreamly expensive cap stable vargur be affected by the new cap injection shield boosters? PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:14:00 -
[34] - Quote
look forward to the module guys coming in for comments its good to see the first few ones hit the ground, but honestly was looking forward to the others, namely the Extreme Rigs, and the Micro-Jump drive... as i was sorta depressed when i saw on chaos dump it was a BS only module :(
btw....
"using Cap Boosters as charges"
ummm Cap Boosters as fuel for the shield booster fuel is odd... perhaps need to change the name of cap boosters? lol |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:14:00 -
[35] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:umm will my extreamly expensive cap stable vargur be affected by the new cap injection shield boosters?
Not unless you use a cap injected shield booster lol, its either you suck cap for the boost, or you directly shove the cap boosters into the shield booster and it uses those for its cap.... |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
130
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:umm will my extreamly expensive cap stable vargur be affected by the new cap injection shield boosters?
yahh you can go toe to toe with sum1 with a non expensive cap injected shield booster vargur and when he runs out of cap boosters, he'll melt in a horrifyingly humiliating death :) |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
130
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:17:00 -
[37] - Quote
Silly Slot wrote:look forward to the module guys coming in for comments its good to see the first few ones hit the ground, but honestly was looking forward to the others, namely the Extreme Rigs, and the Micro-Jump drive... as i was sorta depressed when i saw on chaos dump it was a BS only module :(
fyi the most used-on ships for the new CPU rigs will be Interdictors. hands down... well... minus the sabre! |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
40
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:17:00 -
[38] - Quote
Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules).
Adaptive Armor Hardener - there is only a tech I version at start, but it will not be seeded directly on market. You'll get BPCs as drops (we haven't nailed down where yet). It is entirely possible to add other tech and/or faction versions later.
War cost change - we've been making changes to this very recently, so it might not be on Sisi yet, but should be soon. As Punkturis said, we'll have more information in a devblog very soon. |
|
Kraylo Jita
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:19:00 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
wait wait wait.. no info has been added to the Kill Reports except for the ISK lost.. you can read my dev blog to get more info
So logis still have to fire a shoot with a gun to get on the km ? |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
321
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:19:00 -
[40] - Quote
oh thank g-d... i thought they were changing regular shield boosters to cap injection only... did not know there ware goingt o be two versions now... cant wait to get done work and dl the new sisi.. PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1919
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:21:00 -
[41] - Quote
Kraylo Jita wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
wait wait wait.. no info has been added to the Kill Reports except for the ISK lost.. you can read my dev blog to get more info So logis still have to fire a shoot with a gun to get on the km ?
yes
I feel bad for all the helpful logi pilots out there CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1919
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:22:00 -
[42] - Quote
I should also probably mention that the War Report has not been finalized, it's missing a timeline and some better grouping probably. Also the UI for the Ally system has not been fully implemented. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:24:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules).
Adaptive Armor Hardener - there is only a tech I version at start, but it will not be seeded directly on market. You'll get BPCs as drops (we haven't nailed down where yet). It is entirely possible to add other tech and/or faction versions later.
War cost change - we've been making changes to this very recently, so it might not be on Sisi yet, but should be soon. As Punkturis said, we'll have more information in a devblog very soon.
wait wait wait wait wait
this has me concerned here, wasn't the whole reason for one of the recent patches to GET RID OF THE SOLO T1 ITEMS...
The idea was Meta items = drops, T1 = NPC Market with invention to T2....
Putting this into a T1 with NO T2, and to make it a drop seems... odd... if anything make a faction drop version, don't go just making a random t1 module a DROP, and not including a T2 variant that just seems nuts considering the way CCP has been going.
I'm all for new modules in fact i wish we'd get a slew of new modules to allow for creative evolving landscape of fits, but no T2 just seems odd, and making it a drop just means its going to be limited, and an odd twist on a T1 module. |
Thomas Gallant
Eyes In The Dark Lunar Industries Partnership
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:26:00 -
[44] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules).
Hmm... could we get some high slot drone modules? I'd like to be able to forgo my ship based guns in favor of pure drone DPS on my Domi ( don't even use them now, lol) |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Kraylo Jita wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
wait wait wait.. no info has been added to the Kill Reports except for the ISK lost.. you can read my dev blog to get more info So logis still have to fire a shoot with a gun to get on the km ? yes I feel bad for all the helpful logi pilots out there
Punkturis PLEASE can't you sneak this into a release lol, the logi pilots of eve would love you even more than we already do. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
130
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
can i go out on a limb here and ask if the Eve Mercenary Marketplace is essentially going to be what the DUST514 Merc Contract UI is going to be based on?
=) |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:27:00 -
[47] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:oh thank g-d... i thought they were changing regular shield boosters to cap injection only... did not know there ware goingt o be two versions now... cant wait to get done work and dl the new sisi..
don't worry sisi isn't up yet >.> and i don't know how long it will take them to get it up again...
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1919
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:29:00 -
[48] - Quote
Silly Slot wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Kraylo Jita wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
wait wait wait.. no info has been added to the Kill Reports except for the ISK lost.. you can read my dev blog to get more info So logis still have to fire a shoot with a gun to get on the km ? yes I feel bad for all the helpful logi pilots out there Punkturis PLEASE can't you sneak this into a release lol, the logi pilots of eve would love you even more than we already do.
heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:34:00 -
[49] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! well of course we will lol, but can't you like convince them how important it is LOL :) |
Tess La'Coil
Lightbringer's Sanctuary Fatal Ascension
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:36:00 -
[50] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers?
Just brainstorming.. Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother.-á |
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:38:00 -
[51] - Quote
Tess La'Coil wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers? Just brainstorming..
like the idea, hate the idea of misclicking the icon to lock and shooting my own logi lol, especially since the icons sorta move as new effects add on, they'd have to be different, perhaps a smaller bar of icons above the negative effects icons but with green instead of red, or blue perhaps might be better looking |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1919
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:40:00 -
[52] - Quote
Tess La'Coil wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers? Just brainstorming..
I've been trying and trying and trying
"guys but the logi pilots are really nice people and we should show them some love" "NO." - is the answer I always get back
not really we're aware of it and it's something we really want added sometime in the future
CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:42:00 -
[53] - Quote
hehe when CCP devs say "in the future" i truely get worried |
Roll Sizzle Beef
Space Mutiny
328
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:43:00 -
[54] - Quote
Silly Slot wrote: like the idea, hate the idea of misclicking the icon to lock and shooting my own logi lol, especially since the icons sorta move as new effects add on, they'd have to be different, perhaps a smaller bar of icons above the negative effects icons but with green instead of red, or blue perhaps might be better looking
Perhaps a hue depending on association. Purple for fleet, blue for alliance etc. |
Kurai Okala
Okala Corp
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:44:00 -
[55] - Quote
Thomas Gallant wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules). Hmm... could we get some high slot damage drone modules? I'd like to be able to forgo my ship based guns in favor of pure drone DPS on my Domi ( don't even use them now, lol) (yes I know about the drone range augmentor, I use two, don't need any more range, just need stuff like DPS, durablity, and maybe speed)
I agree and making it a low slot item seems really odd. SoniClover, can you tell us your reasoning as to why the drone damage module should be a low slot item? As a side note, I've always wondered why the Drone Link Augmentor takes up a high-slot. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
1771
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:45:00 -
[56] - Quote
Silly Slot wrote:Tess La'Coil wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers? Just brainstorming.. like the idea, hate the idea of misclicking the icon to lock and shooting my own logi lol, especially since the icons sorta move as new effects add on, they'd have to be different, perhaps a smaller bar of icons above the negative effects icons but with green instead of red, or blue perhaps might be better looking
Well, honestly friendlies should be targetable from the watch list and if done that way show up in a completely different area of the screen to cut down on accidental friendly fire. This would also open up some interesting possbilities elsewhere. When I check troll in the dictionary, it has a photo shopped picture of you standing somewhere in the vicinity of a point.
Also, I can kill you with my brain. |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:46:00 -
[57] - Quote
Kurai Okala wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules). Hmm... could we get some high slot damage drone modules? I'd like to be able to forgo my ship based guns in favor of pure drone DPS on my Domi ( don't even use them now, lol) (yes I know about the drone range augmentor, I use two, don't need any more range, just need stuff like DPS, durablity, and maybe speed) I agree and making it a low slot item seems really odd. SoniClover, can you tell us your reasoning as to why the drone damage module should be a low slot item? As a side note, I've always wondered why the Drone Link Augmentor takes up a high-slot.
Most likely because all damage mods are lowslots :S Gyro, Magstab, HeatSink, and now Drone Augmentor... though the questiona bout the drone link augmentor is a valid one lol |
Tess La'Coil
Lightbringer's Sanctuary Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:47:00 -
[58] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I've been trying and trying and trying "guys but the logi pilots are really nice people and we should show them some love" "NO." - is the answer I always get back not really we're aware of it and it's something we really want added sometime in the future <3 Pre-Crucible the future sounded worrying. Now it sounds comfortably reassuring.
Thanks <3 Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother.-á |
Alexandra Alt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:47:00 -
[59] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Ampoliros wrote:Do you happen to have stats/fitting or info onhand for the new mods (ideally the adaptive hardeners and the shield boosters) so i can ponder them while waiting for Sisi to come up? I don't know too much about the new modules and I'm pretty sure I'm the only person from the team looking at this thread now (it's 8 at night) but I'm sure SoniClover will reply to you module guys sometime later
OMG 8 p.m. and Goliath is still on Sisi updating it !?!?!? That's commitment!! |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:48:00 -
[60] - Quote
punkturis, just wondering, but i believe(last time it happend on sisi) a pos scrammed/webbed me, but it didn't show up in the EWAR bar, any chance pos's will be added as well? |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1922
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:49:00 -
[61] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:Silly Slot wrote:Tess La'Coil wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers? Just brainstorming.. like the idea, hate the idea of misclicking the icon to lock and shooting my own logi lol, especially since the icons sorta move as new effects add on, they'd have to be different, perhaps a smaller bar of icons above the negative effects icons but with green instead of red, or blue perhaps might be better looking Well, honestly friendlies should be targetable from the watch list and if done that way show up in a completely different area of the screen to cut down on accidental friendly fire. In other words only boosting modules of the various types (including remote repair) can activate when those "target" icons are highlighted. This would also open up some interesting possbilities elsewhere.
what's wrong with shooting blues??? CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tess La'Coil
Lightbringer's Sanctuary Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:49:00 -
[62] - Quote
Silly Slot wrote:
Most likely because all damage mods are lowslots :S Gyro, Magstab, HeatSink, and now Drone Augmentor... though the questiona bout the drone link augmentor is a valid one lol
Drone link augmentor only increases the control range. Still debatable if that should be a high slot, more likely a midslot like the tracking stuff and scan res etc. Then again, it makes sense to take away a slot which could have held a gun as your increasing the range at which you can put out DPS.
Also you forgot Ballistic Control Unit :) Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother.-á |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1922
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:54:00 -
[63] - Quote
Missile War wrote:punkturis, just wondering, but i believe(last time it happend on sisi) a pos scrammed/webbed me, but it didn't show up in the EWAR bar, any chance pos's will be added as well?
I honestly don't know, Super Friends are not working on the buffbar so your best bet would be to post this question in the feedback thread to karkur's devblog on the feature CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:55:00 -
[64] - Quote
LOL ya forgot BCU's go figure this is the missle expansion and i'd forget that....
Still makes me wonder how high DPS you can now get the better drone boats up to, |
Tess La'Coil
Lightbringer's Sanctuary Fatal Ascension
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
Another small note, (based on Tranq. Sisi is not live yet) Could you make it so I can re-size the Science and Industry window smaller?
I'm using a 27" 2560x1440 screen at 100% and it stays so huge :< Someone once said I was a muppet. If that's so, I'm quite sure the Swedish Chef is my brother.-á |
Koby Botick
Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation
81
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:57:00 -
[66] - Quote
It's only tangentially relevant, but why exactly are killmails (or reports) not public? By public I mean anyone can poll these without any API key. |
Karl Hobb
Imperial Margarine
140
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 20:58:00 -
[67] - Quote
Kurai Okala wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Hmm... could we get some high slot damage drone modules? I'd like to be able to forgo my ship based guns in favor of pure drone DPS on my Domi ( don't even use them now, lol) (yes I know about the drone range augmentor, I use two, don't need any more range, just need stuff like DPS, durablity, and maybe speed) I agree and making it a low slot item seems really odd. SoniClover, can you tell us your reasoning as to why the drone damage module should be a low slot item? As a side note, I've always wondered why the Drone Link Augmentor takes up a high-slot. In addition to what everyone else here has said, having it be a medium or a high slot item would open it up for some serious abuse. As a low-slot item, it may be considered as a replacement for a mag stab, gyro, BCU, or heat sink. As a high or medium, it would only add DPS on top of gun mods. +1 in local |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1924
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:00:00 -
[68] - Quote
Koby Botick wrote:It's only tangentially relevant, but why exactly are killmails (or reports) not public? By public I mean anyone can poll these without any API key.
with Inferno you can now drag kill reports to chat for everyone to open them up CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Jane Algaert
Aperture Harmonics K162
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:06:00 -
[69] - Quote
With the introduction of the new medium and small web drones will the current ones get a buff at all because they are fairly useless atm with the way that the stacking penalty's work :( If the small and mediums were to give even less web % than the current ones then I don't think they would ever be really used over ec-drones or damage drones :( |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
408
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:08:00 -
[70] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Silly Slot wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Kraylo Jita wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Azura Solus wrote:Here's my 2 cents,
The new kill reports are awesome, i love the amount of intel that can be gained from them I believe this is gonna make it alot more streamlined when gathering intel for the war.
wait wait wait.. no info has been added to the Kill Reports except for the ISK lost.. you can read my dev blog to get more info So logis still have to fire a shoot with a gun to get on the km ? yes I feel bad for all the helpful logi pilots out there Punkturis PLEASE can't you sneak this into a release lol, the logi pilots of eve would love you even more than we already do. heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
408
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:09:00 -
[71] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Missile War wrote:punkturis, just wondering, but i believe(last time it happend on sisi) a pos scrammed/webbed me, but it didn't show up in the EWAR bar, any chance pos's will be added as well? I honestly don't know, Super Friends are not working on the buffbar so your best bet would be to post this question in the feedback thread to karkur's devblog on the feature Please note that Team Five 0 has taken over the Effect Bar since its release, but please post in CCP karkur's dev blog feedback thread. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Sirinda
Lead Farmers Academy Kill It With Fire
84
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:10:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Silly Slot wrote:Tess La'Coil wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers? Just brainstorming.. like the idea, hate the idea of misclicking the icon to lock and shooting my own logi lol, especially since the icons sorta move as new effects add on, they'd have to be different, perhaps a smaller bar of icons above the negative effects icons but with green instead of red, or blue perhaps might be better looking Well, honestly friendlies should be targetable from the watch list and if done that way show up in a completely different area of the screen to cut down on accidental friendly fire. In other words only boosting modules of the various types (including remote repair) can activate when those "target" icons are highlighted. This would also open up some interesting possbilities elsewhere. what's wrong with shooting blues???
If it's an Eve dev? Nothing! <3 |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
251
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:10:00 -
[73] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. But all you got to do is say make it happen and it will |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
408
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:11:00 -
[74] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. But all you got to do is say make it happen and it will Subject to other things we have on the backlog, hence the need for lobbying.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
251
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:15:00 -
[75] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. But all you got to do is say make it happen and it will Subject to other things we have on the backlog, hence the need for lobbying.
Status of the Sisi update? Use Europen Players need to go to bed soon |
Cailais
Rekall Incorporated Sinewave Alliance
259
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:16:00 -
[76] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. But all you got to do is say make it happen and it will Subject to other things we have on the backlog, hence the need for lobbying. Status of the Sisi update? Use Europen Players need to go to bed soon
Yup getting sleepy here *yaaaaaawn*
C.
|
Kurai Okala
Okala Corp
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:16:00 -
[77] - Quote
Silly Slot wrote:Kurai Okala wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules). Hmm... could we get some high slot damage drone modules? I'd like to be able to forgo my ship based guns in favor of pure drone DPS on my Domi ( don't even use them now, lol) (yes I know about the drone range augmentor, I use two, don't need any more range, just need stuff like DPS, durablity, and maybe speed) I agree and making it a low slot item seems really odd. SoniClover, can you tell us your reasoning as to why the drone damage module should be a low slot item? As a side note, I've always wondered why the Drone Link Augmentor takes up a high-slot. Most likely because all damage mods are lowslots :S Gyro, Magstab, HeatSink, and now Drone Augmentor... though the questiona bout the drone link augmentor is a valid one lol
Thanks for the info. I'm never used damage mods and thought they were mid-slot modules for some crazy reason. |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:22:00 -
[78] - Quote
-alright ill post it in karkurs thing...if i can find it o.O
and do any of you know when sisi is coming? my excitement is dieing quickly D: |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
410
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:24:00 -
[79] - Quote
Missile War wrote:-alright ill post it in karkurs thing...if i can find it o.O Here http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=28603 and here https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=97821 Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
410
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:24:00 -
[80] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. But all you got to do is say make it happen and it will Subject to other things we have on the backlog, hence the need for lobbying. Status of the Sisi update? Use Europen Players need to go to bed soon Go to bed.
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:26:00 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. But all you got to do is say make it happen and it will Subject to other things we have on the backlog, hence the need for lobbying. Status of the Sisi update? Use Europen Players need to go to bed soon Go to bed. well, crap |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:27:00 -
[82] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:This is something we need to address in Crime Watch, so please lobby Team Five 0 to make this happen. Essentially then it's not recorded right now who assisted those that shot the victim. But all you got to do is say make it happen and it will Subject to other things we have on the backlog, hence the need for lobbying. Status of the Sisi update? Use Europen Players need to go to bed soon Go to bed.
Nooooooooo!!!!!!! I can't go to bed without using my new missile launchers!! *Must stay awake* How long do you think it will take still? And is a mirror coming? ^.^
Also...Don't tell me you killed the hamsters again...You know it takes long to replace them... |
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
313
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:31:00 -
[83] - Quote
Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here?
There are changes there but I'm in the process of changing it again so SiSi is not accurate at the moment. https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:32:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? There are changes there but I'm in the process of changing it again so SiSi is not accurate at the moment.
Since when is sisi online than? >.>
edit: Yes im impatient, and will keep spamming until its up :D |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1927
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:34:00 -
[85] - Quote
Missile War wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? There are changes there but I'm in the process of changing it again so SiSi is not accurate at the moment. Since when is sisi online than? >.> edit: Yes im impatient, and will keep spamming until its up :D
you should keep that spam in the general issues thread, not this specific one CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Demolishar
United Aggression
246
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:35:00 -
[86] - Quote
Missile War wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? There are changes there but I'm in the process of changing it again so SiSi is not accurate at the moment. Since when is sisi online than? >.> edit: Yes im impatient, and will keep spamming until its up :D
Now we both know Tuxford doesn't believe in servers being online. |
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
313
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:36:00 -
[87] - Quote
Blake Armitage wrote:Will old 'killmails' that are displayed on the Character panel show up as new Kill Reports?
Also, is the value of the kill priced at the time of the kill? As you know, prices change over time and it would be nice to have that number recorded.
It is recorded with the kill for precisely that reason. We've also planned to actually record the price of each module in the kill blob at the time when it was killed so the kill report is historically accurate. https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
314
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:39:00 -
[88] - Quote
So.. I messed up a bit and though some things would happen automatically. Anyways long story short then anything me and Punkturis have on there is a week out of date. I integrated the stuff we did to the branch that sisi is running off but I belief it's a bit broken (like war reports possibly not opening up and if they do not really getting any other info than from the first war report you opened.
I'll take care of it tomorrow, promise. https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
314
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:40:00 -
[89] - Quote
Demolishar wrote:Missile War wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? There are changes there but I'm in the process of changing it again so SiSi is not accurate at the moment. Since when is sisi online than? >.> edit: Yes im impatient, and will keep spamming until its up :D Now we both know Tuxford doesn't believe in servers being online.
You mistake the production server for your local server once and you never live it down https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1927
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:41:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:So.. I messed up a bit and though some things would happen automatically. Anyways long story short then anything me and Punkturis have on there is a week out of date. I integrated the stuff we did to the branch that sisi is running off but I belief it's a bit broken (like war reports possibly not opening up and if they do not really getting any other info than from the first war report you opened.
I'll take care of it tomorrow, promise.
Nice CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:42:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:So.. I messed up a bit and though some things would happen automatically. Anyways long story short then anything me and Punkturis have on there is a week out of date. I integrated the stuff we did to the branch that sisi is running off but I belief it's a bit broken (like war reports possibly not opening up and if they do not really getting any other info than from the first war report you opened.
I'll take care of it tomorrow, promise.
still open the server so we can test the other things ? D; |
CydonianKnight
vipers bastards Broken Toys
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:44:00 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:So.. I messed up a bit and though some things would happen automatically. Anyways long story short then anything me and Punkturis have on there is a week out of date. I integrated the stuff we did to the branch that sisi is running off but I belief it's a bit broken (like war reports possibly not opening up and if they do not really getting any other info than from the first war report you opened.
I'll take care of it tomorrow, promise.
Is that a no SISI till tomorrow problem or just it'll need fixing tomorrow?
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:49:00 -
[93] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:Demolishar wrote:Missile War wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? There are changes there but I'm in the process of changing it again so SiSi is not accurate at the moment. Since when is sisi online than? >.> edit: Yes im impatient, and will keep spamming until its up :D Now we both know Tuxford doesn't believe in servers being online. You mistake the production server for your local server once and you never live it down /facepalm Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Mashie Saldana
Veto. Veto Corp
494
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:55:00 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:You mistake the production server for your local server once and you never live it down Try not to apply the SiSI build to TQ tonight Dominique Vasilkovsky Mashie Saldana Monica Foulkes |
Severian Carnifex
176
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:56:00 -
[95] - Quote
CydonianKnight wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:So.. I messed up a bit and though some things would happen automatically. Anyways long story short then anything me and Punkturis have on there is a week out of date. I integrated the stuff we did to the branch that sisi is running off but I belief it's a bit broken (like war reports possibly not opening up and if they do not really getting any other info than from the first war report you opened.
I'll take care of it tomorrow, promise. Is that a no SISI till tomorrow problem or just it'll need fixing tomorrow?
would like to know this too... please? |
Mentorm
Republic University Minmatar Republic
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 21:59:00 -
[96] - Quote
Go to bed.... |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:00:00 -
[97] - Quote
Mentorm wrote:Go to bed....
:NO:
How can i sleep when my beloved Sisi is in pain?! |
Mentorm
Republic University Minmatar Republic
74
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:02:00 -
[98] - Quote
Missile War wrote:Mentorm wrote:Go to bed.... :NO: How can i sleep when my beloved Sisi is in pain?!
What do you think OFFICE HOURS are in Iceland?
GO TO BED!
|
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:08:00 -
[99] - Quote
Mentorm wrote:Missile War wrote:Mentorm wrote:Go to bed.... :NO: How can i sleep when my beloved Sisi is in pain?! What do you think OFFICE HOURS are in Iceland? GO TO BED!
I think they are about the same as they are here :| (I live in the Netherlands)
And my bed is...Well...Scary...Without being sure Sisi is alive when I wake up, what am I supposed to do when it's down when i wake up? TQ isn't nearly as intresting...And i don't have any other games to play...Actually, I just rememberd, I do! EVE online mod for Sins of a Solar Empire ^.^ whee i got something to do after all if its still down \o/
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:11:00 -
[100] - Quote
Missile War wrote:Mentorm wrote:Missile War wrote:Mentorm wrote:Go to bed.... :NO: How can i sleep when my beloved Sisi is in pain?! What do you think OFFICE HOURS are in Iceland? GO TO BED! (I live in the Netherlands) Radio Veronica rocks hard :)
|
|
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:12:00 -
[101] - Quote
Spc One wrote:Missile War wrote:Mentorm wrote:Missile War wrote:Mentorm wrote:Go to bed.... :NO: How can i sleep when my beloved Sisi is in pain?! What do you think OFFICE HOURS are in Iceland? GO TO BED! (I live in the Netherlands) Radio Veronica rocks hard :)
EVE-Radio rocks harder :) |
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
315
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:12:00 -
[102] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:CydonianKnight wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:So.. I messed up a bit and though some things would happen automatically. Anyways long story short then anything me and Punkturis have on there is a week out of date. I integrated the stuff we did to the branch that sisi is running off but I belief it's a bit broken (like war reports possibly not opening up and if they do not really getting any other info than from the first war report you opened.
I'll take care of it tomorrow, promise. Is that a no SISI till tomorrow problem or just it'll need fixing tomorrow? would like to know this too... please? No it just means that the fancy stuff we've been building is probably broken until I can get this fix in. It should really be isolated to war related features. https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
|
CCP Unifex
C C P C C P Alliance
104
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:21:00 -
[103] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:Demolishar wrote:Missile War wrote:CCP Tuxford wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? There are changes there but I'm in the process of changing it again so SiSi is not accurate at the moment. Since when is sisi online than? >.> edit: Yes im impatient, and will keep spamming until its up :D Now we both know Tuxford doesn't believe in servers being online. You mistake the production server for your local server once and you never live it down /facepalm
This helps me to sleep at night Senior Producer of EVE Online |
|
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:23:00 -
[104] - Quote
it should be online now! \o/
http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/server_status.php
edit: love you CCP :P also > updating feels so slow even tho it goes fast xD |
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
316
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:38:00 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Unifex wrote:This helps me to sleep at night It's ok I can no longer do that. Nah I'm just kidding I can totally do that it's just a lot more complex for me now
https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1927
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:42:00 -
[106] - Quote
you're excited about Inferno aren't you CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Teclador
Stardust Heavy Industries
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 22:56:00 -
[107] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote: Edit: here's a list of the stuff we're bringing
GÇóLight and Medium Web drones
When we get Support Drones like Salvaging, Hull Rep, Energy Transfer, Warp Scramble/Disrupter, etc. ... In all Sizes ... |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:03:00 -
[108] - Quote
lolo we dont even have salvage drones yet added to sisi and u want all sizes of them lol, you so silly :)
and dear god NO NEVER WARP SCRAM DRONES, that **** wud be a nightmare, 5 small drones to tackle 5 targets screw that wheres the skill lol |
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
28
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:04:00 -
[109] - Quote
Holy turtlesGäó,
927.4MB patch.
|
HyperZerg
Free-Space-Ranger Ev0ke
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:10:00 -
[110] - Quote
Extrinsic Damage Amplifier II 12%
Uhm, a Mag-stab brings 21% more damage. I don't see many reasons to fit them over normale dmg-mods.
For example Rattlesneak. 450 dps with Garde with 3 drone upgrades you get around 144 more dps [if I did the math correctly]
250 with 4 siege lauchners with 3 ballstics you get 163 more dps
And a Rattlesneak is one of the ships with far more drone dmg then missile and still it would be a better idea to use missle-upgrades.
Should they get around 20% damge to be in line with normal damage upgrades ?
|
|
Teclador
Stardust Heavy Industries
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:14:00 -
[111] - Quote
Rrama Ratamnim wrote:lolo we dont even have salvage drones yet added to sisi and u want all sizes of them lol, you so silly :)
and dear god NO NEVER WARP SCRAM DRONES, that **** wud be a nightmare, 5 small drones to tackle 5 targets screw that wheres the skill lol
OK, Salvaging Drones in one Size, but the other Drones surely could be in all Sizes.
To the Warp Disrupt/Scramble Drones, they could be % wise successful 0-5% Smalls, 5-10% Meds, 10-15% Heavys...
But the once i really want implemented are the Hull Rep, Energy Transfer Drones... |
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
332
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:15:00 -
[112] - Quote
The unified inventory window is looking pretty boss. It'll take a lot of time to get used to though. Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
163
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:34:00 -
[113] - Quote
Quote:BeanBagKing > missiles look epic BeanBagKing > I'm going to FC the next HD just so I can call for 100 drakes :P My comments on SISI, you guys did good CCP
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
85
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:44:00 -
[114] - Quote
The webbing drones are pretty uninspiring, I gotta say.
SW-300 -5% Velocity Bonus SW-600 -10% Velocity Bonus SW-900 -20% Velocity Bonus
Considering the stacking penalties they are pretty poor.
Extrinsic Damage Amplifier II
Is simply pretty bad as well. It only provides a 12% damage boost for 40 tf cpu. Other weapon modes provide a 10% damage and 10.5% Rate of fire bonus.
I believe a 20% damage boost for Drones would be ideal considering that Drone Boats have low CPU, making the 40 tf cost worth it. |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.02 23:59:00 -
[115] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:The webbing drones are pretty uninspiring, I gotta say.
SW-300 -5% Velocity Bonus SW-600 -10% Velocity Bonus SW-900 -20% Velocity Bonus
Considering the stacking penalties they are pretty poor.
Extrinsic Damage Amplifier II
Is simply pretty bad as well. It only provides a 12% damage boost for 40 tf cpu. Other weapon modes provide a 10% damage and 10.5% Rate of fire bonus.
I believe a 20% damage boost for Drones would be ideal considering that Drone Boats have low CPU, making the 40 tf cost worth it.
Drone boats usually got damage increasing boosts from their ship already...
CCP Punkturis wrote:you're excited about Inferno aren't you
And yes, yes I am. How dare you even expect me not to be ^.^ I'm called Missile War and I'm Caldari
Also > The inventory thing is confusing me and is more annoying than the previous system in my eyes. Perhabs just some getting used to tho, and stop making the ship dissapear from the ship list when you board it >.> It makes things even more confusing ;p |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 00:00:00 -
[116] - Quote
The new CPU rigs are distinctly underwhelming. The penalty they carry is fine, but their calibration cost is almost punitively high (150 for t1, when ACRs cost only 100? 300 for T2??), and the increases they provide are too modest (+7.6% for t1, +9.6% for t2...).
edit: http://i.imgur.com/cBAcJ.png |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
85
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 00:04:00 -
[117] - Quote
Quote:
Just to illustrate how terrible these are:
Curse, 2x HML, 2x Damage Mods. Drone Damage Mods vs. BCU:
Drone Damage Mod %Modifier: ~23% Gain
5x Hammerhead II: 238 DPS -> 293 DPS + (2x HML) 67 DPS = 360 DPS 5x Valkyrie II: 193 DPS -> 237 DPS + (2x HML) 67 DPS = 304 DPS
Missile Damage Mod %Modifier: 47% Gain
5x Hammerhead II: 238 DPS + (2x HML) 98 DPS = 346 DPS 5x Valkyrie II: 193 DPS + (2x HML) 98 DPS = 335 DPS
In other words, on a Curse with NO bonus to heavy missiles, two BCU worth of damage mods on your measly two HML put the curse doing *more* total DPS with any drone but Hammerhead IIs, and even on that example, you come within 14 DPS. This isn't even factoring in the advantage of overheat bonuses. These damage mods are *so* weak that they can only be used on ships with heavy or sentry drones, and no corresponding offensive module of similar class. |
Meadowvale
0rder of the Golden Dawn Etherium Cartel
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 00:30:00 -
[118] - Quote
None of the new mods/rigs/drones being seeded on Sisi, will only appear as BPC drops at a later date in undecided locations - so how do we test the new mods and give you guys decent feedback on the work so far ?
|
Ines Fy
Heroes of the Past Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 00:49:00 -
[119] - Quote
just been on sisi, I was going to test and see the new kill mail stuff, but when I went to the character sheet page and select the combat log tab the window stops, the tab is not loaded and you cannot choose another tab. Closing and opening the window will not solve this problem, only a logout login...
The faction warfare window doesn not open from the menu! |
Rynnik
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:28:00 -
[120] - Quote
I hope there is some sort of 'slim' option for cargo bays so when you are fighting and want to monitor remaining cap boosters etc you can do so with minimal wasted space. Bonus if it could be made even smaller then the current TQ cargo bays. |
|
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:35:00 -
[121] - Quote
Should the fueled shield booster be receiving bonuses to boost amount from ship bonuses and shield boost amplifiers? |
Raze Zindonas
Asgard. Exodus.
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:38:00 -
[122] - Quote
The new drone damage mod fitting seems idk, not enough. for 40tf you should be getting a better damage %. Its going to be really tough to fit some ships with that mod.
:-/ |
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
416
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 01:52:00 -
[123] - Quote
Raze Zindonas wrote:The new drone damage mod fitting seems idk, not enough. for 40tf you should be getting a better damage %. Its going to be really tough to fit some ships with that mod.
:-/
It also doesnt double-dip like all the other damage boosters (rof + damage)
Basically its a terrible module at the moment. |
Lithalnas
Privateers Privateer Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 02:25:00 -
[124] - Quote
The cost of wardecs is a little harsh don't you think?
50m starting plus 500k per person x1 = 50.5m http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v128/KhanProject/20120503021901.jpg 50M starting plus 500k per person (xxdeathxx) = 789.5m http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v128/KhanProject/20120503021125.jpg 50M starting plus 500k per person (Goonswarm) = 4.297 Billion http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v128/KhanProject/20120503020931.jpg Privateer Alliance, rebuilding a not so safe High Sec.-á
Want to assist in this endevor? (contract wars, corp/pilot recrutment) Contact one of our directors. |
Goatfather
HOMELE55 Double Tap.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:03:00 -
[125] - Quote
And so... it ends....
I hope not... |
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
86
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:09:00 -
[126] - Quote
Goonswarm and Death have thousands of pod pilots, you're asking concord to allow aggression against thousands of pilots.
Of course its going to be expensive. You're paying for targets, lots of targets, lots of targets means lots of money.
Besides you can go to null space where you can shoot them for FREE. |
Goatfather
HOMELE55 Double Tap.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:14:00 -
[127] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Goonswarm and Death have thousands of pod pilots, you're asking concord to allow aggression against thousands of pilots.
Of course its going to be expensive. You're paying for targets, lots of targets, lots of targets means lots of money.
Besides you can go to null space where you can shoot them for FREE.
I disagree. Size shouldn't = immunity via game mechanics.
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:29:00 -
[128] - Quote
Goatfather wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Goonswarm and Death have thousands of pod pilots, you're asking concord to allow aggression against thousands of pilots.
Of course its going to be expensive. You're paying for targets, lots of targets, lots of targets means lots of money.
Besides you can go to null space where you can shoot them for FREE. I disagree. Size shouldn't = immunity via game mechanics. Not saying I'd dec Goon etc. But the system in general, and even when decs are placed. If it is a contract to achieve such and such goal at a price like that, and the ability for targets to dock up and ride out... its over. Im not the only one who feels this way, im just frustrated enough to get on the forums.
Then what do you think is a fair price to war dec goons? Can you measure how much each player should be worth? |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
902
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:30:00 -
[129] - Quote
Size should not cause the wardec cost to scale linearly - that's fundamentally unbalanced given how EVE works. If size is a factor, then there needs to be diminishing returns (such as cuberoot() or quadroot() scaling).
And I have to give a big thumbs-down to any idea of introducing new T1 modules which do not come with BPOs. Why should these modules be "special" compared to the other thousand T1 meta-zero modules? If you're only going to do them as BPC drops then those BPCs should be for the meta 1-4 or faction variants. Not the base meta-zero item.
|
Goatfather
HOMELE55 Double Tap.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:44:00 -
[130] - Quote
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Size should not cause the wardec cost to scale linearly - that's fundamentally unbalanced given how EVE works.
This ^^
If anything size after a certain point should cap/reduce cost. Large size should = ability to defend
Furthermore IF this system stays in place all corps/alliances in game should have to pay concord a fee for concords protection, in which that could scale costs... but I made a post about that in the actual dev blog..
I dunno im to tired atm... |
|
Soon Shin
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
87
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:50:00 -
[131] - Quote
You must admit that current wardec fees are simply too cheap. 50 million to wardec an alliance for a week, thats like mining for 2 hours in highsec or an hour of missioning. With the ease of making isk, costs must come up to compensate for inflation. |
Lithalnas
Privateers Privateer Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 04:51:00 -
[132] - Quote
A 70 account alliance which uses all 3 members for each account can have 200 members in the alliance, that means it cost 50mil + 105 mil to wardec them. So a relatively small alliance can bump its cost to 155m a week just by padding its members. There are 100 alliances in game with more than 200 members.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/memberCount
50mil is too cheap, but thats war 1, war 2 is 100, war 3 is 150, war 4 is 200 and if they have a war from someone else at the same time it goes up by an additional bracket. Privateer Alliance, rebuilding a not so safe High Sec.-á
Want to assist in this endevor? (contract wars, corp/pilot recrutment) Contact one of our directors. |
Benny Ohu
The Lazy Dragoons True Apathy
102
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 05:03:00 -
[133] - Quote
Is the new resistance-shifting module actually named 'Armour Adaptive Hardener'? There's already an 'Adaptive Nano Plating' and an 'Energised Adaptive Nano Membrane'.
Active modules are named hardeners and omni-resist modules are named adaptive.
'Armour Adaptive Hardener' sounds like a capacitor-using (hardener) omni resist (adaptive), but it acts differently to omni-resist modules? |
LaserzPewPew
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 05:07:00 -
[134] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules).
Adaptive Armor Hardener - there is only a tech I version at start, but it will not be seeded directly on market. You'll get BPCs as drops (we haven't nailed down where yet). It is entirely possible to add other tech and/or faction versions later.
War cost change - we've been making changes to this very recently, so it might not be on Sisi yet, but should be soon. As Punkturis said, we'll have more information in a devblog very soon.
The new drone damage modifier has a CPU cost of 40. Drone boats have very constricted CPU's and the new CPU rigs will affect them the least because of it. Please look into this.
Also, why only 12%? The BCU, Mag stab, and Heat Sink are a 22.9% increase to damage. I understand drone boats get a substantial boost to damage, but like you said, drones aren't exactly shifting the metagame at the moment. |
Goatfather
HOMELE55 Double Tap.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 05:14:00 -
[135] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:You must admit that current wardec fees are simply too cheap. 50 million to wardec an alliance for a week, thats like mining for 2 hours in highsec or an hour of missioning. With the ease of making isk, costs must come up to compensate for inflation.
First In no way am I trying to spit on the work and time that was put into these new systems, I thank you guys for all your time and effort, that is one of the many reasons I play EVE still to this day, and trust me there are many things that have changed since I started early '04 to now that I dislike A LOT.
but...
Let's be straight and honest no candy coating. The entire present war system is "cheap", as in low quality on many levels, cost and how cost is determined being one.
Also the present system isn't all that bad, we spend 400+ mil on decs weekly, plus contracts blah blah, and sometimes net very few kills per those contracts.... The present cost system isnt all that flawed, it could have used fine tuning, not a complete over haul.
IMO
This new war system should be done in stages.
Stage 1: LOCK the war system, evaluate loopholes, exploits, etc, fine tune. -- Listen to feedback -- Stage 2: Fine tune costs system, evaluate loopholes, exploits, etc, fine tune. -- Listen to feedback -- Stage 3: Evaluate all systems, listen to feedback from actual high-sec alliances/corps that utilize the system FULL TIME Stage 4: Fine tune (dont wait 5 years to re-vise the system, get it right, and be done with it so other things can be resolved)
Have CSM round table alliance/corp leads from well known HS groups, which is very simple, we've been down this road already. |
Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
350
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 05:48:00 -
[136] - Quote
Well those prices will certainly kill just about all of the merc corp out there.
I don't charge much to go after people, but people will not pay people anymore to go after somebody if the have to hand over a couple hundred mil more.
50 to dec a corp is good, 500k per member is a bit steep. I see alts being used to buff member counts.
The idea to get people to move out of highsec will become mute since it will be safer to live there now. No small war dec corp will be able to survive. If any I see the really small corps suffering the most from this since they will then be the prime targets of wardecs.
I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
875
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 06:06:00 -
[137] - Quote
Rynnik wrote:I hope there is some sort of 'slim' option for cargo bays so when you are fighting and want to monitor remaining cap boosters etc you can do so with minimal wasted space. Bonus if it could be made even smaller then the current TQ cargo bays.
Just type 800 into the cargo bay filter. Presto.. only items with 800 (like cap booster 800) will show.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
875
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 06:09:00 -
[138] - Quote
That pricing on war decs is absolutely ********. Characters not actively training a skill should not count towards the total when figuring out the cost to ward dec a corp/alliance. That will take care of entities filling the ranks to avoid a war dec.
There is several ways to come up with a nice scaling solution. Didn't you guys think at all on this one? Only thing you have done is just handed out tinfoil hats to everyone so they can say that goons were behind the mechanic change to make them immune to war decs.
There is no way that current mechanic should be allowed to hit TQ at all.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
875
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 06:13:00 -
[139] - Quote
That drone damage module is a joke. Every drone ship out there is already strapped for CPU and the module has a very high CPU requirement, just like the other drone upgrade modules that never see the light of day for any actual combat. Also drone rigs take away your CPU.
What the hell are you guys smoking up there?!
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Niko Takahashi
United Starbase Systems
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 06:42:00 -
[140] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Goatfather wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Goonswarm and Death have thousands of pod pilots, you're asking concord to allow aggression against thousands of pilots.
Of course its going to be expensive. You're paying for targets, lots of targets, lots of targets means lots of money.
Besides you can go to null space where you can shoot them for FREE. I disagree. Size shouldn't = immunity via game mechanics. Not saying I'd dec Goon etc. But the system in general, and even when decs are placed. If it is a contract to achieve such and such goal at a price like that, and the ability for targets to dock up and ride out... its over. Im not the only one who feels this way, im just frustrated enough to get on the forums. Then what do you think is a fair price to war dec goons? Can you measure how much each player should be worth?
Dynamic scale as progressive taxing reverted the more pilots the less per person charge.
|
|
Azura Solus
D.A.M.A.G.E.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 07:02:00 -
[141] - Quote
Well i dont know about the huge numbers that was posted earlier about the price of war deccing but i Just tried to dec goonswarm on sis and it was 57.5 mil (NOT BAD!) for a 45 member corp was like 42.mil And for a Alliance that i knew was active on Sisi lately was like 90mil Now i dont know if the changes that the dev said he worked on earler have been implamented .
A suggestion if i may , Is for the cost to take into considerations the size of the corp deccing in comparison to the size of the corp being decced. for example for if a small (8 man corp) decs a 100 man corp might recieve some discount in cost of the dec. Because such a small corp is going up against a bigger force where as they cant bring in reinforcements but the defenders can.
On the flip side if a 100 man corp decs a 8 man corp. The new merc contract system will be there to help support the smaller corp. And i believe that should balance the scales out a bit while also Not wiping out most of the small scale wardeccing corps. |
Terza Torre
Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 07:14:00 -
[142] - Quote
I'm playing almost exclusively with Drone boats since more than 1 year now so i get quite experience with that.
My suggestion: make drone boats damage module an high slot one and make it 15 or 25% dmg, in this way it can be worthwhile, if you put that module in low slot it will be worthless since most drone boats are done to tank.
My 2 cents, TT |
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 07:18:00 -
[143] - Quote
Highslot? No way. You should always have to choose between dmg and tank, when it comes to dmg mods.
When can we start to use the new Mods? |
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
875
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 07:40:00 -
[144] - Quote
July Oumis wrote:Highslot? No way. You should always have to choose between dmg and tank, when it comes to dmg mods. When can we start to use the new Mods?
You know because a full drone setup does oooohhhh so much damage and can never be destroyed....
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
246
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 07:46:00 -
[145] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote: i Just tried to dec goonswarm on sis and it was 57.5 mil (NOT BAD!) for a 45 member corp was like 42.mil
/facepalm
That's not the actual current Goonswarm. Dumbass. |
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 07:49:00 -
[146] - Quote
Highslots are for weapons, nos neut, drone link augmentors, or cloaks. An ishtar whch is fine for plexing atm doesn't have the highslot to spare. A Domi normally uses 5 or 6 weapons / neuts nos in the Highslots.
All other ships have to sacrifice tank over gank. Some 5 sSlot caldari ships can choose, but that's another story. |
Manar Detri
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 08:03:00 -
[147] - Quote
On the drone module, on top of its ridiculous fitting requirement and awful damage bonus, i must say i'm not thrilled of it being a low slot module. This only forces gallante ships into shield fits even more.
I can already imagine it, no more armour fits, only shield fits with lows filled with magstabs and drone mods. On top of it being a massacre, it completely fights against gallante being an armor tanker race. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1938
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 08:23:00 -
[148] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:Azura Solus wrote: i Just tried to dec goonswarm on sis and it was 57.5 mil (NOT BAD!) for a 45 member corp was like 42.mil /facepalm That's not the actual current Goonswarm. Spacefriend.
no calling names in my thread! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
758
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 08:32:00 -
[149] - Quote
You guys are the best! GÖÑ
I was going to buy you guys a cake, but it would probably get squashed by the time it gets to Iceland, so I'll just eat it for you! \Gÿ+/ |
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 08:37:00 -
[150] - Quote
If you use highslots for dmg mods, then you have to overhaul the whole Thing. The Drone boats, also the pirate and faction ships will need new bonuses and tweaks.
How will you get a Navy Domi to apply as much dmg as it does now? A random T2 fit with 1 sentry rig I and 350s with antimatter + 5 garde put out 900 DPS. (Armor tank)
atm: 400 guns 500 drones
a) 200 guns 800 drones
or
b)
1100 Drones
Yes, I increased the dmg of drones, because either they're slow and need ages to get back and forth or your whole ship is stationary in space and you're a sitting duck.
To overcome these disadvantages you need more raw DPS on drones if you go this way. |
|
Marlona Sky
Massive PVPness Psychotic Tendencies.
877
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 08:40:00 -
[151] - Quote
Remove ECM drones.
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 09:33:00 -
[152] - Quote
When will we be able to use the new mods, or in other words when will they be seeded?
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1939
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 09:52:00 -
[153] - Quote
July Oumis wrote:When will we be able to use the new mods, or in other words when will they be seeded?
we're working on it, I'll let you know when I know more CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
133
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 09:59:00 -
[154] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Goatfather wrote:Soon Shin wrote:Goonswarm and Death have thousands of pod pilots, you're asking concord to allow aggression against thousands of pilots.
Of course its going to be expensive. You're paying for targets, lots of targets, lots of targets means lots of money.
Besides you can go to null space where you can shoot them for FREE. I disagree. Size shouldn't = immunity via game mechanics. Not saying I'd dec Goon etc. But the system in general, and even when decs are placed. If it is a contract to achieve such and such goal at a price like that, and the ability for targets to dock up and ride out... its over. Im not the only one who feels this way, im just frustrated enough to get on the forums. Then what do you think is a fair price to war dec goons? Can you measure how much each player should be worth?
yes by their standings to highsec factions and concord, done. |
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 10:20:00 -
[155] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:July Oumis wrote:When will we be able to use the new mods, or in other words when will they be seeded? we're working on it, I'll let you know when I know more
YAY,
I hope it will be soonGäó |
Kim Briggs
Decadence. RAZOR Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 10:44:00 -
[156] - Quote
I would like to have a 'Kill-Cam' in the Kill-Reports
So i can watch the last 5 seconds of my target again...and again...and again... |
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
758
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 11:10:00 -
[157] - Quote
Dear CCP,
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/17260941/photos/IMG_0780.jpg
Regards, SM |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1945
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 11:20:00 -
[158] - Quote
thanks space bro
it ALMOST feels like I'm eating a cake myself, almost CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Tuxford
C C P C C P Alliance
320
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 11:20:00 -
[159] - Quote
Kim Briggs wrote:I would like to have a 'Kill-Cam' in the Kill-Reports
So i can watch the last 5 seconds of my target again...and again...and again... That is so awesome https://gate.eveonline.com/Profile/CCP%20Tuxford/StatusUpdates |
|
|
CCP Paradox
261
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 11:21:00 -
[160] - Quote
Caaaaaaaaaaaaake! CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
|
Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
351
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 11:41:00 -
[161] - Quote
Awesome...
Any chance of maybe a reply on the costing with regards to the War dec fees.
Like "Why it's so high? At fanfest similar question were asked. i don't know if there were any changes made up to now since I don't have SiSi.. just want to know if I am wasting my time setting up a corp nobody is going to hire due to the high prices. I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 11:46:00 -
[162] - Quote
Drone damage module - We were *very* conservative with the initial numbers and fully expected to up them from the 9/12% they currently are. So we will probably improve them in the near future (stats and/or CPU). But they will remain a low slot module.
War cost - remember that the changed version is NOT YET on Sisi, what is on Sisi right now is the original, old changes we implemented before Fanfest. Expect new version tomorrow.
CPU rigs - We'll take a look at the calibration cost, as there was a bit of debate on which way to go - we took the conservative approach, but might consider lowering it. |
|
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 11:54:00 -
[163] - Quote
About the Extrinsic Damage Modifier
Low slot is fine. It is a Damage Modifier module like the others. Only Drones boat pilots will be concerned.
If it was a high slot, it would allow to keep his tank (shield or armor) intact, but with more DPS. The same apply to mid slot except that only armor tanked ships would benefit this advantage.
However, the actual raw +12% bonus for T2 (on what?) seems low compare to other damage modifier modules. As the Sentry Damage augmenter give 10% to damage, so a 15% seems a good iteration.
Let's see what a Sentry Ishtar/Dominix or a Ishkur will do. Amarr drone boats will love this module
Can wait to see the new modules seeded especially the mysterious Shifting Armor Hardener (increasing resist through time ?) |
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
528
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:06:00 -
[164] - Quote
Still waiting for Sisi to update here.
So while I'm staring at a small yellow bar, a few questions on the Armour Adaptive Hardener:
1: Skill requirement? I'm presuming hull upgrades (and V for t2) 2: Affected by Armour Compensation skills? 3: Variations? (T1/Meta1-4/T2/Faction/DS.. Officer?)
Thanks folks. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
CydonianKnight
vipers bastards Broken Toys
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:31:00 -
[165] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - We were *very* conservative with the initial numbers and fully expected to up them from the 9/12% they currently are. So we will probably improve them in the near future (stats and/or CPU). But they will remain a low slot module.
War cost - remember that the changed version is NOT YET on Sisi, what is on Sisi right now is the original, old changes we implemented before Fanfest. Expect new version tomorrow.
CPU rigs - We'll take a look at the calibration cost, as there was a bit of debate on which way to go - we took the conservative approach, but might consider lowering it.
Excellent :) |
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:36:00 -
[166] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - We were *very* conservative with the initial numbers and fully expected to up them from the 9/12% they currently are. So we will probably improve them in the near future (stats and/or CPU). But they will remain a low slot module.
War cost - remember that the changed version is NOT YET on Sisi, what is on Sisi right now is the original, old changes we implemented before Fanfest. Expect new version tomorrow.
CPU rigs - We'll take a look at the calibration cost, as there was a bit of debate on which way to go - we took the conservative approach, but might consider lowering it.
Any plans on changing the bonus on drone platforms, or will they keep their weapon damage bonus? |
PhantomF HarlockIII
0utLaw. Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:36:00 -
[167] - Quote
Sorry for the stupid question... when we may "try" these new modules, considering that on SiSi they are not on the market? What you will do CCP? feed the market with items (i hope) or blueprints? and if yes... when?
im very courious to try new shield boosters :)
thanks |
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:39:00 -
[168] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:July Oumis wrote:When will we be able to use the new mods, or in other words when will they be seeded? we're working on it, I'll let you know when I know more
I asked the same thing one page ago... |
Cannibal Kane
Praetorian Cannibals
351
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:50:00 -
[169] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
War cost - remember that the changed version is NOT YET on Sisi, what is on Sisi right now is the original, old changes we implemented before Fanfest. Expect new version tomorrow.
.
Awesome,
Thank you.
I'm not a Pirate, I'm a Terrorist.
The Crazy African |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1948
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:51:00 -
[170] - Quote
July Oumis wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:July Oumis wrote:When will we be able to use the new mods, or in other words when will they be seeded? we're working on it, I'll let you know when I know more I asked the same thing one page ago...
You'll get the same answer CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
Spc One
The Chodak Void Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:57:00 -
[171] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - We were *very* conservative with the initial numbers and fully expected to up them from the 9/12% they currently are. So we will probably improve them in the near future (stats and/or CPU). But they will remain a low slot module. I think it would be very interesting approach if you give t-2 module 10% to damage and 10.5% rof of drones.
Also since drone regions / npc drones were nerfed maybe you should consider puting more bpc's for 'augmented' drones into eve. So that prices for 'augmented' ogre for example go down to a reasonable price, since this is "ammo" that you can loose.
|
July Oumis
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 12:58:00 -
[172] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:July Oumis wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:July Oumis wrote:When will we be able to use the new mods, or in other words when will they be seeded? we're working on it, I'll let you know when I know more I asked the same thing one page ago... You'll get the same answer
That's what I wanted to say. |
Vessper
Eve Engineering Finance Eve Engineering
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 13:03:00 -
[173] - Quote
Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 13:48:00 -
[174] - Quote
Vessper wrote:Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that. It takes the top two damage types and increases the resistance against them while reducing the other two by the same amount (if you have received only a single damage type, it adjust only that one). It's a zero-sum system, meaning for instance that if the resistance bonus for a damage type is at 0, it can't be reduced further and the one's to be increased don't increase as much. |
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 13:54:00 -
[175] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Vessper wrote:Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that. It takes the top two damage types and increases the resistance against them while reducing the other two by the same amount (if you have received only a single damage type, it adjust only that one). It's a zero-sum system, meaning for instance that if the resistance bonus for a damage type is at 0, it can't be reduced further and the one's to be increased don't increase as much.
Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer? |
Cathrine Kenchov
Ice Cold Ellites
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 14:03:00 -
[176] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Vessper wrote:Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that. It takes the top two damage types and increases the resistance against them while reducing the other two by the same amount (if you have received only a single damage type, it adjust only that one). It's a zero-sum system, meaning for instance that if the resistance bonus for a damage type is at 0, it can't be reduced further and the one's to be increased don't increase as much.
My god that's awesome |
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
529
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 14:24:00 -
[177] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Vessper wrote:Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that. It takes the top two damage types and increases the resistance against them while reducing the other two by the same amount (if you have received only a single damage type, it adjust only that one). It's a zero-sum system, meaning for instance that if the resistance bonus for a damage type is at 0, it can't be reduced further and the one's to be increased don't increase as much.
Does it flat out increase both resists by the same amount, or ratio to damage being taken.
EG you're taking 70% one damage type 30% another do the modules shift to reflect that or just go 50% to one and 50% to the other? Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Missile War
Vita Aequitas Veritas The Paganism Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 14:24:00 -
[178] - Quote
Vessper wrote:Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
if i understood correctly its something like > you get hit for em alot your em is high, you get hit for therm begins low gets higher over time. |
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
836
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 14:31:00 -
[179] - Quote
Are you aware that your active ship no longer appears in the "Ships" window when you're in a station? Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
529
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:34:00 -
[180] - Quote
Legion icon on the kill reports is huge compaired to the rest. Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
|
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:34:00 -
[181] - Quote
Could the war dec cost per target alliance member scale as a function of the ratio between the attacking alliance members and the target alliance members?
For instance, if a 1-man corp decs a 10,000 member alliance, the price per member of target alliance should be reduced by 1/10,000. If a 10,000 man alliance decs a 1 man corp, the alliance should pay 10,000x more than the base price for the privilege of stomping that poor guy.
In practice, I suspect most decs are made by entities which are slightly smaller than their targets.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1951
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:40:00 -
[182] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:Legion icon on the kill reports is huge compaired to the rest.
thanks:) CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
41
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:48:00 -
[183] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer?
The resist is calculated for the module itself, but when it's applied to the ship it goes through the normal channels. So, in the hypothetical scenario where you have no other resistance bonuses, then the max resist you could get from this module is 60% (the other three would then be at 0). But if you have other resistance bonuses, then your actual resist is calculated as usual.
|
|
Caellach Marellus
Aideron Robotics Darkmatter Initiative
529
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 15:50:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer? The resist is calculated for the module itself, but when it's applied to the ship it goes through the normal channels. So, in the hypothetical scenario where you have no other resistance bonuses, then the max resist you could get from this module is 60% (the other three would then be at 0). But if you have other resistance bonuses, then your actual resist is calculated as usual.
I hope there's plans for more than just T1 modules. Can we expect Meta/T2/Faction/Deadspace?
Edit: And is this module at all affected by Armour Compensation skills? Enjoy your gaming.
http://northern-goblin.blogspot.com |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 16:04:00 -
[185] - Quote
Caellach Marellus wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer? The resist is calculated for the module itself, but when it's applied to the ship it goes through the normal channels. So, in the hypothetical scenario where you have no other resistance bonuses, then the max resist you could get from this module is 60% (the other three would then be at 0). But if you have other resistance bonuses, then your actual resist is calculated as usual. I hope there's plans for more than just T1 modules. Can we expect Meta/T2/Faction/Deadspace? Edit: And is this module at all affected by Armour Compensation skills?
^^^^^ This if your gonna drop new mods, drop them fully atleast t1 and t2 |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 16:28:00 -
[186] - Quote
We'd love to make a T2 version also before Inferno, we only have this one version now because we're still tweaking it, but once we're happy with it as a T1 version we should be able to do a T2 version also (no promise though ) But we're not making faction versions for Inferno (hopefully later).
As for the armor compensation skill, then the answer is no. This is for a technical reason of how passive and active resistances are calculated differently and to use it would require a constant recalculation which would override the adjustments made by this module.
We'll look into creating a new skill (or adjust an existing skill) to work with this module, but it might not make it in for Inferno. Btw, the skill requirement for the item Hull Upgrades Lvl 3.
Finally, we're in the process now of seeding the items on Sisi (a special seeding script has to be run to get things on Sisi), hopefully the items will be in tomorrow. |
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
907
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 16:58:00 -
[187] - Quote
Are you adding BPOs for the new meta-zero module variants?
If not, what makes these meta-zero T1 items so special compared to the other few hundred meta-zero T1 items?
If they're only going to drop as BPCs, then they should be tagged as meta 1.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 16:59:00 -
[188] - Quote
Soon Shin wrote:Goonswarm and Death have thousands of pod pilots, you're asking concord to allow aggression against thousands of pilots.
Of course its going to be expensive. You're paying for targets, lots of targets, lots of targets means lots of money.
Besides you can go to null space where you can shoot them for FREE.
This isn't Duck Hunt! In Eve war targets can shoot back. Small corps many times are taking a huge risk by war dec'n a larger entity. The larger corp has the advantage of numbers, and resources, they should not also get a price dec shield built into the game for them too. |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
153
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:21:00 -
[189] - Quote
Can I take this opportunity to say that I love you, Punkturis? Thank you for these small fixes that make eve much more enjoyable. |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
89
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:36:00 -
[190] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer? The resist is calculated for the module itself, but when it's applied to the ship it goes through the normal channels. So, in the hypothetical scenario where you have no other resistance bonuses, then the max resist you could get from this module is 60% (the other three would then be at 0). But if you have other resistance bonuses, then your actual resist is calculated as usual. That seems a little crazy, tbh. Theoretically, that means that the plain meta 0 t1 hardener can provide better resistances towards a specific damage type (60%) than a single-purpose T2 active hardener (55%). If the T2 version gets the same 10% increase over T1 as occurs with existing hardeners, that'd mean the plain jane T2 adaptive hardener could potentially provide a bigger resistance increase than a current X-type hardener. |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1953
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:39:00 -
[191] - Quote
Kismeteer wrote:Can I take this opportunity to say that I love you, Punkturis? Thank you for these small fixes that make eve much more enjoyable.
wow not a bad compliment from an oscar award winning director!
(it's my pleasure) CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
malaire
389
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 17:44:00 -
[192] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer? The resist is calculated for the module itself, but when it's applied to the ship it goes through the normal channels. So, in the hypothetical scenario where you have no other resistance bonuses, then the max resist you could get from this module is 60% (the other three would then be at 0). But if you have other resistance bonuses, then your actual resist is calculated as usual. That seems a little crazy, tbh. Theoretically, that means that the plain meta 0 t1 hardener can provide better resistances towards a specific damage type (60%) than a single-purpose T2 active hardener (55%). If the T2 version gets the same 10% increase over T1 as occurs with existing hardeners, that'd mean the plain jane T2 adaptive hardener could potentially provide a bigger resistance increase than a current X-type hardener. But it does have important weakness normal modules don't have: FC commands fleet to use 1 damage type, then commands everyone to switch damage to something else which now has 0% resistance.
Also I havn't yet seen mentioned how long it takes for module to reach that 60%. Will it happen during single cycle or does it take several cycles to fully adjust. New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
malaire
389
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 18:14:00 -
[193] - Quote
malaire wrote:But it does have important weakness normal modules don't have: FC commands fleet to use 1 damage type, then commands everyone to switch damage to something else which now has 0% resistance. Actually, if module only considers relative amounts of different damage types ship is receiving, and not total damage, then only single missile per cycle is needed to move all resistance to single damage type, thereby making 3 other damage types have 0% resistance.
Which brings other question: Does this module only consider damage which hits armor, or any damage ship is receiving, even if it only hits shields?
New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
12
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 19:16:00 -
[194] - Quote
malaire wrote:Tsubutai wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Tsubutai wrote:Are there diminishing returns on the increase or do you get the 'full' 15% from each resist that you're not being hit on? Specifically, if I were being hit exclusively with pure kinetic damage, what kinetic resist would the module confer? The resist is calculated for the module itself, but when it's applied to the ship it goes through the normal channels. So, in the hypothetical scenario where you have no other resistance bonuses, then the max resist you could get from this module is 60% (the other three would then be at 0). But if you have other resistance bonuses, then your actual resist is calculated as usual. That seems a little crazy, tbh. Theoretically, that means that the plain meta 0 t1 hardener can provide better resistances towards a specific damage type (60%) than a single-purpose T2 active hardener (55%). If the T2 version gets the same 10% increase over T1 as occurs with existing hardeners, that'd mean the plain jane T2 adaptive hardener could potentially provide a bigger resistance increase than a current X-type hardener. But it does have important weakness normal modules don't have: FC commands fleet to use 1 damage type, then commands everyone to switch damage to something else which now has 0% resistance. Also I havn't yet seen mentioned how long it takes for module to reach that 60%. Will it happen during single cycle or does it take several cycles to fully adjust. EDIT: Also you can't just use 2 of them to cover 2 damage types effectively. They would both adjust to 30% (I believe), and because of stacking penalty 2nd module would only give 26.1%, which is 48.3% total from those 2 modules (if I calculated this right).
not to mention the bigger issue, especially in alpha warfare and high dps warfare... that first 10 second cycle of the module is gonna be HORRIBLE for you, i mean your talking what 12% resistence, and god forbid you just got done fighting someone that was using fusion, and run into someone thats using EMP, 0 resists SOAB lol |
Pic'n dor
Epsilon Lyr
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:46:00 -
[195] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Caellach Marellus wrote:Legion icon on the kill reports is huge compaired to the rest. thanks:)
In fact, all T3 are not scaled correctly !
http://img11.hostingpics.net/pics/341444Capturedcran20120503231746.png
and the tengu in the same kill report is concerned too. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
447
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 21:58:00 -
[196] - Quote
I think the only major mod things that really need to be discussed involve the tanking mods. The drone mod simply needs to be better (less fitting, more bonus), and the CPU rig needs to be balanced so we don't have people getting fits that shouldn't be possible (ie: cov-ops titans).
ARMOR ADAPTIVE HARDENER Simply put, it needs to be better. For starters, this module is only effective in small fights where the damage types are more concentrated as opposed to fleet fights. For this reason, these are never going to go on Capitals over a nice EANM.
With that said, the module needs to be more effective. The reason being is that this is a module that would act as your tertiary tank mod, for ships that would normally be plugging a small hole (ie: EM on T2 Gallente). It needs to be better because right now it's better to take your chances with a stacked EANM. The problem is that the adaptive module takes too long to react.
It has a 10 second cycle time and adjusts 1% into the respective spots per cycle. It takes far too much time it takes to adjust to a level that would exceed that of a stacked EANM or simply another active specific hardener.
For starters, I would give the module significantly more HP for overloading. It overheats WAY too fast, and right now it's so weak that it NEEDS to be overloaded. Next, I would say at least double the rate it adapts. Either by percentage OR by reducing the cycle time. The mod is simply too weak at the moment to be taken seriously, as it's pretty much useless on T1 ships.
ANCILLARY SHIELD BOOSTERS I'm hoping these are unfinished...
The first glaring problem is the reload time, and there are a couple reasons why. I know why you've picked 60 seconds. It makes sense that since the maximum you can squeeze in is 6 tiny (navy) charges, you would make the reload time a combined amount (6 x 10) of a normal injector. the problem with this method is that, in fights where active tanking is useful, you cap out WAY too fast, and fights generally don't last much longer than 2 minutes or so. That is a HUGE amount of time where you can't boost.
That brings us to the second issue with the reload time. This has less to do with the module, but more to do with the reload mechanic. You can't do anything during the 60 seconds. Once your module starts to reload you can't use your ships cap in the meantime. This is a big no-no as far as I'm concerned, and for obvious reasons will always* result in the ship exploding long before it finishes reloading and starts to tank again.
The next issue is the cap charges themselves. Right now there is no reason to use the larger cap charges unless you LIKE to reload for 60 seconds. The cap doesn't overflow into the capacitor, so for using something like 800s (2 or 3 navy), you need to reload after a few seconds and have effectively burned through 800 cap PER CYCLE. That's an expensive shield booster. If boosting with larger charges would overflow into the capacitor & we can keep boosting, using ships cap, during the reload THEN there would be a reason to use them. Right now, small charges are ahead by a mile and larger ones are useless.
Lastly, I was under the impression that these things would just be drinking fuel from your cargo and not need to be reloaded after a few cycles like they do now. The balancing factor being that they would drink cap way faster (which they do) than the traditional types. -áwww.promsrage.com |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions Solid Foundation
134
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:08:00 -
[197] - Quote
So about the new wardeck costs. http://d35dgn2pdc8wsn.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/20120503020931.jpeg
I guess Burn Jita is the last time we'll ever see anyone fighting goons in highsec again. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:16:00 -
[198] - Quote
I mostly agree with Prometheus.
I was also under the impression that these ancillary boosters did not use cap boosters, but rather hydrogen batteries or whatever that commodity is called.
You would keep them in your cargo, and they would be consumed like fuel is for other modules on a per-cycle basis, with the ability to load a script to use capacitor instead of fuel.
The inability to rep during the 60 second reload timer is absurd, as nearly every ship I can think of that would benefit from these modules will die during this time. In practice (for example, with a large ancillary booster), you get five capless rep cycles in a fight, and then you're on cap for the rest of the fight, completely prone to energy neutralizers. If you turn off "auto reloading", you are able to consume the cap boosters and then continue to rep normally without reloading and locking yourself out, but this is extremely unintuitive.
Given the current reloading mechanics and the proximity of the Inferno release, I think the best bet is to make the module not hold cap charges, but simply consume them from the cargo like triage/siege modules.
The variety of charge sizes you can load also make no sense, as Prom outlined. The module itself would be more intuitive if it consumed X number of hydrogen batteries based on booster size, directly from the cargohold, with no reload time. So long as you have hydrogen batteries, you should be able to rep without using cap. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
331
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:43:00 -
[199] - Quote
SISSI was very buggy just now. I wasn't able to test the new shield/cap booster modules like I wanted to in combat. I'll log back on later and try it out. Here's what I was able to do:
Modified my Harpy... I have a Genolution CA-1 and CA-2 for fitting purposes. High: Small Ion Blaster II x 4 Rocket Launcher II Med: Limited MWD Medium Ancillary Shield Booster (new one) Small Shield Extender II Faint Epsilon Warp Scrambler Low: MFS II TE II x 2 Rigs: Shield EM II Shield Extender II
The Shield booster reps for 76 every 2.05 seconds. It holds 75 cap charges x 3. This gives you around 4 cycles of the booster that consume the charges. After that it goes after your capacitor. When you turn it off the shield booster starts a reload cycle that lasts for a minute. The AF has 2k in shield hit points. The booster gives about 300 hit point back in an 8 second time frame for no cap use. That is 15% of my shields.
To be honest that's a bit dissapointing. I would be better off just putting a medium shield extender and EM resistance rig on rather then the small extender and medium booster. I'd have close to 3k in shields with a higher shield recharge rate. Here is what I like:
- Your tank is separate from your capacitor - at least for a very short time. This makes it very nuet resistant.
- It made my think of how I could change up some typical setups. Instead of a Cyclone having a x-Large shield booster and cap booster, I could put on a LSE and an extra-large Ancillary Booster. This makes active tanking more possible with PvP.
I would suggest making the shield booster so that it HAS to run off of charges - it can't tap into your capacitor at all. Then radically increase the capacity on the ancillary boosters. Instead of 75 charge x 3 - make it 75 charge x 12. This would give you 1200~ hit points back in. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
44
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:44:00 -
[200] - Quote
Regarding the fueled shield booster - the first version I made actually used Hydrogen Batteries as fuel directly from the cargo hold, using a script. But there were several issues here, the most serious one being that it didn't fit one of the key criteria of the module, which was this is supposed to give temporary boost only. I.e. the intention was not to create a module that could be run non-stop throughout the whole combat. Instead, the thinking is that timing is important where you can temporarily tank more heavily than normally.
Now, whether cap boosters are the right choice or not can be debated, it has its pros and cons. Yes, it doesn't make sense to use an 800 instead of 400, but that isn't a bad thing per se - people will just use the 400 and that's fine. That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges. |
|
|
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
448
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 22:50:00 -
[201] - Quote
I remember that discussion, and I also remember posting up a possible solution The issue with the *temporary* boosting is that A, it doens't boost anywhere near enough to be used as you'd like, and B, the reload time is faaaar too crippling.
What if the boosters ran off the total cap being in the booster at the time. ie: running 2 x 800 would mean 1600 cap in the charger for it to use before resorting to ship cap while reloading.
sidenote: in regard to the unified inventory, aside from the agreed upon crappy inspace implementation, it would be really nice if there were a filter option for implants and an ability to filter OUT items (ie: three click options for the checkbox) -áwww.promsrage.com |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:02:00 -
[202] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - the first version I made actually used Hydrogen Batteries as fuel directly from the cargo hold, using a script. But there were several issues here, the most serious one being that it didn't fit one of the key criteria of the module, which was this is supposed to give temporary boost only. I.e. the intention was not to create a module that could be run non-stop throughout the whole combat. Instead, the thinking is that timing is important where you can temporarily tank more heavily than normally.
Now, whether cap boosters are the right choice or not can be debated, it has its pros and cons. Yes, it doesn't make sense to use an 800 instead of 400, but that isn't a bad thing per se - people will just use the 400 and that's fine. That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges.
Right now, the temporary tank has absolutely no use in any situation.
With the little number of boost cycles you get before having to reload, I'd expect to be able to get more than 15% of my shields back before being vulnerable for another minute.
You should at least limit the booster to one size charge per module. It's deceiving that the x-large allows 400s and 800s, when 800s rather unclearly put you at a disadvantage.
If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1958
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:05:00 -
[203] - Quote
thanks:) I clearly need to kill more of my alts in t3 ships on my local server CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Conjaq
Sons Of 0din Fatal Ascension
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:06:00 -
[204] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - the first version I made actually used Hydrogen Batteries as fuel directly from the cargo hold, using a script. But there were several issues here, the most serious one being that it didn't fit one of the key criteria of the module, which was this is supposed to give temporary boost only. I.e. the intention was not to create a module that could be run non-stop throughout the whole combat. Instead, the thinking is that timing is important where you can temporarily tank more heavily than normally.
Now, whether cap boosters are the right choice or not can be debated, it has its pros and cons. Yes, it doesn't make sense to use an 800 instead of 400, but that isn't a bad thing per se - people will just use the 400 and that's fine. That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges.
Bolded the important part.
If you want active tanking to be viable, you got to change how you want a shield booster to work.
Giving it an almost non-important amount of shield produced(look at zarnak's post) makes it exactly as "good" as before. You need to give it longer viability, if you want active tanking to be a viable fitting style.
300 HP in a 8 second timeframe is 37,5 HP a second. Last i looked a frigate easily do 200 before resists which means this beast of a booster can help your AF to sustain your shield for an incredible 8 seconds.
Do you really want a fit, that can only sustain its minimal EHP, for an incredible 8 seconds?... i would take passively tank any day of the week. because once those 8 secs are passed, your ship is toast.... Fast because you dont have a buffer to back you up.....
A suggestion would be to have it boost your shield massively, give it a long reload time(like now) ... and make every single cycle Really count.
|
Thomas Kreshant
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:29:00 -
[205] - Quote
Given it's limited nature, I'd agree if that's the way it works you make it boost a huge chunk of shield so you use it to come back from the brink of going into armor.
This way the limited nature of that tank can save you a number of times but that time is limited and the enemy knows it. |
Dwindlehop
Stimulus Rote Kapelle
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:34:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:That being said, it is still in the picture to tweak stats and even create new kind of fuel charge, but fueling from the cargo hold didn't really work out when we tested it, i.e. it either allowed for endless boosting, or you having to fill you're cargo hold with a handful of fuel charges. Could you nerf the base boost so it is weaker than the equivalent-sized shield booster, buff the overheat bonus so the overheated shield/second & shield/cap are the same as current Sisi overheated stats, remove the restrictions on cap charges used, and restore a normal reload time?
As it stands, the lack of boost during the reload means I don't want it on my ship. However, if you allow it to produce a crappy boost for "near" endless time, that would not be overpowered, right? And the overheated stats would allow for the serious temporary boost that would give this module utility in PVP. |
Azura Solus
D.A.M.A.G.E.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:37:00 -
[207] - Quote
Conjaq wrote:[quote=CCP SoniClover A suggestion would be to have it boost your shield massively, give it a long reload time(like now) ... and make every single cycle Really count.
Agreed would be a whole lot more viable if this could bring us back from the brink of death, otherwise as was stated before a cap booster and normal shield rep will be better. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:40:00 -
[208] - Quote
my issue with the boosters is why use them... i mean if i have to have cap booster 400's or 800's in my cargo why not just use an X-L and an injector for cap... i mean the wouldn't that be more helpful? i mean i get its sorta a hybrid cap booster/shield booster combo but the cap booster only helps the shield booster... but that also has the drawback that the cap booster would have allowed you to keep your hardeners online the cap boosted shield module won't have that ability....
so to be viable it really needs to have something that gives it a kickperhaps the ability to load it with a cap 800 and have it "prearmed" so that it boosts on incoming damage, that way it could be the anti-alpha module, so as soon as you get hit with a maelstroms 1400's the booster goes off and sucks that cap booster 800 or X amount of cap boosters to tank that incoming damage... up to as much boost as possible?
t1 = boosts cap booster size x2 as many cap boosters as needed to cover incoming damage... t2 = boosts cap booster size x2.5 as many cap boosters sucked as needed to cover incoming damage for the volley
so volley hits that does 3200 after resistences calculated, so a big alpha strike, you have 3 cap booster 800's in cargo, you get struck, it pulses on impact and sucks in 3 cap booster 800's negating 2400 of that volley
so you only take 800 damage, run out of cap boosters, and walla the shield booster is useless...
see that i would see as useful
buffer tank = good vs dps cap injected shield booster = good against alpha protection standard booster = good for basic warfare but requires you know ... ability to use it at the perfect time lol
just my idea :S |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:40:00 -
[209] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:Conjaq wrote:[quote=CCP SoniClover A suggestion would be to have it boost your shield massively, give it a long reload time(like now) ... and make every single cycle Really count.
Agreed would be a whole lot more viable if this could bring us back from the brink of death, otherwise as was stated before a cap booster and normal shield rep will be better.
or that :S :)
perhaps my idea above would be better as a "shield damage absorbtion module" lol or armor :S |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.03 23:51:00 -
[210] - Quote
Actually, yeah, I fully support the new shield boosters being an absorption module.
You put in fuel, and the fuel is converted into damage that can be absorbed.
In other words, you don't turn it on to boost your shields up, you turn it on to absorb incoming damage. This better accomplishes the goal of a temporary sustained tank that CCP is looking for. Every minute, you could load more fuel and absorb another 200/500/3k/7k damage depending on the size ancillary booster you use.
I would use these in a heartbeat, because they're so useful.
If all of the damage in a fight switches onto you, you can react by turning on the module and absorbing some damage to get to range and assess the situation.
CCP, if you've ever listened to a player's advise on what to do with a proposed module, please take the suggestion of the gentleman above me and do this. |
|
Moonaura
The Dead Rabbit Society
148
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:08:00 -
[211] - Quote
Hey Team Superfriends, CCP Punkturis hope you're past the worst of the flu.
Quick one. The new webbing drones, regardless of size have 110m Signature each, where as say, the cap drain drones, scale down from large to small (110m Signature being large).
Is this deliberate, or just an oversight at this stage. Many thanks. Caldari focused fleet PvP
Join us for 100% Caldari fleets in Faction Warfare and small fleet PvP
www.thedeadrabbitsociety.com/recruitment |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
450
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:17:00 -
[212] - Quote
THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken. I'll just leave you guys to think about why. Think about SPR tanking, only amplify it with that idea lol.
I think you (the players) are missing the point of the boosters. They aren't supposed to replace the traditional method of boosting. They are supposed to be an alternative for ships that have a limited number of grid/cpu or slots for propulsion, tackle, and tank.
ie: cyclone hulls, ferox hulls, & and some battleships/frigates
The number one ship in my mind is the Nighthawk. It's no anemic on grid/cpu that these boosters (working properly) would make the ship incredibly good.
These boosters (should you decide to fit them) should be FLYING through cap. This should allow CCP to have another angle at balancing by something other than fitting & slots; I'm talking about cargo. Shield tanker with a high number of mids (ie: Tengu / Blackbirds)? Smaller cargo. Shield tanker with a lower number of mids (ie: Ferox Hulls)? Bigger cargo. Then you can go about adjusting those cargo number based on approximating how much damage a ship is capable of or what it can fit etc..
-áwww.promsrage.com |
Kahega Amielden
Rifterlings
380
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:19:00 -
[213] - Quote
What is the point of the shifting armor hardener?
In terms of PVE, it just seems to provide the convenience of having to swap hardeners less often.
In PVP, its role seems like an EANM, but better...A way to omnitank without having to worry about resist holes..So, makes damage type selection and taking note of your resist holes less important.
What was CCP trying to solve by adding it to the game? |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:30:00 -
[214] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken. I'll just leave you guys to think about why.
You're right, there's a good chance you could fit multiple of them and keep it up infinitely.
What about the module having a 1 minute cycle timer, but giving you ~40% of your shields back? It wouldn't be active tanking, but would be something of a compliment to passive tanking I guess. |
Rrama Ratamnim
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:43:00 -
[215] - Quote
Kahega Amielden wrote:What is the point of the shifting armor hardener?
In terms of PVE, it just seems to provide the convenience of having to swap hardeners less often.
In PVP, its role seems like an EANM, but better...A way to omnitank without having to worry about resist holes..So, makes damage type selection and taking note of your resist holes less important.
What was CCP trying to solve by adding it to the game?
silly your gonna get alpha'd when u're damage type switches from your enemy, or possibly on you r first cycle due to the fact you'll only have what 10% resist? lol |
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
421
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 00:45:00 -
[216] - Quote
I fail to see why shield tanks need even MORE burst tank, while they already vastly outclass armor tanks in that regard.
Armor already has to deal with being stupidly slow due to the rigs/modules needed. Why more shield love? |
Pink Marshmellow
Caucasian Culture Club Narwhals Ate My Duck
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 01:23:00 -
[217] - Quote
I gotta say that a lot of these modules seem very underwhelming.
The Drone upgrades require 40tf for only a 12% damage boost while other weapon mods provide a 10% damage boost and a 10.5% rate of fire boost for 30-40 tf.
The Adaptive Armor Hardener seems to only change at a rate of 1% every 10 seconds. By the time it adapts to the right values, either you are dead or the target is dead. Better off using another ENAM or a DCU. It might have use if it doesn't have a stacking penalty, but even then its use is limited.
The Overclock CPU rigs have a ridiculous callibration cost for a small increase in CPU. 300 for a 9% increase in cpu? ACR give 10-15% increase in PG for 100-150 calibration respectively.
The Ancillary Shield booster is not worth it. I'd much rather sacrifice another midslot for a cap and shield booster. Once you have to reload caps, you are rice paper for a full minute. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
331
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 02:27:00 -
[218] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:
If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation.
Assuming they make it worthwhile:
- Tank that is Nuet Resistant
- You can burst active tank ships that normally don't have the capacitor to active tank - think Jaguar or even Vagabond.
- Rather then completely skip a buffer in exchange for a booster and cap booster you can have both worlds with a buffer and an Ancillary Shield Booster.
- It frees up your own capactitor to fit other things - nuets on a Cyclone for example.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
57
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 03:04:00 -
[219] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:
If you can, could you please describe to me a scenario when the ancillary shield booster is more effective than a regular shield booster and a cap injector? I am unable to think of such a situation.
Assuming they make it worthwhile:
- Tank that is Nuet Resistant
- You can burst active tank ships that normally don't have the capacitor to active tank - think Jaguar or even Vagabond.
- Rather then completely skip a buffer in exchange for a booster and cap booster you can have both worlds with a buffer and an Ancillary Shield Booster.
- It frees up your own capactitor to fit other things - nuets on a Cyclone for example.
Yeah, I meant in the current state.
If they implement it correctly, you would be able to active tank a number of new ships and it would be interesting. Currently, there is no point. |
Frood Frooster
EVE University Ivy League
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 07:19:00 -
[220] - Quote
Why do you break the principle of making meta 0 modules producable by a seeded BPO by making some of the new items only producable by a dropped BPC?
If you don't want the new modules to spread like a meta 0 module, can't you just give them a higher meta level and keep the coherence of modules in the game. |
|
Andreus Ixiris
Mixed Metaphor Federal Consensus Outreach
836
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 07:32:00 -
[221] - Quote
Oh my god, what the hell? Andreus Anthony LeHane Ixiris CEO, Mixed Metaphor
Animated Corporate Logos |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:00:00 -
[222] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:THAT is a terrible idea & would be broken. I'll just leave you guys to think about why.
You're right, there's a good chance you could fit multiple of them and keep it up infinitely. What about the module having a 1 minute cycle timer, but giving you ~40% of your shields back? It wouldn't be active tanking, but would be something of a compliment to passive tanking I guess.
Sound pretty nice.
Side note : It seems, even with the Auto-realod on, that the module continues to work. It is only when you cut the SB that the reload start and lock the SB. A change session cut also the reload and allow to activate the Ancillary SB.
60 seconds reload is maybe too long ? Let say 30sec but only one ancillary can be fitted ?
|
Terza Torre
Vanguard Frontiers Intrepid Crossing
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:16:00 -
[223] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - We were *very* conservative with the initial numbers and fully expected to up them from the 9/12% they currently are. So we will probably improve them in the near future (stats and/or CPU). But they will remain a low slot module.
War cost - remember that the changed version is NOT YET on Sisi, what is on Sisi right now is the original, old changes we implemented before Fanfest. Expect new version tomorrow.
CPU rigs - We'll take a look at the calibration cost, as there was a bit of debate on which way to go - we took the conservative approach, but might consider lowering it.
Drone dmg mod low slot: that's an error, no one uses drones boats and dps cannons, if you put that low slot the mod will be useless, high slot at the place of one cannon is the right way to go.
Please don't make new mods useless!!!!
My 2 cents, TT |
malaire
389
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:20:00 -
[224] - Quote
Andreus Ixiris wrote:Oh my god, what the hell? CCP has already said that formula has been changed, and newest formula might not yet be in SiSi. New to EVE? Don't forget to read: The Manual * The Wiki * The Career Options * and everything else |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:26:00 -
[225] - Quote
About the Adaptive Armor Hardener
The adjustement by cycle works pretty well but take too much time to adjust resists over time. It is a nice PvE module only.
There is no use in PvP even in 1 vs1 scenario. (well not completely true as it is already an EANM without the benefit of Armor comp) it would become useful if we have a full adjustement resist at the end of the 3rd cycle = 30 sec |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
100
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 08:54:00 -
[226] - Quote
I am not involved in wars currently but hell, 4 billions to declare a war are too much anyway.
Small groups can no more declare war on large groups. This sucks. The formula should take into account the attacker number. The less they are, the less the war should cost. It could be gamed upon, yes, but CCP could lock the wardeccing corp/alliance so that they cannot recruit anyone during a war they have declared, or make wars "personal" in the sense that people joining a corporation after a war is declared are excluded by the war until the right fee is paid (the next week). |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1961
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:04:00 -
[227] - Quote
SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Lady Vorax
The Illuminatii Mildly Intoxicated
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:13:00 -
[228] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Vessper wrote:Is there any information on how the resistance shifting armor hardener works?
It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that. It takes the top two damage types and increases the resistance against them while reducing the other two by the same amount (if you have received only a single damage type, it adjust only that one). It's a zero-sum system, meaning for instance that if the resistance bonus for a damage type is at 0, it can't be reduced further and the one's to be increased don't increase as much.
yay indirect nerf to lasers....... |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:16:00 -
[229] - Quote
Sutha Moliko wrote:About the Adaptive Armor Hardener
The adjustement by cycle works pretty well but take too much time to adjust resists over time. It is a nice PvE module only.
There is no use in PvP even in 1 vs1 scenario. (well not completely true as it is already an EANM without the benefit of Armor comp) it would become useful if we have a full adjustement resist at the end of the 3rd cycle = 30 sec
Sounds like you already used it ingame. Where can I get hte new modules? |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
100
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 09:34:00 -
[230] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó
Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. |
|
Ines Fy
Heroes of the Past Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 10:25:00 -
[231] - Quote
Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible.
The new formula is:
50M + (Alliance == "Goonswarm Federation" ? 10M * number of members : 5k * number of members)
You should know already that all developers have characters in GSF and CCP is secretly run by The Mitanni |
gfldex
497
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:31:00 -
[232] - Quote
I had a look at the new shield booster. Got me a navy domi with one of those, 2x shield boost amps, 3x hardeners, 3x shield resi rigs -- all T2. On top of that a large crystal set and a strong blue pill. I was not able to tank a single geddon.
What exactly is this module for?
When someone burns down your sandcasle, bring sausages. |
Divine Storm
Cold Steel Evolution Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:41:00 -
[233] - Quote
I don't like how the new Armor Adaptive Hardener does not correctly consider the amount of damage received by a single volley. For example when using EMP ammo (which does 41.4EM, 9.2expl and 4.6kin base damage) the hardener adjusts towards 30%em/expl and 0%kin/therm resists. Using kinetic missiles on the other hand the hardener adjusts towards full 60% kinetic resits.
Even though it takes quite some time until the hardener's resists are actually fully adapted (2% of absolute resist points are shifted per module cycle) it is still a heavy penalty for missile and drone based ships because the hardener not only faster but also better adepts against missile/drone damage (or any other damage source only doing one type of damage) than to turret damage.
Note that a 30%/30% resist against a damage source dealing 75%/16%/9% (for EMP) is worse than a proper resist distribution.
Also note that the module only ignores different damage types by a single volley. When dealing damage from multiple sources all doing different damage types it correctly adjusts its resists towards the highest types of damage done (e.g. a few warriors doing expl. damage are almost ignored when shooting the target with heavy lasers).
This doesn't seem right to me and doesn't seem to be a huge problem on the technical side either.
Besides of that its a great module, the basic idea is awsome! :) |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 11:51:00 -
[234] - Quote
Guys? Where are those mods seeded? can't find any in market! |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:34:00 -
[235] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:Sutha Moliko wrote:About the Adaptive Armor Hardener
The adjustement by cycle works pretty well but take too much time to adjust resists over time. It is a nice PvE module only.
There is no use in PvP even in 1 vs1 scenario. (well not completely true as it is already an EANM without the benefit of Armor comp) it would become useful if we have a full adjustement resist at the end of the 3rd cycle = 30 sec Sounds like you already used it ingame. Where can I get hte new modules?
Found few Adaptive Hardener, Ancillary Shield Booster and Extrinsic Damage modifier in Rens this morning prior to my reply. Don't ask me how come they were there at 5.000.000 ISK... I did not think too much, I just bought them for a quick test on a Pilgrim (Extrinsic + Adaptive Armor Hardener) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:44:00 -
[236] - Quote
Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible.
no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is
it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 12:52:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 13:11:00 -
[238] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback
you're all going to be arguing about it anyways CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 13:14:00 -
[239] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback you're all going to be arguing about it anyways True but I would want atleast one player pass(becides the CSM hopefully) before you put it in a Devblog. |
|
CCP Paradox
262
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 13:54:00 -
[240] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback you're all going to be arguing about it anyways True but I would want atleast one player pass(becides the CSM hopefully) before you put it in a Devblog.
This is not how a Dev Blog works. CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
|
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
230
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:12:00 -
[241] - Quote
I think many people in this thread need to remember this: http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=28840 http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:12:00 -
[242] - Quote
After running some tests on SISI, results are:
Armor adaptive hardener is great for PvE, if you encounter a faction which only doe 2 types of damage.
setup (Domi):
a)
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II
77,1 % Armor Resi (kin, therm)
b) Armor Adaptive Hardener I Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II
80% Armor Resi (kin, therm)
Nice, but the rate of change of the AAH is to slow. If this should be a PvP module it should raise the resists way faster. It also should adapt as soon as the shield is hit.
Atm it adapts when your armor is being pierced. This is strange, because it would be so much cooler to have the shield as some kind of adjustment buffer to configure the AAH. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:13:00 -
[243] - Quote
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:27:00 -
[244] - Quote
The initial thread was divided, because 90% of the posts were about FW . |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:39:00 -
[245] - Quote
Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.
There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:42:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.
It was more a reply to Paradox then to you. O great Punkturis Assumptions are all we have at this point. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:55:00 -
[247] - Quote
Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:
Should get:
30 CPU req.
10% ROF 12% Dmg
Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods. |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
100
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:11:00 -
[248] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback you're all going to be arguing about it anyways
And don't you love when we argue? I wonder why you don't show this formula and end it. It's pretty crucial for all empire corporations.
To be blunt, you don't want to tell us something because it will make us angry. For that reason we should be angry already.
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:22:00 -
[249] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:
Should get:
30 CPU req.
10% ROF 12% Dmg
Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods.
I'm looking into upping this module in power. I mostly have the CPU and damage to work with, because of the way the technical backend is, I can't affect the RoF of drones. But we should be able to adjust the rest of the stats to make up for that somewhat. The goal is definitely to make this module be on par with the other damage amplifier mods.
|
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:30:00 -
[250] - Quote
Guys and Girls,
the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at.
60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand.
I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB?
If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel.
At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use.
UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments
o/
yeah I know -->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=related
mimimimi... |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:40:00 -
[251] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:Guys and Girls, the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at. 60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand. I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB? If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel. At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use. UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments o/ yeah I know --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=relatedmimimimi...
I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).
|
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:42:00 -
[252] - Quote
I take it the sec status system is intentionally broken on SiSi atm? Just podded one of my own neutral alts but received no sec hit and was able to jump into highsec immediately afterwards and fly around without getting CONCORDed. . |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:45:00 -
[253] - Quote
Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.
To be fair, they have had a few back and forth discussions with CCP and players over this on the original Dev blog about the possible changes.
Sadly though all those discussions have shown a complete lack of understanding on why people think these are bad, and a CCP mindset that larger alliances must have greater protection financially form War Decs than smaller corps encoded into the mechanic.
I really hope I'm wrong! But my guess is that the Dev blog will roll out the new formula that is pretty much the same philosophy as the old one (but slightly tweeked numbers) where it will cost more for a 100 man corp to War Dec a major alliance than a 5 man corp. And that's what they are going to go with no matter what. |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
124
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:03:00 -
[254] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.
Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice?
As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:04:00 -
[255] - Quote
Shandir wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago. Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice? As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken.
you'll see a dev blog next week CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:08:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tenga Halaris wrote:Guys and Girls, the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at. 60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand. I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB? If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel. At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use. UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments o/ yeah I know --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=relatedmimimimi... I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).
thanks for answering,
but if you don't change the amount of charges it can hold, we're back to square one. Charges should last 2-3 minutes, if you want to make it effective.
Active tanks are, in most cases used with alt boosted, blue pilled, solo ships, which have a bonus to shield boost amount (Cyclone, Maelstrom), or in PvE scenarios.
If the modules purpose is to improve, or incourage that kind of combat, it needs to have a significant advantage to a capbooster fit. |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
124
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:09:00 -
[257] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you'll see a dev blog next week
I'm going to take hope that you're hinting CCP's got plans for some more wide reaching changes than proposed at fanfest - that would be great. I'll wait and see what's on the horizon then.
While you're about, how soon are CCP looking at fixing bounty hunting? Any chance we could get some feedback on the proposals out just now?
|
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
452
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:16:00 -
[258] - Quote
Lady Vorax wrote:Quote:Fueled Shield booster (Small/Medium/Large Ancillary Shield Booster), using Cap Boosters as charges And farewell to armour tanking, that new mod doesnt even come close to compensating for a instant boost...... What is CCP thinking here? Feels like to want to go after sony..
Go try it out. 60 seconds is a hell of a long time to destroy someone who doesn't have a tanking module.
gfldex wrote:I had a look at the new shield booster. Got me a navy domi with one of those, 2x shield boost amps, 3x hardeners, 3x shield resi rigs -- all T2. On top of that a large crystal set and a strong blue pill. I was not able to tank a single geddon.
What exactly is this module for? Here's a tip, not that.
As a side note; Blue pills are currently bugged and do not affect the new shield boosters. It's a known issue.
@SoniClover Doubling the boost level.. okay.
Doubling the cap usage, terrible idea since it puts you far worse off than standard tanking. - You'd have to run larger charges = WAY less time tanking - You'd have raped your ships cap LONG before the 60 reload timer is up, nevermind being neuted.
Unless you meant, doubling it's cap capacity, then sure, lets see how that goes. -áwww.promsrage.com |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:37:00 -
[259] - Quote
Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.
Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. But IMO it needs to be that way because doubling the shield boosting effect makes it so much better stat wise to normal shield boosters and the intention is absolutely not to obsolete them in any way. I'm sure more tweaking is needed, but let's see how this plays out. From the testing I've done on the internal servers it looks promising, but as always the real test is when it's on Sisi and in the hands of you players, you with your uncanny abilities to break everything good and decent *runs away crying*
|
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:54:00 -
[260] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn. |
|
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
331
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:59:00 -
[261] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn.
Except as soon as you turn off TE shield booster it will start it's reload cycle.
Honestly - increase the capacity so we can get 6-8 cycles off of the cap charges an I would buy it. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:59:00 -
[262] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.
Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. But IMO it needs to be that way because doubling the shield boosting effect makes it so much better stat wise to normal shield boosters and the intention is absolutely not to obsolete them in any way. I'm sure more tweaking is needed, but let's see how this plays out. From the testing I've done on the internal servers it looks promising, but as always the real test is when it's on Sisi and in the hands of you players, you with your uncanny abilities to break everything good and decent *runs away crying*
What do you concider artifical incentives?
A pre war dec decision of what are we going to put at risk to fight this war to keep Concord off our backs adds depth that the current wardec system lacks.
The attacking corp wants to destroy a pos. The War deck price includes the price of setting up a pos that the attacking corp has to defend for example.
Examples of other objectives. Access to ore/station/or system or amount of ships value destroyed. Which Concord says okay to but if who you are attacking does the same to you the war deck ends early to those deced if you do the same to your attackers you can end the war early.
Then there is real risk and reward for going to war. |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
124
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:10:00 -
[263] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.
Ah, got my hopes up for nothing. Does CCP even acknowledge that the current war dec mechanics are deeply flawed, and do not enable the kind of play that they are designed to create?
I'm getting a real head-in-the-sand vibe here, and I got the same vibe from the Fanfest talk. The players know that this is barely going to make a difference, and noone seems to be willing to try to solve or even acknowledge the actual problem.
Until CCP actually looks at the real problem - that the only effective defence in a wardec is to bore your attacker into submission - then they will not make wardecs a compelling part of the game.
There should be, and I keep saying this in the hopes that CCP might hear it, four key ways to handle a wardec.
Fight and Win Fight and Lose Hide Surrender
And for reasons that have been explained at length before, Fight and Win is not possible, and Surrender is not even slightly effective. Not even after your changes.
All you have done is change how much it costs to initiate the game of "who gets bored first". |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:14:00 -
[264] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tsubutai wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn. Except as soon as you turn off TE shield booster it will start it's reload cycle. Honestly - increase the capacity so we can get 6-8 cycles off of the cap charges an I would buy it.
rclick->autoreload off.
i'm somewhat concerned about what Tsubutai said as well, doubling all around is a bit too strong. I might suggest increasing the shield boost/cap use by 25% or so over the base values on Sisi now, increase the capacity by 100% as planned, and then add an extra 75-100% shield boost while it's loaded with cap chargers (if you can do that). It'll be an incredibly strong booster for 30-40 seconds while you can inject it, but go crazy inefficient once you run out (at which point you better gtfo) |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
453
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:37:00 -
[265] - Quote
@SoniClover Okay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer.
Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster. I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility.
Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU -áwww.promsrage.com |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:52:00 -
[266] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:@SoniCloverOkay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer. Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster. I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility. Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU
I didn't edit the duration, I was thinking of upping the duration of the small version to 3, or even make all them 4 like the large and x-l are now, but decided to wait on that.
It's possible to make it one per ship, but cap boosters actually take quite a room in your cargo hold, so I think that's going to be the limiting factor to how easily you can sustain multiple modules. |
|
Rivqua
Omega Wing The Veyr Collective
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 18:23:00 -
[267] - Quote
@SoniClover
I think one of the issues is that using the cap charges at the start of the fight is not benificial to the use of the fueled booster. Usually, damage goes up. Is it possible to make you choose at what point you are going to start using cap charges ?
In a scenario like that, I can see the booster being far more useful, for oshit moments.
Also, there are reports of Blue Pills not applying to the booster, bug ? Are we getting a bit variety in the mods, not just the t1 module that really is not very useful for alot of people. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:07:00 -
[268] - Quote
What are you planning to achieve, implementing the "fueled shield booster"?
Is it a PvP module?
Is it an option for low skill PvE Players?
Does it embrace the "Lone Wolf" solo PvP guy to fit it, instead of a Pith C-Type XL Shield Booster (160mil)
Can someone save a medslot using this mod?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:38:00 -
[269] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).
No, I'm totally OK with this.
That turns these modules into a shield buffer support module.
In other words, you end up with a hybrid between buffer tanking (ie dual LSE vagabond, etc) and active tanking. Now, if you really wanted to, you could fit one LSE and an ancillary booster on the Vagabond. You rely on having buffer (and your speed tank), but also the ability to claw some shields back, whereas your standard Vaga has a large buffer but is forced off the field once it gets low.
I've already made a fit that takes advantage of the Manticore's extra mid slot to fit a medium ancillary booster. With the changes you've proposed, I can fit an MSE, and still be able to refresh my tank about ~60% every minute. In order to do this, I'm sacrificing an ewar utility mod like a target painter or even a tracking disruptor, but it still plays out very nicely. |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 20:10:00 -
[270] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Shandir wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago. Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice? As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken. you'll see a dev blog next week
wait do you mean a devblog to give reasons for wars... like something to actually "risk" when u go to war, that the defending side could steal if there better than you expect and kick your A$$.
|
|
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 20:12:00 -
[271] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tenga Halaris wrote:Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:
Should get:
30 CPU req.
10% ROF 12% Dmg
Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods. I'm looking into upping this module in power. I mostly have the CPU and damage to work with, because of the way the technical backend is, I can't affect the RoF of drones. But we should be able to adjust the rest of the stats to make up for that somewhat. The goal is definitely to make this module be on par with the other damage amplifier mods.
perhaps it cud buff tracking instead of rof? make more of the dps apply? |
Cryten Jones
Advantage Inc The Matari Consortium
75
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 20:16:00 -
[272] - Quote
Hi there,
With the new fuelled shield booster is there a benefit for having 100's over 50's loaded in it? If so can that info be detailed somewhere?
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 20:43:00 -
[273] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tenga Halaris wrote:Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:
Should get:
30 CPU req.
10% ROF 12% Dmg
Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods. I'm looking into upping this module in power. I mostly have the CPU and damage to work with, because of the way the technical backend is, I can't affect the RoF of drones. But we should be able to adjust the rest of the stats to make up for that somewhat. The goal is definitely to make this module be on par with the other damage amplifier mods.
If ROF can't be changed, please increase the damage, because drone dwellers will, or have to use the medium slot mods. Damage and tracking implemented in one mod would be overpowered, considering the other mods increasing damage or tracking. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 20:53:00 -
[274] - Quote
Visually there's a serious issue.
If i have a cap booster and a fuel injected shield booster loaded with cap boosters I can not tell them apart.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
331
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:03:00 -
[275] - Quote
The ancillary shield booster is an overly complicated shield circuit breaker. Divorce it completely from a ship's capacitor to ensure it is at least used as such. |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 21:09:00 -
[276] - Quote
Can someone explain this 60 second recharge on this Shield-Cap booster?
WTF is this thing supposed to do? because it's useless the way it is.
I definitely can not afford to wait 60 seconds between using a shield booster. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
617
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 23:11:00 -
[277] - Quote
After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible.
The current situation is that it's probably best to still run a cap booster with the XL Anc shield booster.
The biggest issue with this module is that you HAVE TO USE your cap charges early in the fight, when you have the most cap. And then when you're running low on capacitor (neuted, etc), then you've run out of charges, you can't load more charges because you have a 60 second delay. And so you've blown the best part of that module when you don't need it (in full cap) and then are screwed when you do need it (you're out of cap).
SO, is there a way to maybe get this to work in a more consistent manner with when I WANT TO USE the cap boosters, and less in a manner that ties my hand when it comes to using the module?
I think the biggest issue is the 60 second reload delay, which I can understand WHY you think it needs to be there, but seriously, the damn thing blows through cap boosters so fast that the biggest issue is you're going to run out of cap boosters before you can do anything. The way I'd use this module is to have it empty when i go into the fight. as I start to suffer serious cap issues, take 10 seconds and load the cap boosters and start pumping my reps through despite the neuts/cap issues and then give them a surprise.
Setting a 10 second Cap booster delay is going to mean you can take up to 5,000 Damage in a solo fight in the time it takes to reload it and get it cycling again. That's a long time and is enough of a penalty without going up to 60 seconds.
There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing. Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
3846
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:01:00 -
[278] - Quote
I think the Drone WU needs to move to high slot to compete with guns and other drone modules.
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 00:56:00 -
[279] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible.
The current situation is that it's probably best to still run a cap booster with the XL Anc shield booster.
The biggest issue with this module is that you HAVE TO USE your cap charges early in the fight, when you have the most cap. And then when you're running low on capacitor (neuted, etc), then you've run out of charges, you can't load more charges because you have a 60 second delay. And so you've blown the best part of that module when you don't need it (in full cap) and then are screwed when you do need it (you're out of cap).
SO, is there a way to maybe get this to work in a more consistent manner with when I WANT TO USE the cap boosters, and less in a manner that ties my hand when it comes to using the module?
I think the biggest issue is the 60 second reload delay, which I can understand WHY you think it needs to be there, but seriously, the damn thing blows through cap boosters so fast that the biggest issue is you're going to run out of cap boosters before you can do anything. The way I'd use this module is to have it empty when i go into the fight. as I start to suffer serious cap issues, take 10 seconds and load the cap boosters and start pumping my reps through despite the neuts/cap issues and then give them a surprise.
Setting a 10 second Cap booster delay is going to mean you can take up to 5,000 Damage in a solo fight in the time it takes to reload it and get it cycling again. That's a long time and is enough of a penalty without going up to 60 seconds.
There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing.
Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking
|
ValentinaDLM
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
487
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 01:25:00 -
[280] - Quote
St Mio wrote:You guys are the best! GÖÑ
I was going to buy you guys a cake, but it would probably get squashed by the time it gets to Iceland, so I'll just eat it for you! \Gÿ+/ Stalking Mio
And i don't care how little they help drone damage mods are reason enough to party all week. |
|
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
454
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 08:12:00 -
[281] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Prometheus Exenthal wrote:@SoniCloverOkay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer. Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster. I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility. Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU I didn't edit the duration, I was thinking of upping the duration of the small version to 3, or even make all them 4 like the large and x-l are now, but decided to wait on that. It's possible to make it one per ship, but cap boosters actually take quite a room in your cargo hold, so I think that's going to be the limiting factor to how easily you can sustain multiple modules.
@SoniClover
With the way they currently handle cap charges, that is highly unlikely. Running the best possible size charge (currently 5 or 6 navy per boost cycle), means you have have a cargo hold with TONS of cap charges. Granted, it takes a fair bit of time to go through all that cap since reloading takes a fair bit of time, but I think it's a fair trade.
Allowing multiple ancillary boosters to be fit is cheaper (in grid) than running a typical injector AND booster, and means you could potentially set up your tank (especially if linked) to last long enough to endure the 60 second reload time. On very popular ships like the 100mn Tengu, this would be quite difficult to break.
You've said you're doubling their stats, and that will probably be enough to make these worth using. Basically, the achilles heel of these modules is their long reload time, which is good.
Once someone needs to reload, they are incredibly vulnerable. Allowing multiple to be fit circumvents this shortcoming, and is easily afforded on ships that currently use injector+booster setups. -áwww.promsrage.com |
zariae
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 09:35:00 -
[282] - Quote
Are the new modules going to be seeded for all markets? if not where are they currently? |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions VP Consortium
618
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 14:40:00 -
[283] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible....
There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing. Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking
If that's the intention then they're totally useless.
You are so tight on Midslot for shield slots, you can't afford to take a passive fit and then stick on a "non-passive" module on passive tank.
This module benefits passive tanking in absolutely no way possible, takes away from the ability to put scrams and webs - and then does a pathetic amount of "repair" for a passive tank.
I think your assertion is incorrect. This module is intended as an alternate style of active tanking that frees you from requiring to use a cap booster so you can still run more mid slots in EWAR.
A scorpion for example could benefit this because it won't take massive DPS at 120km range but with 1 free midslot it can now have a shield booster that allows it to stay on the field longer and not interrupt its ability to put out ECM. This still makes a 60 second reload unbearably long for a active boosting module where you're basically FORCING the pilot to use other midslots to support it when you can get along better with a simple shield booster and cap booster combo.
If you want to say this has alternate purposes, make it better at something other than the current standard.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
LaserzPewPew
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 14:59:00 -
[284] - Quote
Since we can't put ROF on the Extrinsic Amp, why don't we compensate it to ~15% and add a 10% drone speed multiplier?
This would make drone dps more reliable, as they would take less time getting to the target, thus increasing their damage. This would also keep sentry dps in relative line. Drone nav already grants ~30% speed bonus, yes, but for those of us that have no available midslots, faster drones are always a bonus. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.05 15:43:00 -
[285] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible....
There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing. Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking If that's the intention then they're totally useless. You are so tight on Midslot for shield slots, you can't afford to take a passive fit and then stick on a "non-passive" module on passive tank. This module benefits passive tanking in absolutely no way possible, takes away from the ability to put scrams and webs - and then does a pathetic amount of "repair" for a passive tank. I think your assertion is incorrect. This module is intended as an alternate style of active tanking that frees you from requiring to use a cap booster so you can still run more mid slots in EWAR. A scorpion for example could benefit this because it won't take massive DPS at 120km range but with 1 free midslot it can now have a shield booster that allows it to stay on the field longer and not interrupt its ability to put out ECM. This still makes a 60 second reload unbearably long for a active boosting module where you're basically FORCING the pilot to use other midslots to support it when you can get along better with a simple shield booster and cap booster combo. If you want to say this has alternate purposes, make it better at something other than the current standard.
After SoniClover updates the modules to what he has described, a single LASB will boost 2 LSEs worth of EHP before needing to reload.
Assuming you aren't in a situation to get volleyed, that puts the LASB in a preferable position over a second LSE to go in the mids of your Hurricane/Vaga/etc. And with bonuses, it will be even better to have 1x LSE, 1x LASB rather than 2x LSE, even with all CDFEs in your rig slots.
A 2x LASB fit, or a 1x LASB/1x Invuln or SBA fit isn't viable because you can get volleyed.
These are something of a shield buffer refresher, and assuming you already have one LSE fit, are more beneficial than a second LSE in low alpha situations. |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
454
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 00:27:00 -
[286] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:Bloodpetal wrote:After testing a Sleipnir with an XL Anc Shield Booster and testing an XL Shield Booster with cap booster, the cap booster setup just performs better because there's a lot of other stuff that needs capacitor (such as scrams, webs, etc)... when you need it, making it more flexible....
There's a better way to balance this module without pre-nerfing it with a 60 second reload that can serious screw you up if you accidently "reload' it at the wrong time and becomes more of a liability than a blessing. Hint: Ancillary shield boosters aren't meant to be fit without a buffer, and are not even a substitute/sidegrade for standard shield booster tanking If that's the intention then they're totally useless.
You're missing the point. Some ships that *could* active tank well, but are limited by fitting/cap, get a huge boost. These are ships that in most circumstance should always have an LSE fit to up their base hp.
Ships like the Ferox & Raven hulls are a great example, as it doesnt have the slots/grid to do everything. With the addition of these new mods, TONS of grid is spared by no longer needing a cap booster.
At the very least, with the boosted stats these will become viable alternatives for low alpha engagements -áwww.promsrage.com |
Grey Stormshadow
draketrain Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
1134
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 12:21:00 -
[287] - Quote
...and all I was hoping new killmails like "dear sir/mam, you have been podded and now your corpse is floating in cold space. Unfortunately our cloning facility is broken and you can not be revived. Welcome to Eve - please roll new character".
Anyways keep doing what you're doing - the amount of positive 2 way communication in this thread indicates that there will be some awesome stuff coming in winferno.
...and just to be clear - u can ignore my 1st sentence as being a troll.
Get |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 22:14:00 -
[288] - Quote
Nova Fox wrote:I think the Drone WU needs to move to high slot to compete with guns and other drone modules.
I will put a second on this. I commonly fit so there are empty high slots while lows (tank) and mids (cap/ewar) are filled. It would be easy to give up a turrent as a damage contributor in exchange for the drones applying the damage instead. |
Azura Solus
D.A.M.A.G.E.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.06 23:53:00 -
[289] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Nova Fox wrote:I think the Drone WU needs to move to high slot to compete with guns and other drone modules. I will put a second on this. I commonly fit so there are empty high slots while lows (tank) and mids (cap/ewar) are filled. It would be easy to give up a turret as a damage contributor in exchange for the drones applying the damage instead.
Agree with all the above Drone boats dont depend on turrets to do there damage. Any drone boat pilot i know would happily give up there turrets for the drone damage mods to be high slot. And most drone boats Armor tanked Ie (low slots are already taken). I can understand you want to make them in line with gyros and heat sinks and such but it just isn't viable.
As example of this A domi set up for afk missions will have there lows filled with armor hardeners 2 repairers and a cap power relay while the mids are all cap rechargers. Most people dont even fit turrets to a afk ship like that and instead choose drone link augs a laser ( any will do to pull agro) and reps to repair your drones. And for the PVP side of things A neut Arbitrator is about the same lows for tank Mids for scrams and utility mods and your highs are neuts.
***Both Drone boats have fits where these new mods would only be beneficial in a high slot position.****
Now im sure there are other examples of ships in the same situation, and people who fit there ships differently but i do believe that the new drone damage mod should be a high slot And should be buffed more then currently offered (especially since Nothing can be done about the ROF) |
Sutha Moliko
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 05:47:00 -
[290] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote: As example of this A domi set up for afk missions will have there lows filled with armor hardeners 2 repairers and a cap power relay while the mids are all cap rechargers. Most people dont even fit turrets to a afk ship like that and instead choose drone link augs a laser ( any will do to pull agro) and reps to repair your drones. And for the PVP side of things A neut Arbitrator is about the same lows for tank Mids for scrams and utility mods and your highs are neuts.
***Both Drone boats have fits where these new mods would only be beneficial in a high slot position.****
Now im sure there are other examples of ships in the same situation, and people who fit there ships differently but i do believe that the new drone damage mod should be a high slot And should be buffed more then currently offered (especially since Nothing can be done about the ROF)
I strongly disagree with the high slot (btw CCP will not change their mind about it) If it is a high utiliy slot, you will just benefit from it. Worse all ships could benefit from it. As Gallente and Amarr drone boat pilot, I'll accept to make a choice like with any other ships, because Drones are my main weapons on those ships.
Recon Amarr pilots will never sacrifice their utility for a damage modifier. However, I will gladly add an Extrinsic on a low slot on them.
Now, take a Sentry Dominix with 1 LAR, 4 hardeners, 1 DC, 1 Mag stab, 350mm railgun, replace the mag stab with an Extrinsic. Your DPS increase a little bit, not much I agree because the actual bonus is too low. Of course you do not AFK mission on a Sentry Dominix. This is an exemple to explain why I will like to see an increase of the damage bonus and a decrease in CPU required in order to be more attractive and really on par with the others damage modifier. |
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
136
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 13:13:00 -
[291] - Quote
FYI im not a fan of the new war dec system, but i wasnt exactly a fan of the old system either.
i understand the logic of more targets = more isk, and although i dont particularly like it, i understand its logical place in the war dec system. I just feel theres more to it than just numbers of targets....
One idea that gained some traction and CCP Guards approval is to also base war dec costs on the standings of the targeted corp/alliance towards the 4 main factions and concord.
Why, you may ask?
Well the war dec system is essentially a way of bribing security services in high sec to 'look the other way' when it comes to illegally attacking someone in high sec. Standings are essentially a metric to measure how much a friend you are to NPC's. So to bribe someone (NPC's) to look the other way when you're attacking/killing a friend of theirs should cost a lot more!
So yes, when you look at in this way numbers should make a difference, BUT standings should make a difference too!
One problem in this is that alliances dont have standings from NPC's. So I'd suggest Alliances incorporate NPC standings increases in the same way corps do today - A slow and gradual increase based on the average of it pilots.
What do you guys think |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1979
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 14:34:00 -
[292] - Quote
newer version of the war cost formula is now on Sisi - go play! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Rivqua
Omega Wing The Veyr Collective
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 14:48:00 -
[293] - Quote
We didn't get the updated shield boosters? Same stats as last week. |
Noriko Mai
408
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 14:59:00 -
[294] - Quote
Declare war on yourself: link |
gfldex
498
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:49:00 -
[295] - Quote
For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number:
Quote:The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK. When someone burns down your sandcastle, bring sausages. |
Callic Veratar
Power of the Phoenix
216
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 16:51:00 -
[296] - Quote
gfldex wrote:For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number: Quote:The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK.
Context man! Context! |
Severian Carnifex
178
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:05:00 -
[297] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:gfldex wrote:For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number: Quote:The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK. Context man! Context!
Against goons. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:09:00 -
[298] - Quote
Severian Carnifex wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:gfldex wrote:For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number: Quote:The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK. Context man! Context! Against goons.
Can't get on sisi (thanks for more awesome Mac support CCP) but for comparison, how much to Dec a 20 man corp? |
Thomas Kreshant
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:17:00 -
[299] - Quote
Ooh, now that's nice |
Ines Fy
Heroes of the Past Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:19:00 -
[300] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:newer version of the war cost formula is now on Sisi - go play!
can you give us some hints on how the formula is calculated? |
|
Severian Carnifex
178
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:25:00 -
[301] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:gfldex wrote:For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number: Quote:The initial payment for starting this war will be 542,207,944 ISK. Context man! Context! Against goons. Can't get on sisi (thanks for more awesome Mac support CCP) but for comparison, how much to Dec a 20 man corp?
very very little above 50 mill. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1980
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:25:00 -
[302] - Quote
Ines Fy wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:newer version of the war cost formula is now on Sisi - go play! can you give us some hints on how the formula is calculated?
There will be a dev blog out soonGäó CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:36:00 -
[303] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Severian Carnifex wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:gfldex wrote:For those who don't want to logon Sisi to see a single number:
Context man! Context! Against goons. Can't get on sisi (thanks for more awesome Mac support CCP) but for comparison, how much to Dec a 20 man corp? very very little above 50 mill.
Thanks.
So the Dec shield of numbers still is there. |
Thomas Kreshant
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:38:00 -
[304] - Quote
Well as Goonswarm is showing up as 500 odd million it's not exactly much of a shield. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:43:00 -
[305] - Quote
Thomas Kreshant wrote:Well as Goonswarm is showing up as 500 odd million it's not exactly much of a shield.
Well it does make it cheaper to Dec smaller guys for giggles over them though. |
Thomas Kreshant
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
65
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 17:53:00 -
[306] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Thomas Kreshant wrote:Well as Goonswarm is showing up as 500 odd million it's not exactly much of a shield. Well it does make it cheaper to Dec smaller guys for giggles over them though.
And ? |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 18:01:00 -
[307] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Ines Fy wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:newer version of the war cost formula is now on Sisi - go play! can you give us some hints on how the formula is calculated? There will be a dev blog out soonGäó
Hi,
It would be nice if perhaps you could give us some idea of the basic principles you are using for the re-design in the Dev blog.
Such as, what is the basic reasoning behind increasing war dec cost with the size of the target? Since this fundamentally gives an incentive for corps to Dec smaller entities is this the basic principle behind the design or just a side effect?
For instance do you really think that Larger alliances should be given favoritism over smaller ones when designing game mechanics because there are "more" people in them? (which this War Dec formula does). Is it your opinion that designing "favoritism" into a game mechanic is even the correct way to go (as it is the mechanic now is "fair" in how it treats different size groups, larger ones still have the advantage of wealth and size of numbers but the mechanic is at least fair, where as this new one favors a larger entity over a small one)?
Is it your opinion that game mechanics should be used to force people in small corps/alliances into larger ones? Which this new formula has the finical incentive to do. What is your general outlook towards small corps and alliances? Should small corp gameplay be protected, treated the same as everyone else (I favor this), or actively discouraged (which the proposed war dec fees would do)?
If the new cost are designed to discourage "griefing" wars, does this not give incentive to grief the small over the large (if it was even designed for that at all)?
Also does this not encourage Alt padding?
And finally is it your opinion that a war between a 1000 man corp against a 20 man corp should cost the 1000 man corp less to start than the if the 20 man corp started itGǪ for the same war? And If so, do you consider or see that favoritism in any way?
And I am not talking about in the game advantages larger corp have during the actual war here (that is not relevant nor should ever be changed as far as I'm concerned), I am specifically only asking these questions in regards to the cost formula of a War Dec. |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 18:02:00 -
[308] - Quote
Thomas Kreshant wrote:Manssell wrote:Thomas Kreshant wrote:Well as Goonswarm is showing up as 500 odd million it's not exactly much of a shield. Well it does make it cheaper to Dec smaller guys for giggles over them though. And ?
And why do large corps need extra protection in the form of higher fees? |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 18:18:00 -
[309] - Quote
Manssell wrote:
And why do large corps need extra protection in the form of higher fees?
It isn't protection, per se, it is paying more for having more targets of opportunity. If you wardec a 20 man corp, you are going to have far fewer targets on a daily basis than a wardec on a 1000 man corp. The 1000 man corp represents a greater chance to kill a war target, with commenserate increase in chance of loot from those kills. You want a fatter target, you have to pay for it.
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
73
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 18:27:00 -
[310] - Quote
Helothane wrote:Manssell wrote:
And why do large corps need extra protection in the form of higher fees?
It isn't protection, per se, it is paying more for having more targets of opportunity. If you wardec a 20 man corp, you are going to have far fewer targets on a daily basis than a wardec on a 1000 man corp. The 1000 man corp represents a greater chance to kill a war target, with commenserate increase in chance of loot from those kills. You want a fatter target, you have to pay for it.
As I keep saying, this isn't duck hunt. These "targets" can shoot back. A smaller entity declaring war on a larger one is many times taking a huge risk of being stomped by the bigger guy. And if the bigger guy doesn't care to and just wants to fly around not shooting back being the victim... that's their own fault, but that shouldn't be considered the default situation. |
|
Thomas Kreshant
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
66
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 19:00:00 -
[311] - Quote
Manssell wrote:
And why do large corps need extra protection in the form of higher fees?
Fine fine, I don't consider 500 odd mil to be worth mentioning but if it seems like protection to you whatever I guess.
Sure why not set the wardec fee to 500 mil per week for any size corp, it's not like anyone would struggle to raise it so you could still wardec a ton of small corps or a ton of large corps without there being an issue.
Problem solved no special treatment for 'big' corps. |
GeeShizzle MacCloud
142
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 19:34:00 -
[312] - Quote
Manssell wrote:Helothane wrote:Manssell wrote:
And why do large corps need extra protection in the form of higher fees?
It isn't protection, per se, it is paying more for having more targets of opportunity. If you wardec a 20 man corp, you are going to have far fewer targets on a daily basis than a wardec on a 1000 man corp. The 1000 man corp represents a greater chance to kill a war target, with commenserate increase in chance of loot from those kills. You want a fatter target, you have to pay for it. As I keep saying, this isn't duck hunt. These "targets" can shoot back. A smaller entity declaring war on a larger one is many times taking a huge risk of being stomped by the bigger guy. And if the bigger guy doesn't care to and just wants to fly around not shooting back being the victim... that's their own fault, but that shouldn't be considered the default situation.
the idea behind the more people more isk facet of the war dec is the fact you're bribing concord/navy police etc... to not interfere when engaging this person of this alliance, as well as that person of the same alliance and so on.....
|
drdxie
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 19:44:00 -
[313] - Quote
So I went on to sisi and tried out some of the new stuff, well tried to anyway. I like the new inventory system, took me some time to figure out that I could open different containers/drone bay in a separate screen. I was not able to find any of the new shield or drone modules in aphend area, even went to amarr. I could find them in the search, but they were not for sale anywhere. I have a toon in guristas NULL, and also couldn't find them there, so maybe I missed something. Missile enhancers.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1235061& |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:06:00 -
[314] - Quote
CCP SoniClover said that the adjustments he made to the Ancillary Shield Boosters would be on SiSi today, but alas they do not appear to be.
Any word on this? |
Bruce Vendetta
Final-Vendetta
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:07:00 -
[315] - Quote
Why did you remove the linking of kill reports in chat channels? |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1980
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:11:00 -
[316] - Quote
Bruce Vendetta wrote:Why did you remove the linking of kill reports in chat channels?
sad news:( https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1243975#post1243975 CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:33:00 -
[317] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP SoniClover said that the adjustments he made to the Ancillary Shield Boosters would be on SiSi today, but alas they do not appear to be.
Any word on this?
This was based on my understanding that a new Sisi build would automatically include it, but this seems to not be the case. I will look into this tomorrow if it-¦s still not in then. |
|
Azura Solus
D.A.M.A.G.E.
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:43:00 -
[318] - Quote
I know it was stated that the details of how the war dec changes work on sisi will be posted . My question is could you give a heads up as to when this will be posted. Or have i missed it somewhere. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:45:00 -
[319] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Ohh Yeah wrote:CCP SoniClover said that the adjustments he made to the Ancillary Shield Boosters would be on SiSi today, but alas they do not appear to be.
Any word on this? This was based on my understanding that a new Sisi build would automatically include it, but this seems to not be the case. I will look into this tomorrow if it-¦s still not in then.
Thanks for the timely response.
I was worried that you'd second guessed yourself on that balancing call, or that someone had strong-armed you into removing those changes.
Edit: Any chance you can squeeze in a new build before you close up shop for the night? |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Comic Mischief
631
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:48:00 -
[320] - Quote
Manssell wrote:
And why do large corps need extra protection in the form of higher fees?
Turn it around: Why should it cost more to dec two 50 pilot corps over one 100 pilot corp? http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
The I and F Taxation Trust
565
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:49:00 -
[321] - Quote
Manssell wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Ines Fy wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:newer version of the war cost formula is now on Sisi - go play! can you give us some hints on how the formula is calculated? There will be a dev blog out soonGäó Hi, It would be nice if perhaps you could give us some idea of the basic principles you are using for the re-design in the Dev blog. Such as, what is the basic reasoning behind increasing war dec cost with the size of the target? Since this fundamentally gives an incentive for corps to Dec smaller entities is this the basic principle behind the design or just a side effect? For instance do you really think that Larger alliances should be given favoritism over smaller ones when designing game mechanics because there are "more" people in them? (which this War Dec formula does). Is it your opinion that designing "favoritism" into a game mechanic is even the correct way to go (as it is the mechanic now is "fair" in how it treats different size groups, larger ones still have the advantage of wealth and size of numbers but the mechanic is at least fair, where as this new one favors a larger entity over a small one)? Is it your opinion that game mechanics should be used to force people in small corps/alliances into larger ones? Which this new formula has the finical incentive to do. What is your general outlook towards small corps and alliances? Should small corp gameplay be protected, treated the same as everyone else (I favor this), or actively discouraged (which the proposed war dec fees would do)? If the new cost are designed to discourage "griefing" wars, does this not give incentive to grief the small over the large (if it was even designed for that at all)? Also does this not encourage Alt padding? And finally is it your opinion that a war between a 1000 man corp against a 20 man corp should cost the 1000 man corp less to start than the if the 20 man corp started itGǪ for the same war? And If so, do you consider or see that favoritism in any way? And I am not talking about in the game advantages larger corp have during the actual war here (that is not relevant nor should ever be changed as far as I'm concerned), I am specifically only asking these questions in regards to the cost formula of a War Dec.
Also would be nice to know what is the expected cost of not playing EVE at all after being griefed for 50 measly millions a week without a chance to escape the griefing. And what would be the cost of leaving your corp as it's been wardecced by alt corps for a month. EVE residents: 5% WH; 8% Lowsec; 15% Nullsec; 72% Highsec. CSM 7: 1 highsec resident out of 14.-á
CSM demographics vs EVE demographics, nothing to worry about... |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:53:00 -
[322] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:I know it was stated that the details of how the war dec changes work on sisi will be posted . My question is could you give a heads up as to when this will be posted. Or have i missed it somewhere.
There will most likely be a dev blog on next Thursday.
Quick note, while a lot of the war mechanics are on Sisi already, there are a few important ones that are not there yet. So the complete system is not out yet. Should be all in over the next few days, hopefully. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
54
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 20:55:00 -
[323] - Quote
Ohh Yeah wrote:
Edit: Any chance you can squeeze in a new build before you close up shop for the night?
I-¦m at home, so not much I can do from here, unfortunately |
|
Helen O'Malley
5th Battallion of Apocalypse
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 21:59:00 -
[324] - Quote
@SoniClover
some news about Extrinsic modules stat? u said u are working to put these modules on the same level of heatsink, gyros, magstab... when we may begin to test something?
thanks in advance for your reply and for your kindness!
|
Azura Solus
D.A.M.A.G.E.
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 22:31:00 -
[325] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Azura Solus wrote:I know it was stated that the details of how the war dec changes work on sisi will be posted . My question is could you give a heads up as to when this will be posted. Or have i missed it somewhere. There will most likely be a dev blog on next Thursday. Quick note, while a lot of the war mechanics are on Sisi already, there are a few important ones that are not there yet. So the complete system is not out yet. Should be all in over the next few days, hopefully.
Thanks for the response look forward to checking it all out.
Edit: Also as has been put in the drone damage mod thread My 2 cents on it is increas the damage % and make it a high slot so that is will actually be a viable options for drone boats to use Since they very rarely use actual turrets. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
56
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 22:56:00 -
[326] - Quote
Regarding the drone damage module, I-¦ve upped the stats there a bit because of the no-RoF issue, this should be on Sisi soon (hopefully tomorrow). But the module is going to stay a low slot module. Drones need a bit of love, but we-¦re not going to solve all their problems in one go. Let-¦s focus on getting this out there now as a viable module on par with the other damage amplifiers, then we can start looking into what else can be done. |
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.07 23:14:00 -
[327] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the drone damage module, I-¦ve upped the stats there a bit because of the no-RoF issue, this should be on Sisi soon (hopefully tomorrow). But the module is going to stay a low slot module. Drones need a bit of love, but we-¦re not going to solve all their problems in one go. Let-¦s focus on getting this out there now as a viable module on par with the other damage amplifiers, then we can start looking into what else can be done.
<3
You are a good dev |
Jarin Arenos
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 00:10:00 -
[328] - Quote
Continuing to look at it and seeing what else needs to be done is all I ask. I can understand and respect the "cautious changes over time" methodology. |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
119
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 00:22:00 -
[329] - Quote
tbh I think the new ASB could use a little tweaking. I'd make it so the thing cannot run on capacitor at all, but on the other hand have it boost double or even triple the amount.
Absolutely insane tank for the 20sec or so you can run the booster, then crippling reload.
My reasoning on this is that this damn booster is atm useless for active tanking, and it's only a minor benefit to buffer tanks as the boost amount is so low you'll only recover a small portion of your HP. Typical buffer is better helped by either another LSE, another invuln, or an EM hardener. There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
77
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 02:11:00 -
[330] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:Manssell wrote:
And why do large corps need extra protection in the form of higher fees?
Turn it around: Why should it cost more to dec two 50 pilot corps over one 100 pilot corp?
Your paying for two wars not one. CCP doesn't charge different amounts for anything else based on size (that I know of). Corp offices cost the same for a 10 man corp as does a 100 man corp even though more people are using them. Same with SOV, a small alliance pays the same as a large one even though more pilots are using the system. Why should wars be different? |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
326
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 03:48:00 -
[331] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the drone damage module, I-¦ve upped the stats there a bit because of the no-RoF issue, this should be on Sisi soon (hopefully tomorrow). But the module is going to stay a low slot module. Drones need a bit of love, but we-¦re not going to solve all their problems in one go. Let-¦s focus on getting this out there now as a viable module on par with the other damage amplifiers, then we can start looking into what else can be done.
how about you let me use nano repair paste while my drones are docked in my bay so i can repair them?
make it take like 30 seconds to repair each drone... you can repair as many as you have nano paste... PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
LaserzPewPew
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 05:07:00 -
[332] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the drone damage module, I-¦ve upped the stats there a bit because of the no-RoF issue, this should be on Sisi soon (hopefully tomorrow). But the module is going to stay a low slot module. Drones need a bit of love, but we-¦re not going to solve all their problems in one go. Let-¦s focus on getting this out there now as a viable module on par with the other damage amplifiers, then we can start looking into what else can be done.
Yep, baby steps. Provided it is on par with the Heat Sink, BCU, Gyro, and Mag stab at ~22%, drones should be a viable damage source. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
293
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 10:29:00 -
[333] - Quote
I think the new modules are absolutely crap but the war dec changes are cool. |
Helen O'Malley
5th Battallion of Apocalypse
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 12:27:00 -
[334] - Quote
LaserzPewPew wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the drone damage module, I-¦ve upped the stats there a bit because of the no-RoF issue, this should be on Sisi soon (hopefully tomorrow). But the module is going to stay a low slot module. Drones need a bit of love, but we-¦re not going to solve all their problems in one go. Let-¦s focus on getting this out there now as a viable module on par with the other damage amplifiers, then we can start looking into what else can be done. Yep, baby steps. Provided it is on par with the Heat Sink, BCU, Gyro, and Mag stab at ~22%, drones should be a viable damage source.
This! very important for those ships that may want to sacrifice tank or other modules for something useful... i think for example to a curse that atm gain more DPS adding ballistic control than EDA (and we are speaking about a ship with bonuses on drones!).
I may fit a curse for solo pvp (normal fit with 2 HML) and gain more DPS with 2-3 ballistic (sacrificing nano or cap) than putting 2-3 extrinsic. this is a little meh atm....
But im sure SoniClover will resolve the problem :) i hope these steps will be short steps and not years :))) |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Project Wildfire
293
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 13:47:00 -
[335] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Drones need a bit of love, but we-¦re not going to solve all their problems in one go. Let-¦s focus on getting this out there now as a viable module on par with the other damage amplifiers, then we can start looking into what else can be done.
LMAO. The throw it at the wall and see what sticks method of game design. Have fun redesigning these mods in a couple years time after realizing they are inferior when compared to the alternatives. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 13:59:00 -
[336] - Quote
@ Devs:
When you change stats of a module, can you just edit the numbers on given stats, or does it take more to do it? I have no experience in programming, so this might be a stupid question to you.
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1982
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:14:00 -
[337] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:@ Devs: When you change stats of a module, can you just edit the numbers on given stats, or does it take more to do it? I have no experience in programming, so this might be a stupid question to you.
I can't tell you precisely how it's done but the procedure involves a magnet, goldfish, jumping on one leg and single hair from CCP Hellmar's head CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
463
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:28:00 -
[338] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tenga Halaris wrote:@ Devs: When you change stats of a module, can you just edit the numbers on given stats, or does it take more to do it? I have no experience in programming, so this might be a stupid question to you. I can't tell you precisely how it's done but the procedure involves a magnet, goldfish, jumping on one leg and single hair from CCP Hellmar's head Punkturis is trolling (in case anyone was wondering...).
Once the game designer knows what value to change, why and to what number then it's a simple edit on the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam). The data is then ported for deployment along with other code and data changes tagged to a particular release and deployed to TQ in the form of code and database updates. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
T1nyMan
Interstellar Solutions Agency
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:43:00 -
[339] - Quote
Does Adam ever get out for a walk? Perhaps a wine and dine. I mean seriously... What if anything is in it for Adam? Does anyone even care? Just sayin is all...
I mean we all get tangled up in our work at times and sometimes it takes the quiet guy to ask the hard questions.. Think about it, THINK ABOUT ADAM! Get back to me. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1984
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:46:00 -
[340] - Quote
T1nyMan wrote:Does Adam ever get out for a walk? Perhaps a wine and dine. I mean seriously... What if anything is in it for Adam? Does anyone even care? Just sayin is all...
I think it's mixed feelings.. for example the game designers are really really fond of him and try to be nice to him all the time and get really defensive when the programmers (who don't care that much about him) try to ruin him CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
T1nyMan
Interstellar Solutions Agency
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 14:51:00 -
[341] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:T1nyMan wrote:Does Adam ever get out for a walk? Perhaps a wine and dine. I mean seriously... What if anything is in it for Adam? Does anyone even care? Just sayin is all... I think it's mixed feelings.. for example the game designers are really really fond of him and try to be nice to him all the time and get really defensive when the programmers (who don't care that much about him) try to ruin him
To be frank I read as much into the post and that's why I felt compelled to edit my post above.. I think we could all take just that little bit of time out of our busy lives to think about Adam. Is that asking too much? I don't think so. I leave you all now to ponder. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:02:00 -
[342] - Quote
I can't tell you precisely how it's done but the procedure involves a magnet, goldfish, jumping on one leg and single hair from CCP Hellmar's head.
= Totally understandable, I can picture that.
Once the game designer knows what value to change, why and to what number then it's a simple edit on the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam). The data is then ported for deployment along with other code and data changes tagged to a particular release and deployed to TQ in the form of code and database updates.
= This sounds like a weird Voodoo ritual.
Anyway, could you call your priest to a new session and do the magic, so that we can test the new module stats on Sisi, please?
|
Axl Borlara
T.R.I.A.D Defiant Legacy
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 15:13:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote: the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam).
I'm guessing there's also a Code Authoring Server called Eve? |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
463
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 16:00:00 -
[344] - Quote
Axl Borlara wrote:CCP Explorer wrote:the Content Authoring Server (BTW, it's called Adam). I'm guessing there's also a Code Authoring Server called Eve? ... no, there is this game called EVE Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Bruce Vendetta
Final-Vendetta
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 16:58:00 -
[345] - Quote
While we're on Adam, is there any chance of the bulk data delivery system that was tested July last year being used to quickly apply balance changes? Instead of having to wait a week or more for adjustments. |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.08 18:33:00 -
[346] - Quote
So no introduction of Micro Jump Drive module? CCP Soundwave "Incursions are not a big issue in terms of isk globally" |
Nikuno
Atomic Heroes The G0dfathers
49
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 07:16:00 -
[347] - Quote
Personally I think that if a war dec is going to depend on the numbers of people involved then it should be the same cost in either direction. Just add the 2 sides together and figure a cost from there, regardless of which side is making the declaration. Lets face it, a 2 man corp wanting to dec the Goons is likely after some idiot mission runner in a pimped ship so they can probably afford it; similarly if Goons wanted to dec the 2 man corp then I doubt there'd be an issue over cost. If isk is to be a deciding factor at least make it an even playing field. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 10:30:00 -
[348] - Quote
EDA: New stats on Sisi, yay!
The new stats on the EDA (Extrinsic Damage Amp) are certainly a step in the right direction. After having tested some ships, here is what I found out:
CPU is ok with 35 req on the T2 module.
Damge Bonus should be:
- 16% for T1 - 19% for T2 - 21% for a faction EDA. I hope there will be a Fed Navy EDA. (Oh please do this!)
Ishtar and Domi would perform well, if the EDA gets the 21% damage bonus.
A droneboat, where it finally is more useful to mount dromemods instead of turretmods on lowslots could be very nice. A Nos /Neut Domi with a better drone damage may also be a nice option for PvP.
The Ishtar can mount 2 EDAs, but only if you don't use a Sentry Rig and an additional CPU rig, which is balanced, because you can't tank and do 700 DPS, without either gimping your fit with supportrigs, or using only Faction/ Deadspace stuff on that Ishtar and still having only 3 tankslots.
Rattlesnake and Gila:
The RS will get a significant boost, but won't be unbalanced at all. ~1000 DPS and a nice tank will be in line with a 1300 DPS Machariel.
Gila will be in line with the Ishtar where you have to sacrifice tank over the EDA and/ or use very expensive mods to compensate.
Another thing is the Skill requirement for the T2 EDA. If you don't want, that everybody and his dog can fit the T2 version, it should have higher req. than Drones IV, WU IV and Gunnery II.
I'd suggest Drones V and Drone Interfacing V.
o/ |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
131
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 11:14:00 -
[349] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote: I'd suggest Drones V and Drone Interfacing V.
o/
Maybe you should have a look at the reqs for a T2 turret mod :p There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 11:22:00 -
[350] - Quote
Hmm k, you're right. Never mind. |
|
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Tactical Narcotics Team
129
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 14:28:00 -
[351] - Quote
Give up on the shield booster and balance the game instead of implementing weird patches plz
- Make shield boosters 25-50% better (Consider boosting armor rep cycle time in equal scale too)
- Remove Crystal implants and make them hitpoint based instead
- Tweak CCC rigs to give 5% less cap bonus to avoid the easily capstable Eve is experiencing
- Make the new module an alternative and not a bandaid
If you want to make a fun alternative shield booster you should make it recharge from the capacitor on a 1 to 1 scale like giving the module it's very own capacitor where it draws cap from when activated. When not in use it should recharge taking 10 seconds to recharge from every 10 seconds it has been active. Allow it perhaps 30-60 seconds of capacitor before having to recharge. Maybe even script it so you have to manually ask it to recharge?
Anyway just my warning about not thinking so far out of the box you forget the where the problem was originally. In this case the original problem is active tanking only being good for PvE and small number skirmish fights using Tengu booster, crystal set implants and booster pills. Make it easier to burst tank with the old shield boosters and nerf the permaboosting. Then you can focus on the alternative booster while you already solved an existing problem.
Pinky
|
Omnathious Deninard
M'Tar Logistics Division Night Sky Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 14:31:00 -
[352] - Quote
If for example, the Dominix had a role bonus of 99% reduction in the cpu and powergrid needs for drone control units, 250 bandwith and a drone ba of about 700~900, the bonuses of the EDA would be fine. Doing this would also remove the 5% damage bonus to large hybrid turrets. Because the drone control units are restricted by skill level/DCU this still makes it so that there is a similar amount of training to achieve maximum dps form the ship. |
LaserzPewPew
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 16:05:00 -
[353] - Quote
Pinky Denmark wrote:Give up on the shield booster and balance the game instead of implementing weird patches plz
[list] ... Make it easier to burst tank with the old shield boosters and nerf the permaboosting. Then you can focus on the alternative booster while you already solved an existing problem. Pinky
I love permaboosting tengus! They are already on or near cap threshold making it rediculously easy to neut them to 0%! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
379
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:24:00 -
[354] - Quote
I just tried out the wardec system and i'm quite curious about the prices.
I wardecced a 1-man corp and that was 50m isk, but the CONCORD mail says: Quote:The weekly cost is 100.000.000,00 ISK and you will receive a bill which needs to be paid promptly to maintain the war. If the bill is not paid before it is due then the war will be cancelled. If the war is cancelled then do not pay any outstanding bills for that war.
Also when wardeccing larger corporations or alliances, the 20m or 50m isk + 500k/member rule doesn't seem to apply.
I still think a MUCH better way to calculate the war-bill is this:
Divide corporations into size-classes with individual price tags 1-10 (15 M) 10-25 (25 M) 25-50 (40 M) 50-100 (75 M) 100-250 (150 M) 250-500 (350 M) 500-1000 (600 M) 1000+ (750 M)
The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.
The size brackets make it a LOT more comprehensible then the very messy way it is now on SiSi. And it also protects smaller corps against larger corps, while not giving mega corporations a ISK decshield against small corporations. It even reduces the effect of member-padding. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 17:57:00 -
[355] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:I just tried out the wardec system and i'm quite curious about the prices. I wardecced a 1-man corp and that was 50m isk, but the CONCORD mail says: Quote:The weekly cost is 100.000.000,00 ISK and you will receive a bill which needs to be paid promptly to maintain the war. If the bill is not paid before it is due then the war will be cancelled. If the war is cancelled then do not pay any outstanding bills for that war. Also when wardeccing larger corporations or alliances, the 20m or 50m isk + 500k/member rule doesn't seem to apply. Small corps cost either 50 or 100m ISK but it isn't clear why. Yet EVE Uni with 1806 members costs 484.649.761 ISK, TEST with 6483 costs 942.306.241 ISK, Goons with 8498 costs1.071.672.973 ISK. IT"S A BLOODY MESS. I still think a MUCH better way to calculate the war-bill is this: Divide corporations and alliances into size-classes with individual price tags 1-10 (15 M) 10-25 (25 M) - this is a rather crucial size-class so it should not be 10-50 or something 25-50 (40 M) 50-100 (75 M) 100-250 (150 M) 250-500 (350 M) 500-1000 (600 M) 1000+ (750 M) The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.18 member corp declares war on 890 member alliance: 625m ISK per week 84 member corp declares war on 8 member corporation: 165m ISK per week The size brackets make it a LOT more comprehensible then the very messy way it is now on SiSi and it also protects smaller corps against larger corps, while not giving mega corporations a ISK decshield against small corporations. It even reduces the effect of member-padding.
Why not make the war dec cost based on the TOTAL number of people involved, so a large corp on large corp would be more expensive than a small corp on large corp or vice versa. So that there is not a "benefit" to being larger per se since the larger corp would pay more for every war they get into.
For example, if you are a large corp of 500 people, then if you dec a 1 man corp, you pay for a 501 man war. If you are a 1 man corp and war dec a 500 man corp, you pay for a 501 man war. If you are 500 and you war dec a 500 man corp, then you pay for 1000 participants.
IMHO, that is more balanced than only considering the TARGET's population in the equation. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
379
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:07:00 -
[356] - Quote
No offense, but L2Read
Quote:The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations.
It only doesn't count individual members, but that would only make it more messy again. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Loius Woo
PATRIOT KNIGHTS
16
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:10:00 -
[357] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:No offense, but L2Read Quote:The weekly war-bill is simply the sum of the price-tags belonging to both corporations. It only doesn't count individual members, but that would only make it more messy again.
You're right, I missed that you went from an 890 man corp in one example to an 84 man corp in the other... and i thought the wrong thing.
So we are agreeing that the cost should involve some consideration for BOTH corps involved. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
379
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:15:00 -
[358] - Quote
Yes. The inherent pricetag of your own (attacking) corporation makes it less attractive to go after much smaller corporations, while not being a big factor when going after larger corporations that have their own inherent big pricetags. Basically your best targets are in your own size-class or close to it.
And that goes pretty much for every size class, except the 1000+ ones. But when a corporation or alliance reaches that size, it should be able to defend itself properly, instead of hiding behind a ISK decshield. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
379
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 18:44:00 -
[359] - Quote
I've been testing out the war dec system a bit more. It seems that making a war mutual makes it impossible for the attacking to stop the war unless it offers formal surrender or disbands. THIS IS EXCELLENT!!! If you bite off more then you can chew, you deserve having to swallow a Treaty of Versailles.
I foresee one problem though: mutual wars with 'dead' a dead corporation makes it impossible to end by formal surrender. Make it so a peaceoffer is automatically accepted if it isn't rejected within a week.
A tooltip on the flag explaining it's use like the sword icon has, would be nice as well.
Also: icon and status updates like the 'sword+' when the defender requests allies, or 'flag!' when a peaceoffer is on the table is very slow. It takes multiple minutes before they are updated.
And perhaps add a 'flag?' for the asking party, now both have the same icon, no matter who asked for peace.
Also I don't know if this is just a SiSi issue, but the kill report doesn't contain any pre-patch losses or kills currently. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1986
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:18:00 -
[360] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:I've been testing out the war dec system a bit more. It seems that making a war mutual makes it impossible for the attacking to stop the war unless it offers formal surrender or disbands. THIS IS EXCELLENT!!! If you bite off more then you can chew, you deserve having to swallow a Treaty of Versailles. I foresee one problem though: mutual wars with 'dead' a dead corporation makes it impossible to end by formal surrender. Make it so a peaceoffer is automatically accepted if it isn't rejected within a week.
- A tooltip on the flag explaining it's use like the sword icon has, would be nice as well.
- Icon and status updates like the 'sword+' when the defender requests allies, or 'flag!' when a peaceoffer is on the table seem to update very erratically, sometimes taking like 15 minutes or more.
- Perhaps add a 'flag?' for the asking party, now both have the same icon, no matter who asked for peace.
- I don't know if this is just a SiSi issue, but the kill report doesn't contain any pre-patch losses or kills currently.
Also: looking at a corporations in the war history, many of them long gone, dead and forgotten, it makes me a bit melancholic.
the surrender icon should be shown with a ! for both parties when a surrender offer has been made.
if it doesn't I should probably fix it CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
Shandir
Indigo Archive
126
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:48:00 -
[361] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I've been testing out the war dec system a bit more. It seems that making a war mutual makes it impossible for the attacking to stop the war unless it offers formal surrender or disbands. THIS IS EXCELLENT!!! If you bite off more then you can chew, you deserve having to swallow a Treaty of Versailles. ...
the surrender icon should be shown with a ! for both parties when a surrender offer has been made. if it doesn't I should probably fix it
Can a dev confidently confirm that this 'attacker cannot drop war' mechanic is intended? If so, awesome. That is a step in the right direction. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
67
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 19:56:00 -
[362] - Quote
Shandir wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I've been testing out the war dec system a bit more. It seems that making a war mutual makes it impossible for the attacking to stop the war unless it offers formal surrender or disbands. THIS IS EXCELLENT!!! If you bite off more then you can chew, you deserve having to swallow a Treaty of Versailles. ...
the surrender icon should be shown with a ! for both parties when a surrender offer has been made. if it doesn't I should probably fix it Can a dev confidently confirm that this 'attacker cannot drop war' mechanic is intended? If so, awesome . That is a step in the right direction.
Confirming that the only way to end a mutual war is by either side surrendering. This is intentional, it's part of making declaring a war more of a commitment and potential risk. |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:04:00 -
[363] - Quote
The lock breaker did not break any locks for me with 3 people targeting me and shooting. While I see the need to make it random to fit it for any small gang pvp I need atleast a reasonable chance that it will break the locks if I manage to tank some one for 10 min plus. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
379
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:27:00 -
[364] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:the surrender icon should be shown with a ! for both parties when a surrender offer has been made. if it doesn't I should probably fix it
Yeah it does actually, I see it now. Only it seems to update incredibly slow and erratically. I've tried it several times and it always took a lot of minutes before it was updated.
There are quite a lot of other things not working very well though. I've just put in six bug reports on the wardec system alone. Though not for the slow updating of icon as just mentioned. How do I bug report 'lazy server'? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
126
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:32:00 -
[365] - Quote
Salpun wrote:The lock breaker did not break any locks for me with 3 people targeting me and shooting. While I see the need to make it random to fit it for any small gang pvp I need atleast a reasonable chance that it will break the locks if I manage to tank some one for 10 min plus. It's obvious this module is designed to be a limiter to blob warfare / primary calling. It's not *for* small gang vs small gang. It will work for small gang vs large gang though. Guerilla tactics effectiveness ++ |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:35:00 -
[366] - Quote
Shandir wrote:Salpun wrote:The lock breaker did not break any locks for me with 3 people targeting me and shooting. While I see the need to make it random to fit it for any small gang pvp I need atleast a reasonable chance that it will break the locks if I manage to tank some one for 10 min plus. It's obvious this module is designed to be a limiter to blob warfare / primary calling. It's not *for* small gang vs small gang. It will work for small gang vs large gang though. Guerilla tactics effectiveness ++ Sure untill the numbers are worked out more data the better one of the other guys got it to scram 3 times before he was poped so there is a low number that will trigger it. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
379
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:39:00 -
[367] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Confirming that the only way to end a mutual war is by either side surrendering. This is intentional, it's part of making declaring a war more of a commitment and potential risk.
Good to see that was fully intentional. CCP definitely has the right intentions for wardecs.
I still think the new way to calculate warbills is a bloody mess though. When the only way to find out how much it costs to wardec a corp, is by actually wardeccing them, IT IS NOT OK
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
126
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:48:00 -
[368] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:
Confirming that the only way to end a mutual war is by either side surrendering. This is intentional, it's part of making declaring a war more of a commitment and potential risk.
Good to see that was fully intentional. CCP definitely has the right intentions for wardecs. I still think the new way to calculate warbills is a bloody mess though. When the only way to find out how much it costs to wardec a corp, is by actually wardeccing them, IT IS NOT OK I'm fully aware CCP doens't like to pull a 180 on things once they are on SiSi, but calculating the warbill by using size-classes as I mentioned a few posts earlier, is much, MUCH more comprehensible while yielding prices of the same magnitude and gameplay consequences as it is achieved now on SiSi with a minimum price and what seems to be a logarithmic member-modifier. Could you share some of your data, so we can see what sort of price ranges are being planned? |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
379
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 20:57:00 -
[369] - Quote
Shandir wrote: Could you share some of your data, so we can see what sort of price ranges are being planned?
If that was directed to me, I checked out a few alliances on SiSi
The results are in my earlier post in this thread : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1272735#post1272735
It seems that the minimum price is always 50M isk though, and that is for a corporation, not an alliance. And the function to calculate the war-bill seems to stabilize around 1B or so (I guess CCP took notice of the protest against the possibility of multibillion ISK decshields)
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
29
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 22:07:00 -
[370] - Quote
@CCP SoniClover EDA's currently only give Gallente BC/BS a Max dps fitting variation while interfering with Gallente ship concept.
What i would like to see at least considered,
Make them active cap intensive High-slot Modules that require either a turret or Missile hard point to fit, and bless them with a rely nice futuristic radar dish that starts spinning and emitting some nice wave effects when active.
What also can be considered. If the damage bonus amount and some ship setups seem OP you can consider stack them in three sizes that only boost up to a certain drone Bandwidth(not drone size), therefor consuming more Capacitor. And possibly balancing these Modules with PG usage. As drones have no fitting requirement i find it dangerousness to just throw a damage mod in there. And with three sizes you can scale your radar dish module to look awesome on all ship sizes.
Why? It seems more balanced and gives a much greater fitting variation to much more ships and hinders some crazy high dps setups. And although it seems more work and balancing to be done i can assure you it is A: worth it, and B: much much easier to balance
Edit: And their name is a bit confusing. |
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Guiding Hand Social Club
298
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 22:39:00 -
[371] - Quote
Cap Tyrian wrote:@CCP SoniClover EDA's currently only give Gallente BC/BS a Max dps fitting variation while interfering with Gallente ship concept. What i would like to see at least considered, Make them active cap intensive High-slot Modules that require either a turret or Missile hard point to fit, and bless them with a rely nice futuristic radar dish that starts spinning and emitting some nice wave effects when active. What also can be considered. If the damage bonus amount and some ship setups seem OP you can consider stack them in three sizes that only boost up to a certain drone Bandwidth(not drone size), therefor consuming more Capacitor. And possibly balancing these Modules with PG usage. As drones have no fitting requirement i find it dangerousness to just throw a damage mod in there. And with three sizes you can scale your radar dish module to look awesome on all ship sizes. Why? It seems more balanced and gives a much greater fitting variation to much more ships and hinders some crazy high dps setups. And although it seems more work and balancing to be done i can assure you it is A: worth it, and B: much much easier to balance Edit: And their name is a bit confusing.
I like the radar dish idea, and many drone ships happen to have utility highs - this sounds like a reasonable thing to do. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1986
|
Posted - 2012.05.09 23:17:00 -
[372] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:the surrender icon should be shown with a ! for both parties when a surrender offer has been made. if it doesn't I should probably fix it Yeah it does actually, I see it now. Only it seems to update incredibly slow and erratically. I've tried it several times and it always took a lot of minutes before it was updated. There are quite a lot of other things not working very well though. I've just put in six bug reports on the wardec system alone. Though not for the slow updating of icon as just mentioned. How do I bug report 'lazy server'?
There's some caching on most of the data, I'll get Tuxford to tell you more about it or look into it
Also, thank you for taking time to make bug reports, those are super helpful! We're still polishing the ally system so it'll help us see what is needed to do! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 06:45:00 -
[373] - Quote
Cap Tyrian wrote:@CCP SoniClover EDA's currently only give Gallente BC/BS a Max dps fitting variation while interfering with Gallente ship concept. What i would like to see at least considered, Make them active cap intensive High-slot Modules that require either a turret or Missile hard point to fit, and bless them with a rely nice futuristic radar dish that starts spinning and emitting some nice wave effects when active. What also can be considered. If the damage bonus amount and some ship setups seem OP you can consider stack them in three sizes that only boost up to a certain drone Bandwidth(not drone size), therefor consuming more Capacitor. And possibly balancing these Modules with PG usage. As drones have no fitting requirement i find it dangerousness to just throw a damage mod in there. And with three sizes you can scale your radar dish module to look awesome on all ship sizes. Why? It seems more balanced and gives a much greater fitting variation to much more ships and hinders some crazy high dps setups. And although it seems more work and balancing to be done i can assure you it is A: worth it, and B: much much easier to balance Edit: And their name is a bit confusing.
Crazy high-dps setups? I like to see those. If the EDA gets a 22% damage Boost, you could switch the magstabs to EDAs, getting more Drone DPS, but losing Turret DPS.
But since turrets can't be attacked, or travel around, the actual dps you can field over time in a mission or in PvP, is still lower, than turrets would get you. Also you forgot, that there are implants boosting turrets. 5% all turret dmg and 5% specialized dmg.
Why on earth would you put the EDA in a highslot? It was stated that the EDA stays in lows, to be in line with other dmg mods, which is fine.
Actual possible fit, without EDA on a Domi with dmg imps.:
[Dominix, random] Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer Federation Navy Magnetic Field Stabilizer [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot] [empty low slot]
Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot] [empty med slot]
Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Void L Neutron Blaster Cannon II, Void L
Large Sentry Damage Augmentor I [empty rig slot] [empty rig slot]
Garde II x5
1611 dps 4837 volley
I know, that it is not very practical, but thats what you actually could get now. A nice mission setup will be at 1000- 1100 dps.
|
bldyannoyed
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 07:19:00 -
[374] - Quote
Anyone posting that they want these EDA's to be a high slot mod is only doing so because they want an easy way to up the dps from their perma running armor tank afk-lvl 4 Domi.
Even at the full 22% there is just no way these things are going to be making drone boats OP. As I pointed in another thread, 3 x 22% mods after stacking is a 65% dps boost, or 770 dps with Ogre II's and lvl 5 skills on a damage bonused ship. (750 with garde's)
Given that it's cost you 3 low slots to achieve I would say that even that is barely adequate but as these aren't going to be the last love that drones receive I'm happy to wait. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
384
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 07:33:00 -
[375] - Quote
Well as I see it, either make the EDA a high-slot item, or give it a boost to make it comparable to other damage mods and keep it low slot.
Both seem balanced to me, but the high-slot has my preference because it's makes drones a more different weapon-type then missiles or turrets. And more difference is always the best choice imho. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 08:42:00 -
[376] - Quote
I wonder why we don't get that equivalent to other dmg- mods and chill around 15%, instead of giving it those 21% and watch what happens?
It's the Testserver, baby!
If something is badly balanced, or in this case drone boats beeing overpowered, you certainly will hear from people.
I mean, even if you give it a 30% bonus, we can't get over a certain amount of dps, because we obviously can't field more than 5 Drones.
|
Helen O'Malley
5th Battallion of Apocalypse
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 13:23:00 -
[377] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:I wonder why we don't get that equivalent to other dmg- mods and chill around 15%, instead of giving it those 21% and watch what happens? It's the Testserver, baby! If something is badly balanced, or in this case drone boats beeing overpowered, you certainly will hear from people. I mean, even if you give it a 30% bonus, we can't get over a certain amount of dps, because we obviously can't field more than 5 Drones. Look at any thread on any EVE related forum. Nearly everybody says, that it still is not an improvement, unless you get the full dmg- mod bonus. Edit: The only reason, why the bonus on EDAs is so low atm is, that *puts tinfoil hat on* we will get Drone Control Units for subcaps soonGäó.
I totally agree and quote Tenga! EDA must be low slot but MUST be equivalent to other damage modifiers (gyro,magstab,heatsink)... SoniClover or other CCP people... its test server, so difficult to change a parameter and see what happens? i understand u cannot apply ROF on drones, but there should be something other u may change?
PS: which is the problem with a straight 21% to EDA?
|
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 18:43:00 -
[378] - Quote
Side note : as much as i want spinning radar dishes, i don't think that will happen, but making them high slot modules is critical.
Ok you asked for it. Time to brake it down for you in more detail.
Fist of all , witch ships could potentially benefit from an EDA regardless of high or low slot. - Drone Boats - high bandwidth BS - maximizing dps on a Ship with drone bandwidth - EW ships that have drone bandwidth.
Lets get in to facts: Drone boats -sub BS/BC: which balanced frig or cruiser sized ship setup should benefit from that ? sacrificing a vital Speed mod for dps, not seeing that happening, and those that potentially could consider sacking a low have much much more highs to spare.
-BC aka Myrmidon and Eos , both Gallente, both with armor tanking bonus and both with highs to spare.
High Bandwidth BS -Dominix 6xNeutrons 3xMag's, no rigs, Void, Heated 5x Gard II
1479 dps
Mega 7xNeutrons 3xMag's, no rigs, Void, Heated 5x Gard II
1500 dps
Hyperion 8xNeutrons 3xMag's, no rigs, Void, Heated 4x Gard II
1612 dps
___________________________________________________________ Add 1x ROF Rig.......Add 1x Sentury Rig....Add Both .......Add Smart Domi: 1509................1524...........................1554.................1567 Mega: 1535................1530...........................1565.................1570 Hype: 1651.................1636...........................1675.................1691
This Graph is not absolute and douse not consider ship setups, CPU/PG ,the limitation of overheating, tracking or the megas missile hardpoint. But it demonstrates well how little difference there is. Lets make a second graph impelling 3x EDA's to all fits
no rigs, Void, over heated 3x 15%EDA's (41%)..................20%EDA (57%) _____________________________________________ Domi: 1664.................................1736 Mega: 1623.................................1671 Hype: 1710..................................1748
Dornes don't need a lock Drones dont use Cap Droens are much more mobile then the ship that uses them Drones are very Versatile, diferent sizes, a choice of damage type, and EW
Sure drones can be shot, a Domi has about 60.000 Drone HP, no real pvp'er brings that up as an argument. You only rely shoot drones of none drone boats.
AS i demonstrated a cheap Dominix can surpass an overheating Hyperion. While having all the luxury of drones. that Dominix gets over 700 DPS with only 105.CPU/3.PG Moving EDA's to high slot wont solve that fitting benefit, actually it would enable the Dominix to have decent dps , decent tackle and decent tank. But it would not surpass the in your face Mega and Hyperion and would stick to the Gallente traits of being versatile self sufficient armor tanking ships .
High slot EDA's would also benefit EW ships that often have a drone bay and some turret/missile hard-points but fitting weapons to them is close to useless. those ships desperately need all lows and could benefit from a high slot EDA.
Lastly i propose the EDA to be active Modules that uses some amount of capacitor. Nano ships and passive shield tankers are tight on capacitor, a small amount of capacitor use would balance these modules out wonderfully and you can add a light effect. That also ads a moderate level of complexity.
Now show me how your "Opinion" beats my Data. |
Omnathious Deninard
M'Tar Logistics Division Night Sky Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 20:03:00 -
[379] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:I wonder why we don't get that equivalent to other dmg- mods and chill around 15%, instead of giving it those 21% and watch what happens? It's the Testserver, baby! If something is badly balanced, or in this case drone boats beeing overpowered, you certainly will hear from people. I mean, even if you give it a 30% bonus, we can't get over a certain amount of dps, because we obviously can't field more than 5 Drones. Look at any thread on any EVE related forum. Nearly everybody says, that it still is not an improvement, unless you get the full dmg- mod bonus. Edit: The only reason, why the bonus on EDAs is so low atm is, that *puts tinfoil hat on* we will get Drone Control Units for subcaps soonGäó. I would rather see this |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1990
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 22:59:00 -
[380] - Quote
I don't know if you noticed but dragging of kill reports to chat to share them is back in!
With help from few people on Sisi today I fixed an issue in the Kill Reports which prevented you to open some of them.
I've also done quite a lot of polish to the ally system UI and war entries so it should be easier to understand and use now.
I made all these changes today so I hope they'll be on Sisi tomorrow for you to test!
I also wanted to thank you who have filed bug reports, they help alot! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:02:00 -
[381] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:I don't know if you noticed but dragging of kill reports to chat to share them is back in!
With help from few people on Sisi today I fixed an issue in the Kill Reports which prevented you to open some of them.
I've also done quite a lot of polish to the ally system UI and war entries so it should be easier to understand and use now.
I made all these changes today so I hope they'll be on Sisi tomorrow for you to test!
I also wanted to thank you who have filed bug reports, they help alot!
when are you guys going to announce the dueling system via the mercenary marketplace?
i know you are working on it...
just do it...
get err done...
bavakasha
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1990
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:06:00 -
[382] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I don't know if you noticed but dragging of kill reports to chat to share them is back in!
With help from few people on Sisi today I fixed an issue in the Kill Reports which prevented you to open some of them.
I've also done quite a lot of polish to the ally system UI and war entries so it should be easier to understand and use now.
I made all these changes today so I hope they'll be on Sisi tomorrow for you to test!
I also wanted to thank you who have filed bug reports, they help alot! when are you guys going to announce the dueling system via the mercenary marketplace? i know you are working on it... just do it... get err done... bavakasha
what do you mean? you can see it on Sisi now and there'll be some dev blog out next week probably CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:09:00 -
[383] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I don't know if you noticed but dragging of kill reports to chat to share them is back in!
With help from few people on Sisi today I fixed an issue in the Kill Reports which prevented you to open some of them.
I've also done quite a lot of polish to the ally system UI and war entries so it should be easier to understand and use now.
I made all these changes today so I hope they'll be on Sisi tomorrow for you to test!
I also wanted to thank you who have filed bug reports, they help alot! when are you guys going to announce the dueling system via the mercenary marketplace? i know you are working on it... just do it... get err done... bavakasha what do you mean? you can see it on Sisi now and there'll be some dev blog out next week probably
you calling me a sisi?
lets duel?
my blasters will make you melt in my arms while we dance the tango of lead PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1990
|
Posted - 2012.05.10 23:18:00 -
[384] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:MeBiatch wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:I don't know if you noticed but dragging of kill reports to chat to share them is back in!
With help from few people on Sisi today I fixed an issue in the Kill Reports which prevented you to open some of them.
I've also done quite a lot of polish to the ally system UI and war entries so it should be easier to understand and use now.
I made all these changes today so I hope they'll be on Sisi tomorrow for you to test!
I also wanted to thank you who have filed bug reports, they help alot! when are you guys going to announce the dueling system via the mercenary marketplace? i know you are working on it... just do it... get err done... bavakasha what do you mean? you can see it on Sisi now and there'll be some dev blog out next week probably you calling me a sisi? lets duel? my blasters will make you melt in my arms while we dance the tango of lead
you are so weird CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
329
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:12:00 -
[385] - Quote
indeed...
if you want to hear a weird idea... how about make medical clones industry based...make them a PI thing that i can harvest on my own... make the clone types have manufacturing using robotics/nano tech and that bio slury that clones are made out of?
one of the things that bothers me is as i get 100+ skills it gets rather expensive to die...
i would like the ability for medical clones cost to be market based vrs stagnant as eve is a sandbox....
PLEX FOR PIZZA!
TECH iii MINNING SHIPS! |
Azura Solus
Canibus Liberum
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:20:00 -
[386] - Quote
Any update on when we will get a comprehensive list of the detailed War dec changes. |
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 00:42:00 -
[387] - Quote
Azura Solus wrote:Any update on when we will get a comprehensive list of the detailed War dec changes.
"Later last week" |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
138
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 01:03:00 -
[388] - Quote
Right On to the module so terrible nobody has even bothered giving any feedback on it.
These drones are marginally effective at the best of times and flat out useless in most other situations. Heavies provide some decent speed reduction, but are so slow themselves that they aren't really worth using outside of highly regulated/situational engagements
The new lights and mediums are nice and quick, but the web amount they give is pathetic due to stacking penalty. 4'th and 5'th light web drones reduce total speed by <1% each.
Sooo it seems to me we could either alter the stacking penalty or adjust the web amount Stacking penalty is a bit complicated for my coffee deprived brain atm, so I was thinking adjust the web drones like this:
SW-900 - 20% web -> 25% web SW-600 - 10% web -> 15% web SW-300 - 5% web -> 10% web
Obviously fiddling the stacking penalty in regards to drones would be a better solution, but I'm not sure how long/complicated that would be, and a little web buff to these drones might well achieve a similar effect There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Azura Solus
Canibus Liberum
6
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 01:09:00 -
[389] - Quote
Along with the war theme of inferno a idea i came up with that would Help with deccing large corps particularly . I know its off topic but i assumed that the Ui team would be responsible for it if it can to be. Basic idea is a import/export feature for contact lists and a easier way to auto link mass amounts of characters to either add to contacts or put in a eve mail Anywho here is the link to the post.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=107588
Edit: While i know its too late to be added right now Definitely would help to see it in a patch sometime after |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 07:49:00 -
[390] - Quote
Quote:Ok you asked for it. Time to brake it down for you in more detail.
Fist of all , witch ships could potentially benefit from an EDA regardless of high or low slot. - Drone Boats - high bandwidth BS - maximizing dps on a Ship with drone bandwidth - EW ships that have drone bandwidth.
Lets get in to facts: Drone boats -sub BS/BC: which balanced frig or cruiser sized ship setup should benefit from that ? sacrificing a vital Speed mod for dps, not seeing that happening, and those that potentially could consider sacking a low have much much more highs to spare.
-BC aka Myrmidon and Eos , both Gallente, both with armor tanking bonus and both with highs to spare.
Dornes don't need a lock Drones dont use Cap Droens are much more mobile then the ship that uses them Drones are very Versatile, diferent sizes, a choice of damage type, and EW
...
Now show me how your "Opinion" beats my Data.
The fitting I showed, which was pure hurf blurf, to demonstrate, that in fact a Domi could get high dps with blasters already. It was made to show, that nobody should start whining about "high dps drones", before changes are even made, because EDAs will only trade the damage of turrets to get more drone damage.
Adding EDAs to turret bonused ships and then telling the drone boats are op, is a funny move. You know, that you need one highslot and two midslots already, to use the Drones on a Domi There are not many ships in the game that actually have a drone dmg bonus. These are the ships, that should benefit. If you work out a fitting that benefits from EDAs, not beeing a Droneplatform, nice, but not the primary goal.
An Eos has "spare" highslots to mount warfare links as it is intended. It's a command ship. The Myrm has unbonused highslots, where most people put 425 or 220 Autocannons and fly it as Shieldtank. Some lone wolfs out htere might really use the tripple rep setup, but thats not a common fit.
Why should ships benefit and get a dps boost, which have totally different roles, than applying dps on other ships, or applying even more dps via drones. My Machariel, for example, will be fine with an EDA in a highslot, since it is so low on dps and totally needs that last utility slot it has, made a dmg boosting slot. (sarcasm!)
Dornes don't need a lock
-they need at least one lock and even if you get that one, they probably will attack that NPC frig 80km away. Relying on drone AI? Are you kidding me?
Drones dont use Cap
-projectile weapons don't either, so what?
Droens are much more mobile then the ship that uses them
-sure, if you fly a brick. Nearly every ship in EVE can hold a set of warriors, so you seem to talk about the superfast Ogre II, I heard so much about?
Drones are very Versatile, different sizes, a choice of damage type, and EW
-Most ships can hold a set of EW drones. Caldari and Minmatar can switch damage types, too. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
395
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 13:34:00 -
[391] - Quote
Will the EDA work also on EW and support drones by the way? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 15:31:00 -
[392] - Quote
Holly ****, Barby i thought i was talking to someone with at least a medium game understanding and some common sense.
I'll leave your comments unexplained so you can revew them yourself and do one massive Face Palm after the other.
hmmmmmm I might be overestimating you again, ok hers some few short points to choke on.
"You know, that you need one highslot and two midslots already, to use the Drones on a Domi."
Actually you just need drones.
"There are not many ships in the game that actually have a drone dmg bonus. These are the ships, that should benefit."
Yes thats my hole point, drone ships don't benefit from low slot EDA's. the greatest benefiters are Dominix, shield myrmi and Max DPS BS. As i have already shown, the domi can surpass all other BS
"because EDAs will only trade the damage of turrets to get more drone damage. "
No, quite literally they ad drone damage on top of turret damage, where as if they were highslot they would exchange damage.
"Adding EDAs to turret bonused ships and then telling the drone boats are op, is a funny move."
Barby, i did you the math, THE MATH !!!!!! Data>Opinion
"An Eos has "spare" highslots to mount warfare links as it is intended. It's a command ship."
You almost have it Barby, you just need to put the jigsaw pieces together in the right order.
"The Myrm has unbonused highslots, where most people put 425 or 220 Autocannons and fly it as Shieldtank."
Gallente, Ship Bonuses, Proposed highslot EDA's , common sense.....
"Why should ships benefit and get a dps boost, which have totally different roles"
-.-facepalm -.- for god sake...so much fail in this.
"Droens are much more mobile then the ship that uses them -sure, if you fly a brick. Nearly every ship in EVE can hold a set of warriors, so you seem to talk about the superfast Ogre II, I heard so much about?"
-.-MORONIC-.- Ogre II faster then Domi. Blaster boat flies to target, Drones already there.
"Drones are very Versatile, different sizes, a choice of damage type, and EW -Most ships can hold a set of EW drones. Caldari and Minmatar can switch damage types, too. "
Drones are not versatile because Winmatar is it as well ?
I lath and have nutting further to discuss with the likes of you. |
LaserzPewPew
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 15:44:00 -
[393] - Quote
Ironically, he's right. Almost anything subcap with a MWD is faster than an ogre. It's embarrassing.
|
Cap Tyrian
Guiding Hand Social Club Dystopia Alliance
32
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 16:25:00 -
[394] - Quote
Statement
Quote:Droens are much more mobile then the ship that uses them Data
Ogre II Max speed 1050m/s Berserkers 1575m/s Dominix 136m/s
with 100mn MWD 1005m/s c very cap dependent, takes forever to speed up
+drone boat can use smaller faster drones as well,
Drones will reach their target before the battleship gets in blaster range.
|
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
743
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:10:00 -
[395] - Quote
So on the topic of WarDec prices, I did the following:
WarDec 1: [YAR] Alliance -vs- 49 man corp Cost: 50,000,000 for dec.
WarDec 2: [YAR] Alliance -vs- 2 Man Corp Cost: 100,000,000 for dec.
WarDec 3: [YAR] Alliance -vs- 180 Man corp Cost: 150,000,000 for dec.
WarDec 4: [YAR] Alliance -vs- any # man corp Cost: 200,000,000 for dec.
Some thoughts: It wasn't entirely evident in the interface what the re-occurring cost would be for maintaining the dec on a weekly basis. Obviously I assume since the cost scaling seems pretty much +50mil per additional dec that the first dec would cost 50 mil a week to maintain, and the second 100, and so forth... If that is the case you might add a line under the wardec confirmation screen that that is the case. Second, I have to say the cost of making a wardec is really reasonable. It makes it so anyone can lash out at anyone else, and I think that is a good thing. I was really concerned about scaling based on member count b/c the obvious initial move any corp trying to decshield would do is move in a bunch of alts. Has this concept been abandoned or is this still part of the recurring wardec cost? Anyway, things look really good on the wardec front atm. Thanks for this!
|
bldyannoyed
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
26
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:12:00 -
[396] - Quote
Actually, if you want to use sentries in any kind of useful capacity then yes, you do in fact need a DLA and preferably a pair of omni links. And you will need to use sentries as soon as you want to shoot at something more than 20km away because the travel time on your heavies makes you cry.
But its all irrelevant anyway cos CCP posted, either in this thread or the one dedicated to the EDA's, that they DO NOT EXPECT THIS MODULE ON ITS OWN TO BE THE ONLY FIX DRONES GET.
Is that clear enough?
There are going to be other things happening to drones, my money is on a sub capital drone control unit. Something that would give drones the ability to be a focused weapon system, cos high or low even at 22% the EDA on its own does not do that.
|
bldyannoyed
Estrale Frontiers Project Wildfire
27
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:29:00 -
[397] - Quote
double post |
LaserzPewPew
Mafia Redux Black Legion.
8
|
Posted - 2012.05.11 19:38:00 -
[398] - Quote
Cap Tyrian wrote:Statement Quote:Droens are much more mobile then the ship that uses them Data Ogre II Max speed 1050m/s Berserkers 1575m/s Dominix 136m/s with 100mn MWD 1005m/s c very cap dependent, takes forever to speed up +drone boat can use smaller faster drones as well, Drones will reach their target before the battleship gets in blaster range.
We are comparing heavy drones to heavy guns. If we wanted to compare hammerheads to smaller guns, we could, and would comparatively find the same results. Stay on topic.
Ogre II Activation proximity 4km.
Blaster range ~10k base range
You know what this proves? That ogres are about as effective as heavy blasters.
You know how effective heavy blasters are? Almost non-existent in current PvP. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.12 11:21:00 -
[399] - Quote
Here's a more realistic PvE fit for the Domi:
[Dominix, PvE example] True Sansha Large Armor Repairer Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Magnetic Field Stabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II
Omnidirectional Tracking Link II Omnidirectional Tracking Link II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II Cap Recharger II
350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L 350mm Railgun II, Antimatter Charge L
Large Sentry Damage Augmentor I Large Drone Control Range Augmentor I Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Garde II x5 Warden II x5 Ogre II x5
Skills all V, no imps:
350 tank 915 DPS with Garde II + Antimatter in Optimal, 400m weaponsig 87 km targeting 75 km drone range (A fitting like this works way better on a Domi Navy)
Looking at a PvE fit, you can see that drone and turret dps are more or less balanced dps wise, but have different stats, considering tracking, optimal and falloff. ( 420 dps with turrets, 495 dps with drones )
350s: (Antimatter, 2x magstab, 1x tracking)
tracking: 0.017 optimal/ falloff: 31+ 32 km
Garde II: (2x Omni II)
tracking: 0.054 optimal/ falloff: 45,6 + 12 km
If you now change the magstabs and use EDAs, it is an effective damage boost, even if you have the same numbers in dps. The bad part is, that using sentries requires standing still, thus making you more vulnerable or just slower doing what you do, in some cases. You also only use Ogres or in general Hevaies, if you fight in close range, which dosn't happen very often. Some Angel or Serpentis BS will get close, if you can't kill them, approaching you.
So comparing a Mega, or any other turret ship, to a Domi (RS, Ishtar, Myrm, Gila) never works, because you are comparing totally different styles of flying.
In PvP a Dominix is used for RR and/ or Nos Neut, using drones only as a support, in most cases. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
404
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 08:34:00 -
[400] - Quote
@CCP Punkturis, we can't really test it now it's still on the test server, but are all the war reports (kills&losses), war history etc available through the API? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
404
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 12:27:00 -
[401] - Quote
I've been trying to test out the ally mechanics and while this is kinda hard (I don't have an army of alts with their own corporations to my disposal), I've still come to the conclusion that this part is still a mess.
When I click on a 'sword+' symbol, offering to ally, and then type in an amount and press OK, reload the window (appearently this now updates faster but still not automatically), the symbol is now a 'sword!' showing an outstanding offer. But when I click on this, the offer shows the fee as 0 ISK! I haven't had free corporations yet to test out whether this is displayed incorrectly, or if the fee was never processed correctly. edit: trying to test this out, I ran into another critical bug that preventing me from further testing this out.
I've bugreported it, though I lack the required number of alt corps to get fully to the bottom of it, while still wanting to check out other war dec stuff. This problem does not seem to occur though with peace offers, which work quite similar.
Also a corp mail when ally requests, ally offers and peace offers are sent out would be very nice (also saying which director did it), and a way to retract these would be nice as well, especially since it's now possible to start new wars instantly.
I like the new 'crossed swords' symbols by the way.
Wars that are ended by a peace surrender should show 'surrender', maybe even 'surrender - attacker/defender', instead of 'retracted' which should be reserved for when the attacker lets the war-bill lapse or actively retracts.
edit: I ran into another bug that makes it impossible to accept an ally because "Message not found: Message: 'AlreadyAtWar'', critical error. I don't know if this has to do with cool-down periods or icons not updating immediately in the war tabs of the corp window, allowing multiple ally offers to be sent. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1998
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 14:56:00 -
[402] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:I've been trying to test out the ally mechanics and while this is kinda hard (I don't have an army of alts with their own corporations to my disposal), I've still come to the conclusion that this part is still a mess.
When I click on a 'sword+' symbol, offering to ally, and then type in an amount and press OK, reload the window (appearently this now updates faster but still not automatically), the symbol is now a 'sword!' showing an outstanding offer. But when I click on this, the offer shows the fee as 0 ISK! I haven't had free corporations yet to test out whether this is displayed incorrectly, or if the fee was never processed correctly. edit: trying to test this out, I ran into another critical bug that preventing me from further testing this out.
I've bugreported it, though I lack the required number of alt corps to get fully to the bottom of it, while still wanting to check out other war dec stuff. This problem does not seem to occur though with peace offers, which work quite similar.
Also a corp mail when ally requests, ally offers and peace offers are sent out would be very nice (also saying which director did it), and a way to retract these would be nice as well, especially since it's now possible to start new wars instantly.
I like the new 'crossed swords' symbols by the way.
Wars that are ended by a peace surrender should show 'surrender', maybe even 'surrender - attacker/defender', instead of 'retracted' which should be reserved for when the attacker lets the war-bill lapse or actively retracts.
edit: I ran into another bug that makes it impossible to accept an ally because "Message not found: Message: 'AlreadyAtWar'', critical error. I don't know if this has to do with cool-down periods or icons not updating immediately in the war tabs of the corp window, allowing multiple ally offers to be sent.
just bug report ALL THE THINGS please CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Jake Falcor
LOST IDEA C0VEN
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 15:03:00 -
[403] - Quote
Punkturis get a life!
It's sunday :) |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1999
|
Posted - 2012.05.13 22:27:00 -
[404] - Quote
Jake Falcor wrote:Punkturis get a life!
It's sunday :)
MY EVE GUYS NEED ME!!!! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
775
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 06:44:00 -
[405] - Quote
Happy 2000 likes Punkturis! |
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 07:01:00 -
[406] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Jake Falcor wrote:Punkturis get a life!
It's sunday :) MY EVE GUYS NEED ME!!!!
QFT
Fix FW ! |
Gogela
Freeport Exploration Loosely Affiliated Pirates Alliance
759
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 07:40:00 -
[407] - Quote
...so pissed I speant 3 bil on tags and now have to sec up through traditional methods. *sigh* f*** the world. Fine. F*** it. See you in vale bit****. :-*
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
410
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 09:39:00 -
[408] - Quote
A good idea btw, would be adding additional symbols next to the 'sword' icon if a war is in it's 24 hour warm-up or cool-down period, for more clarity. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 10:05:00 -
[409] - Quote
Punktrus, speaking of alliances, there's any chance we'll see some really awesome and wanted improvements, like having alliance hangars? alliance hangar arrays/spaces (POS-stuff)? alliance-kill APIs? (so only the executor corp has to plug in the api on the KB, avoiding slacker directors from member corps) maybe, alliance awards? being in the alliance, making that better than having a +10 standing? right now when we're using alliance-standings on an outpost or POS, it's treating members are neutrals, and the alliance is not allowed to define a +10 standing in its very self, as a workaround
speaking of killreports, will you make the killmails accessable from the API in an XML from? so when you go on your next module-renaming-spree, you won't break all our killboards (itemIDs in the XMLs)
|
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:02:00 -
[410] - Quote
CCP Tuxford wrote:Kim Briggs wrote:I would like to have a 'Kill-Cam' in the Kill-Reports
So i can watch the last 5 seconds of my target again...and again...and again... That is so awesome
I want that..
No i ******* need that.. |
|
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:11:00 -
[411] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:I remember that discussion, and I also remember posting up a possible solution The issue with the *temporary* boosting is that A, it doens't boost anywhere near enough to be used as you'd like, and B, the reload time is faaaar too crippling. What if the boosters ran off the total cap being in the booster at the time. ie: running 2 x 800 would mean 1600 cap in the charger for it to use before resorting to ship cap while reloading. sidenote: in regard to the unified inventory, aside from the agreed upon crappy inspace implementation, it would be really nice if there were a filter option for implants and an ability to filter OUT items (ie: three click options for the checkbox)
When it comes to active tank... Listen to this man
He is borderline obsessed with it, i think i've yet to see a fit from him that is NOT active tanked :P
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2001
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:12:00 -
[412] - Quote
St Mio wrote:Happy 2000 likes Punkturis!
Yay thanks! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 12:47:00 -
[413] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:St Mio wrote:Happy 2000 likes Punkturis! Yay thanks!
Most liked dev?
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Garviel Tarrant
Aces -N- Eights Excuses.
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 13:00:00 -
[414] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:St Mio wrote:Happy 2000 likes Punkturis! Yay thanks! Most liked dev?
She's a female..
Working on a internet spaceship game..
That alone gives her 40% more likes than any male developer.. Then she just increases the margin with posting three times as much as anyone else! |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
230
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 13:02:00 -
[415] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:St Mio wrote:Happy 2000 likes Punkturis! Yay thanks! Most liked dev? She's a female.. Working on a internet spaceship game.. That alone gives her 40% more likes than any male developer.. Then she just increases the margin with posting three times as much as anyone else!
Actually CCP Guard is still beating her according to this http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
DeBingJos
Avalon Project Shadow Rock Alliance
247
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 13:03:00 -
[416] - Quote
Grideris wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:St Mio wrote:Happy 2000 likes Punkturis! Yay thanks! Most liked dev? She's a female.. Working on a internet spaceship game.. That alone gives her 40% more likes than any male developer.. Then she just increases the margin with posting three times as much as anyone else! Actually CCP Guard is still beating her according to this
Now imagine a dev like Guard but with boobs!! Fix FW ! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2259
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 14:41:00 -
[417] - Quote
Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:St Mio wrote:Happy 2000 likes Punkturis! Yay thanks! Most liked dev? She's a female.. Working on a internet spaceship game.. That alone gives her 40% more likes than any male developer.. Then she just increases the margin with posting three times as much as anyone else!
according to the feedback to my dev blogs it seems people also like what I do... CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
475
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 15:36:00 -
[418] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:St Mio wrote:Happy 2000 likes Punkturis! Yay thanks! Most liked dev? She's a female.. Working on a internet spaceship game.. That alone gives her 40% more likes than any male developer.. Then she just increases the margin with posting three times as much as anyone else! according to the feedback to my dev blogs it seems people also like what I do... It so happens that we recently did pretty detailed analysis of the forum feedback threads of the last few devblogs that CCP Punkturis and CCP karkur wrote, so there are even numbers to back up Punkturis' statement here. These studies were done as a part of gauging the impact of the Little Things effort that has been ongoing since Crucible last year.
It is quite true (and sad) that females sometimes get a certain amount of attention because of their gender and as a result their excellent work can be overshadowed at times. But the devblog analysis clearly showed that people were first and foremost appreciating the work. The fact is then that Punkturis spends a good amount of her time (sometimes evenings and on weekends, and even when sick) communicating with players and unsurprisingly then players like that commitment and accessibility. But male developers with a similar posting history have a similar 'like profile'.
So I understand what you are saying here, Garviel Tarrant, and I'm not saying that you are wrong in general (although I would question the specifics in this particular case because I have numbers that tell a different story); but I would also encourage all of us to aim for a world where people are appreciated for what they do and not for what they are. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
778
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:39:00 -
[419] - Quote
CCP Explorer wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Yay thanks! Most liked dev? She's a female.. Working on a internet spaceship game.. That alone gives her 40% more likes than any male developer.. Then she just increases the margin with posting three times as much as anyone else! according to the feedback to my dev blogs it seems people also like what I do... It so happens that we recently did pretty detailed analysis of the forum feedback threads of the last few devblogs that CCP Punkturis and CCP karkur wrote, so there are even numbers to back up Punkturis' statement here. These studies were done as a part of gauging the impact of the Little Things effort that has been ongoing since Crucible last year. It is quite true (and sad) that females sometimes get a certain amount of attention because of their gender and as a result their excellent work can be overshadowed at times. But the devblog analysis clearly showed that people were first and foremost appreciating the work. The fact is then that Punkturis spends a good amount of her time (sometimes evenings and on weekends, and even when sick) communicating with players and unsurprisingly then players like that commitment and accessibility. But male developers with a similar posting history have a similar 'like profile'. So I understand what you are saying here, Garviel Tarrant, and I'm not saying that you are wrong in general (although I would question the specifics in this particular case because I have numbers that tell a different story); but I would also encourage all of us to aim for a world where people are appreciated for what they do and not for what they are.
I don't care if they're male, female, a transexual midget, or an asexual amoeba, anyone (or thing) that works on improving EVE's UI gets my gratitude and appreciation! |
BeanBagKing
Terra Incognita Intrepid Crossing
164
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 17:39:00 -
[420] - Quote
St Mio wrote:I don't care if they're male, female, a transexual midget, or an asexual amoeba, anyone (or thing) that works on improving EVE's UI gets my gratitude and appreciation!
QFT
Also, I wanted to point out that I agree with Exploerers statement too. Punkturis spends a lot of time talking to the players on the forums. Players appreciate that from -any- dev. I also get the feeling (I could be wrong) that Punkturis puts in a lot of extra time after hours to get these features working for us. That is, not just communicating with us, but doing "actual work" in her off time. |
|
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
477
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:12:00 -
[421] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:St Mio wrote:I don't care if they're male, female, a transexual midget, or an asexual amoeba, anyone (or thing) that works on improving EVE's UI gets my gratitude and appreciation! QFT Also, I wanted to point out that I agree with Exploerers statement too. Punkturis spends a lot of time talking to the players on the forums. Players appreciate that from -any- dev. I also get the feeling (I could be wrong) that Punkturis puts in a lot of extra time after hours to get these features working for us. That is, not just communicating with us, but doing "actual work" in her off time. Indeed she does. Now, without downplaying anyone's contribution (and in particular not CCP Punkturis' contribution) then CCP karkur probably spends the most after-hours on actual coding of extra projects. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
760
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:22:00 -
[422] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Silly Slot wrote:Tess La'Coil wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers? Just brainstorming.. like the idea, hate the idea of misclicking the icon to lock and shooting my own logi lol, especially since the icons sorta move as new effects add on, they'd have to be different, perhaps a smaller bar of icons above the negative effects icons but with green instead of red, or blue perhaps might be better looking Well, honestly friendlies should be targetable from the watch list and if done that way show up in a completely different area of the screen to cut down on accidental friendly fire. In other words only boosting modules of the various types (including remote repair) can activate when those "target" icons are highlighted. This would also open up some interesting possbilities elsewhere. what's wrong with shooting blues???
Only blues that i'm OK with shooting are the ones witl blue label on their faces.
EDIT:
By the way, this one @CCP SoniClover
The drone damage amplifier module, will they have stack penalty with the Sentry Damage rig?! The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die. |
Azura Solus
Canibus Liberum
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:59:00 -
[423] - Quote
Sry this may be a little off topic but in the past few TQ patches have yall uploaded any prep code for the war deccing changes I have had a Bug with the wardeccing system on the live server that has cost me a very expensive ship I have submited a bug report petition and made a post on the forums about what happened here.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=109044&find=unread |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 22:32:00 -
[424] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? Yeah it's been changed, it'll be described better in a dev blog soon, I'm not sure the latest version is in this sisi update though
I really don't like it though. Like I said, if the only way to find out how much a wardec costs is by wardeccing, it's wrong. Have the devs ever considered doing it with sum of size-class pricetags as I described here? It achieves everything SonicClover tries to achieve with his logarithmic method, only not so messy. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
mine mi
FW Scuad E C L I P S E
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 22:56:00 -
[425] - Quote
Can anyone tell me the idea behind the target breaker ?, which can only be used in T1 ships and leaves a cruise with the scan resolution of a titan |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:27:00 -
[426] - Quote
mine mi wrote:Can anyone tell me the idea behind the target breaker ?, which can only be used in T1 ships and leaves a cruise with the scan resolution of a titan
It's meant to counter blob fights in battleships, alpha striking primaries. Another attempt of CCP trying to alleviate symptoms while ignoring the deeper underlying causes of blobbing like the negligible cost of jump and bridge mechanics.
It's not unlike the result that the early railroads had on the wars end 19th and beginning 20th century. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 00:36:00 -
[427] - Quote
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.
- Good
Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II - Low slot. A damage amplifier module for drones.
- Show some actual guts CCP! Don't balance weapons by making them all just the same. Just make drone damage mods unique in high-slots. Have the art guys come up with a little dish-model. In low slots these likely won't be anything special. (drone boats prefer to tank here, or shield-tank with turret weapon mods preferred over drone mods. Again: DO NOT BALANCE BY MAKING EVERYTHING THE SAME
Small/Medium/Large/X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster I. Mid slot. A shield booster that gives a good boost, but has a very high capacitor need. Can use Cap Boosters as charge to negate the severe capacitor need. Only tech I version for now.
- Cool idea. But I can't wait for the next wave of shield vs. armor flames on the forums.
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.
- Meh. Sounds a bit like the Warp Core Stabilizer. A fun module allowing inventive tactics, but CCP caving in to angry one-dimensionally 'tank&spank' players. Pre-nerfing into uselessness.
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.
- Good
Light & Medium Web Drones - Light and medium versions of stasis webifying drones.
- Need to be more effective to be a valid choice. A problem shared with most other EW-drones. Ask CCP Diagoras for some stats about usage and balance accordingly, using a few iterations in the following months
Capacitor Battery edits - All capacitor batteries now also provide a defense against Energy Vampires (Nos) and Energy Neutralizer (Neut) effects. A portion of the effect is reflected back on the aggressor.
- Reflect back? Does that simply mean the effect of NOS and neuts are reduced? Or does it really mean the effect is occasionally refersed, because that seems not only a bit arbitrary, but downright silly. I'd much rather see Cap batteries shielding off an amount of cap off from the NOS and neuts (enough to keep low-cap stuff like hardeners running). Harder to implement, but gameplay-wise a better move. Don't forget: chance based effects are BAD. Don't use them if not necessary. Players don't like them and for a good reason. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
snake pies
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 02:29:00 -
[428] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that..
Won't this add additional lag? For something that isn't really needed...
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
412
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 02:38:00 -
[429] - Quote
Quote:We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.
I REALLY think the Tracking Disruptors also affecting missiles is a VERY BAD IDEA. I can't stress this enough.
- Missiles already have problems hitting fast, small ships for meaningful damage and most missile ships they need all their rigs just to be competitive. Heavy Missiles are pretty much the only missile viable in PvP, that should be proof enough. Turrets have tracking mods for both high and low slots, can be remote boosted further AND can easily overcome transversal by kiting&sniping small ships at enough range. While I don't mind the differences between weapons, the huge lack of options for missiles should for now, veto ANY additional nerf to them.
- There is a very good reason why any effective ECM is divided over racials, because the second a module can be used to counter most of the enemies (turrets+missiles=huge majority of ships, drones are almost always a secondary weapon), it simply becomes a 'mandatory choice' and a blanket protection, opening the door to min-maxing, and unbalancing everything. If TD will also influence missiles almost every ship with 4 or more med-slots will equip them by default, and a lot of the 3-ones will use them as well.
- If tracking disruptors are currently underused, simply boost their effectiveness a bit. This, in contrary to making it apply to more weapon systems, would at least keep missiles for players as a counter against them.
- If missiles ever become boosted to the point where they could use a counter (like making them more alpha-type weapons, or only redbox on hit), it would be much, MUCH better to add a new mod that is the individual counter for missiles. Maybe even a high-slot type, sacrificing dps for missile protection, with a missile, hybrid, projectile and laser variety (benefiting from ship bonuses).
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 03:55:00 -
[430] - Quote
To CCP about Weapon disruption:
I personally think that giving tracking or weapon disruptors the ability to affect missiles, without giving anything for missiles to use to counter that effect (like turrets can with tracking computers and enhancers) would be a bad idea. Missiles can only be boosted by rigs and implants. While turrets have modules that increase their tracking and range on top of rigs and implants.
And before you can argue that a target painter is for missiles, it is also for Turrets as well, so that doesn't count.
I believe a simple and fair way is to give tracking computers and enhancers the ability to boost missile velocity and/or explosion radius. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
412
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 04:02:00 -
[431] - Quote
ToysGÇÖRGÇÖDrop
- CCP getting maintaining control over the distribution of blueprints through off-market distribution of BPC: excellent. Even better would be retro-actively taking control back over the current blueprints in game. Replace them with a year worth of BPC and it will eventually sort itself out.
- EDAs, webdrones and rigs getting on the market anyway: spineless. Makes the above-mentioned just an half-assed attempt.
- BPCs drop as loot in profession sites in normal space and as commander & officer loot: almost worse for prices then the T2 lottery if it's officer-drop only. I hope this should be translated as 'can be found in salvage&archeology mag sites' (these are in need for some love anyway).
- The original idea was to have this very varied, with one module being available only through LP store and another only through Invention. In the end, we decided to lump them together into a single seeding method, so as not cause too much discrepancy in their availability. NO NO NO NO!!! Diverse EVE = Better EVE. Also the best way to balance out possible problems and bottlenecks is to have always at least two means to obtain something. Here an idea on how to better use the LP stores as a secondary source for BPC.
- Seeding through loot drops gives better control over where and when and how much to seed: Localized loot drops are currently the most effective way of making the players actually spread out over empire and low-sec. A very powerful tool that might even bring life back to low-sec if used correctly.
- This thread here is a good place to post your ideas: Thanks! I hadn't seen that one yet. It will be WRITTEN DOWN (see signature).
- The next step is crafting an overall vision and roadmap of what purpose new module work serves in the bigger picture: I hope that involves the CSM from the early stages on.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Vera Coen
Electric Society
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:53:00 -
[432] - Quote
I'd like to recommend a change to the new war dec mechanics:
1st week of war is 25%% of the listed price 2nd week of war is 50% of listed price 3rd+ week is 100%
The reason for the suggestion is my thought that a week or two of war shouldn't make or break a corporation/alliance but being able to keep someone perma-decced should cost the attacker quite a bit.
As it stands right now on a large corp/alliance target it would be more efficient for me to just AWOX them if I just want a few days or quick and easy kills. I don't think that is a good thing.
My apologies if a suggestion like this has already been mentioned.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
707
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 09:24:00 -
[433] - Quote
I just realized that instead of being a buff to drone boats, webber scout drones just makes kiting even more OP as tactic.
Drone boats should receive bonuses to all drone effects.
Combined with the failure that is the new drone dmg module, I feel like drone pilots are treated like second class citizens.
In the beginning high security space was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 14:19:00 -
[434] - Quote
Dmg modifier has just been upped to 19%.
Very nice one. Try an Ishtar or Rattler, dps increase is significant.
Thank you devs @CCP. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
345
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 15:52:00 -
[435] - Quote
There is alot of confusion with the cap batteries. Their description and attributes on SISSI indicate they're just Nuet/Nos resistant. People testing them indicate that the effect is partially cast back the aggressor. This was indicated in the dev blog as well. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
424
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 20:50:00 -
[436] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There is alot of confusion with the cap batteries. Their description and attributes on SISSI indicate they're just Nuet/Nos resistant. People testing them indicate that the effect is partially cast back the aggressor. This was indicated in the dev blog as well.
Who at CCP ever came up with that mechanic? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Haakyra Fly
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 12:38:00 -
[437] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There is alot of confusion with the cap batteries. Their description and attributes on SISSI indicate they're just Nuet/Nos resistant. People testing them indicate that the effect is partially cast back the aggressor. This was indicated in the dev blog as well.
Yes how exactly they work? U cannot switch off capacitor of a ship that uses these batteries? Or simply ifnu neut one of these ship a % of neuting is turned back to u?
For example if i should neut 100 of your cap... I neut 80 and 20 is drained from my cap?
H. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 12:45:00 -
[438] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:
By the way, this one @CCP SoniClover
The drone damage amplifier module, will they have stack penalty with the Sentry Damage rig?!
No |
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 13:48:00 -
[439] - Quote
It looks like they are mutually stacking penalized on sisi, when do you plan to have build where they are not?
Also, could you answer question from old thread?
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Fueled shield boosters & shield booster bonuses. Do you plan to apply bonuses which work on plain SBs onto new FSBs? Because currently it looks like a mess.
Bonuses with skill requirement filter by Shield Operation work (because FSB has this skill requirement) - e.g. Hawk shield boost amount bonus. Bonuses with group filter by Shield Booster do not work (because new SBs have Fueled Shield Booster group) - e.g. Golem
Do you plan to rectify this situation? Towards which variant?
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 13:57:00 -
[440] - Quote
Has anyone seen what will happen to wars that are currently active on the day of the patch? Do they all get reset? Stay as they are, or will the new war reports just get tacked on to existing wars? |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 15:18:00 -
[441] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:It looks like they are mutually stacking penalized on sisi, when do you plan to have build where they are not? Also, could you answer question from old thread? Kadesh Priestess wrote:Fueled shield boosters & shield booster bonuses. Do you plan to apply bonuses which work on plain SBs onto new FSBs? Because currently it looks like a mess.
Bonuses with skill requirement filter by Shield Operation work (because FSB has this skill requirement) - e.g. Hawk shield boost amount bonus. Bonuses with group filter by Shield Booster do not work (because new SBs have Fueled Shield Booster group) - e.g. Golem
Do you plan to rectify this situation? Towards which variant?
We would like to fix this, but we don't have an ETA on it
Edit: Also, I'll look into the stacking penalties, they shouldn't apply so if they are I have to figure out why. |
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 15:31:00 -
[442] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Edit: Also, I'll look into the stacking penalties, they shouldn't apply so if they are I have to figure out why. Because both damage mods and rigs are not from stacking penalty immune categories and apply their bonus using PostPercent operation i guess. You could switch rigs to use PreMul / PostMul (and their bonus attribs from 10, 15 to 1.1, 1.15) to put them into separate stacking penalty chain. |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 16:33:00 -
[443] - Quote
MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
107
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 16:44:00 -
[444] - Quote
Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module).
The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday. |
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
386
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 16:51:00 -
[445] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday. Better.
Any news on cap batteries? Either reduce there fittings or MASSIVELY increase (100%-150% cap neut reflection, barr usage on capitals) the counter measure effect. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 17:16:00 -
[446] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday.
I'm still curious about the BS-only restriction, and what role you envision the module playing. When I first saw the module described, I thought it would be perfect for non-FC command ships. No BS class ships can fit links, however, so there goes that idea.
Something that I haven't tested yet on SiSI: If you have two ship equipped with cap batteries, and one uses a neut on the other, is there a chance for the reflected effect to be reflected in turn by the originator? |
Daniel Darkside
OMER Science Technology Hegemonous Pandorum
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 20:26:00 -
[447] - Quote
I noticed that inventing the Drone Damage Amplifier II requires Caldari Encryption Methods. Since this is a drone module, should it require Gallente Encryption Methods? |
mine mi
FW Scuad E C L I P S E
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 22:39:00 -
[448] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday.
-50% itGÇÖs like auto sensor dampersned, why not try using other modules, like passive targeting as counter module. |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 23:03:00 -
[449] - Quote
The small, medium and large versions of the Processor Overclocking Unit blueprints are inconsistent. The small requires charred micro circuits, damaged artificial neural networks and fried interface circuits. The medium requires conductive polymer, damaged artificial neural networks and tripped power circuits. The large requires charred micro circuits, conductive polymer and damaged artificial neural networks. No other rigs change what goes into making them as the size of the rig changes, just how much of each. Is this intentional?
Also, the finished product itself: t1 has a -5% to shield recharge rate, t2 has a -10% to shield recharge rate. First, no other Electronics (or Energy Grid) rigs have a drawback, which is good, as there is no associated skill that can be trained to reduce the drawback. Second, no t2 version of a rig has a worse drawback than the t1 version.
These are breaking patterns that have existed for quite some time. Are these changes to be seen as a new precedent?
|
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
300
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 02:02:00 -
[450] - Quote
If Tracking disruptors are going to increase opponents missile explosion radius...
Will tracking enhancers and tracking computers reduce missile explosion radius as a counter? ... |
|
St Mio
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
788
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 05:30:00 -
[451] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Kadesh Priestess wrote:It looks like they are mutually stacking penalized on sisi, when do you plan to have build where they are not? Also, could you answer question from old thread? Kadesh Priestess wrote:Fueled shield boosters & shield booster bonuses. Do you plan to apply bonuses which work on plain SBs onto new FSBs? Because currently it looks like a mess.
Bonuses with skill requirement filter by Shield Operation work (because FSB has this skill requirement) - e.g. Hawk shield boost amount bonus. Bonuses with group filter by Shield Booster do not work (because new SBs have Fueled Shield Booster group) - e.g. Golem
Do you plan to rectify this situation? Towards which variant? We would like to fix this, but we don't have an ETA on it Edit: Also, I'll look into the stacking penalties, they shouldn't apply so if they are I have to figure out why.
Don't forget to make the Ancillary Shield Boosters get bonuses from:
- Ganglink Modules/fleet bonuses
- HG/LG Crystal implant sets
- Blue pills/combat boosters
- Shield boost amplifiers
- WH effects (Cataclysmic Variable)
:D |
bornaa
GRiD.
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 09:40:00 -
[452] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:If Tracking disruptors are going to increase opponents missile explosion radius...
Will tracking enhancers and tracking computers reduce missile explosion radius as a counter?
This!!!
@ CCP Why the hell do you want to nerf missiles to the ground??? You remover them from pvp in 95% of the cases... that 5% thats left is still too much for you???
We were asking missile buff ang are getting nerfs... That Ain't Right |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
432
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 09:44:00 -
[453] - Quote
Not to mention it will make Tracking Disruptors into 'one mod to counter them all' which is a HORRIBLE idea. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
bornaa
GRiD.
223
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 10:29:00 -
[454] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Not to mention it will make Tracking Disruptors into 'one mod to counter them all' which is a HORRIBLE idea.
And it will have more affect against missiles then against turrets... That Ain't Right |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
432
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 10:40:00 -
[455] - Quote
- The option to make wardecs mutual seems to have disappeared... or hidden very meticulously. It's still not clear of this can only be done during the 24-hour warm-up or at any point. Need some clarification here, CCP!
- The tooltip for the corporation icons in the war list show 'offender' and 'defender'. It obviously should be 'attacker' and 'defender'. The opposite of 'offender' would be 'victim', but there is no crime, so no 'offender' either.
bornaa wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Not to mention it will make Tracking Disruptors into 'one mod to counter them all' which is a HORRIBLE idea. And it will have more affect against missiles then against turrets... Typical situation where a ton of players argument it's a bad idea, but CCP (or rather some foolhardy devs) goes ahead and do it anyway. Missiles don't need a counter at the moment, but if they would, it'd have to be a separate module. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Avila Cracko
357
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 11:58:00 -
[456] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:- The option to make wardecs mutual seems to have disappeared... or hidden very meticulously. It's still not clear of this can only be done during the 24-hour warm-up or at any point. Need some clarification here, CCP! - The tooltip for the corporation icons in the war list show 'offender' and 'defender'. It obviously should be 'attacker' and 'defender'. The opposite of 'offender' would be 'victim', but there is no crime, so no 'offender' either. bornaa wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Not to mention it will make Tracking Disruptors into 'one mod to counter them all' which is a HORRIBLE idea. And it will have more affect against missiles then against turrets... Typical situation where a ton of players argument it's a bad idea, but CCP (or rather some foolhardy devs) goes ahead and do it anyway. Missiles don't need a counter at the moment, but if they would, it'd have to be a separate module.
If you are going to apply more counter measures to missiles (make that turret counter measures affect missiles) you need to boost missile dmg and speed by at least 25%. Missiles have too much draw backs as they are now and need buff and not nerfs. And if you want to make this you need to buff it even more.
CCP is making missiles completely obsolete. And CCP is making EVE completely bland - everything will be the same.
Maybe thats on purpose... making missiles obsolete... perhaps by nerfing them they want to minimize their usage because they affect server performance.
And defender missiles are getting buff too i see... truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. |
Crellion
Parental Control
20
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 09:08:00 -
[457] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:If Tracking disruptors are going to increase opponents missile explosion radius...
Will tracking enhancers and tracking computers reduce missile explosion radius as a counter?
Havent used missiles in real pvp* in aaaages but when something is this true one has to QFT...
*other than perhaps xhoring mails with HMLs on a cloaky tangu scout" |
GeeBee
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 17:33:00 -
[458] - Quote
Ris Dnalor wrote:If Tracking disruptors are going to increase opponents missile explosion radius...
Will tracking enhancers and tracking computers reduce missile explosion radius as a counter?
+ 1 |
Plekto
Poxy Bullocks
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 18:04:00 -
[459] - Quote
We already HAVE a method to counter missiles in the game. It just needs to be implemented properly.
It's defender missiles. The problem is that you have to manually target the incoming missile(s), every time, which is horrendous. If they automatically targeted any and all incoming missiles, then the solution would be to fit a few on a ship in your empty high slots to mitigate the damage.
Since most people group damage, you can SORT OF get away with targeting the group, but all it takes is the guy to do the old school finger across the keys trick and you have a chain of 6 or 8 missiles incoming and no way to physically click and target fast enough. Defender missiles are so useless in the game that I've never heard of anyone ever using them in PVP. Even newbies figure out that they are broken in minutes.
The "rats" do this automatically. This needs to be fixed. Then we'll not need a "nerf" by CCP. Then, if you don't like missiles, fit a defender or two in a small launcher.
EDIT - missiles do have their place, though. Stealth Bombers and t2 torps are incredibly useful, as are precision cruises. But they fell out of favor since the nerf years ago made them require almost a year of training to use as well as you can go with blasters in a few months. For the new players, they are fantastic if and only if you have max skills and sub-skills.
Making a module nerf them further is just simply insane. This smacks of the old-school Nos idiocy (which thank god they finally fixed). One modue to cripple the enemy ship. Now we'll have one module to nerf all enemy guns. |
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
386
|
Posted - 2012.05.18 23:57:00 -
[460] - Quote
Are any of the newly rebalance models modules even ready to go live? cap batteries, tracking disruptors an approve hardeners look to be on a pretty poor state imo. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
442
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 11:09:00 -
[461] - Quote
OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:09:00 -
[462] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.
There was something broken here, but Tuxford fixed it this morning. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:10:00 -
[463] - Quote
Pattern Clarc wrote:Are any of the newly rebalance models modules even ready to go live? cap batteries, tracking disruptors an approve hardeners look to be on a pretty poor state imo.
Just to be clear, there are no changed to the tracking disruptor changes going out in Inferno. We were playing around with a few adjustments, but none of them bore fruit, so we reverted them all. Tracking Disruptors will continue to work exactly as before post-Inferno. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:14:00 -
[464] - Quote
Helothane wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday. I'm still curious about the BS-only restriction, and what role you envision the module playing. When I first saw the module described, I thought it would be perfect for non-FC command ships. No BS class ships can fit links, however, so there goes that idea. Something that I haven't tested yet on SiSI: If you have two ship equipped with cap batteries, and one uses a neut on the other, is there a chance for the reflected effect to be reflected in turn by the originator?
Regarding the target breaker, the initial aim was to have it work for all non-capital ships, but as setting this up isn't very easy to do on the backend currently without some massive hacks, we decided to just do a battleship class version for now. But we're absolutely open to expanding this post-Inferno to other classes as well (we're even looking into making a more flexible T3 version of it, but that is still in experimental stages).
Regarding the cap batteries, then no, it can't be reflected back and forth We did actually think about this when implementing the technical aspect, but thought it too silly. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:15:00 -
[465] - Quote
Daniel Darkside wrote:I noticed that inventing the Drone Damage Amplifier II requires Caldari Encryption Methods. Since this is a drone module, should it require Gallente Encryption Methods?
Yes, this was an oversight that I have rectified. Thanks for the heads up. |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 16:18:00 -
[466] - Quote
Helothane wrote:The small, medium and large versions of the Processor Overclocking Unit blueprints are inconsistent. The small requires charred micro circuits, damaged artificial neural networks and fried interface circuits. The medium requires conductive polymer, damaged artificial neural networks and tripped power circuits. The large requires charred micro circuits, conductive polymer and damaged artificial neural networks. No other rigs change what goes into making them as the size of the rig changes, just how much of each. Is this intentional?
Also, the finished product itself: t1 has a -5% to shield recharge rate, t2 has a -10% to shield recharge rate. First, no other Electronics (or Energy Grid) rigs have a drawback, which is good, as there is no associated skill that can be trained to reduce the drawback. Second, no t2 version of a rig has a worse drawback than the t1 version.
These are breaking patterns that have existed for quite some time. Are these changes to be seen as a new precedent?
I'll look into the material composition of the rig and fix any errors that might be there. Regarding the drawback, then this was intentional on our part. It's a precedent in the sense that we will consider drawbacks (or other non-standard effects) if we feel it's necessary for the item we're making, but we haven't set a fixed rule of always having drawbacks now in the electronics group. It's determined on a case by case bases. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
442
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 17:00:00 -
[467] - Quote
CCP SoniClover, thanks for the feedback. Oh... but there seems to be missing something... TRACKING DISRUPTORS!!!
Seriously, you guys are going to cause a mess with those that's going to require a LOT of cleaning. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
114
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 17:12:00 -
[468] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP SoniClover, thanks for the feedback. Oh... but there seems to be missing something... TRACKING DISRUPTORS!!!
Seriously, you guys are going to cause a mess with those that's going to require a LOT of cleaning.
We did play around a bit with some adjustments to the tracking disruptor (and some of them accidentally made it to SiSi in a half baked form), but what we had wasn't meeting our goals, so we reverted all the adjustments. There are no Tracking Disruptor changes coming out in Inferno. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
442
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 17:20:00 -
[469] - Quote
Excellent
Want to 'balance' missiles? Try a high-slot module, using turretslots, (and one for a missile slot using defenders) that reduces incoming missiles by 25%, offering powerful missile defense at the cost of outgoing dps. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Haakyra Fly
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:01:00 -
[470] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the cap batteries, then no, it can't be reflected back and forth We did actually think about this when implementing the technical aspect, but thought it too silly.
@SoniClover.... please could u explain how exatcly all this work?
ie: i should neut 100 cap.... i neut 100 cap but 12.5 is also neuted from my cap (as reflection)?
OR
i should neut 100 cap... i neut 87,5 AND ALSO 12,5 is neuted from my cap?
thanks in advance. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
442
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:29:00 -
[471] - Quote
From the dev blog:
Quote: Setting a fixed contract length to ally contracts is one thing we want to do. While the current implementation is fine for the most part, there are a few edge cases where the eternal ally bond can become an issue. It should also make negotiations smoother, when the knowledge of the exact length of the contract is known beforehand.
Another thing weGÇÖre looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars GÇô if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. WeGÇÖll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.
Making the ally-contracts fixed length should mitigate the severity of mutual wars by more then enough. Also defenders locked in a mutual war should NOT be excluded from getting allies else there are going to be some very nasty problems with mutual-locked attackers suddenly adding a lot of new members, or additional wardecs causing a mess. It's not like mercs like to stick around forever in a mutual war anyway, so 'eternal allies' will hardly be a problem.
Remove the ability to gain allies in a mutual war, will guarantee that the only wardec to be made mutual will be RvB. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Plekto
Poxy Bullocks
19
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 20:50:00 -
[472] - Quote
I thought about it for a day and came up with a workable way to implement defender missiles.
Almost every ship in eve has a missile slot in it, even if it's not using missiles as the main weapon. My idea is for a specific defender launcher (I'd call it the "missile defense system") that fits in a missile slot. ie - you have to dedicate that slot much like you do with a probe launcher to a specific job/task.
The system cycles every 10 seconds or so and fires a salvo of two defender missiles as chaff. It needs to be slow enough that a skilled pilot can overwhelm it with sheer speed so it's not a perma-tank option, yet work to be such a tank vs gankers and newbies.
Then the question is do you use that high slot on a defense system (if the ship has a missile slot that is - some don't!) instead of a better module, knowing that it's only good vs missiles (mostly Caldari designs)? In any case, using it would also deprive you of a weapon slot.
IMO, more decisions and trade-offs is the way to go rather tan trying to level everything out to be the same.
EDIT - it's terribly critical that it be its own module so that it's not as simple as swapping ammo in the middle of a fight. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
442
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 21:46:00 -
[473] - Quote
Defender missiles are broken in a way that a simple module won't fix it. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2012.05.19 23:03:00 -
[474] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: Regarding the target breaker, the initial aim was to have it work for all non-capital ships, but as setting this up isn't very easy to do on the backend currently without some massive hacks, we decided to just do a battleship class version for now. But we're absolutely open to expanding this post-Inferno to other classes as well (we're even looking into making a more flexible T3 version of it, but that is still in experimental stages).
Hmm. I recall that there was there is a flag for ships, something like Is Capital, that is checked to determine if that ship can be a target of a titan's DD, since it can only be used on capitals. Is it too much of a hack to have that flag checked in the fitting window when trying to fit a target breaker? I'd think there is something somewhat similar to what prevents a bomb launcher from being fit to anything but a stealth bomber.
To be honest, I think the traditional way that CCP had designed modules to only fit certain ships, beyond one specific type of ship, is a hack. The covert cloak and gang links having huge CPU or huge powergrid values, then giving the desired ships a 99% reduction in the cost for those modules. I haven't run the numbers yet, but I bet that the new CPU rigs will allow a titan to use a faction covert cloak (the ones with only 5000 CPU), particularly the Leviathan or Ragnarok. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
444
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 08:47:00 -
[475] - Quote
The new capacitor battery mechanics are useless against NPC nos and neuts. Another reason why this is not the way capacitor batteries should be rebalanced.
A large cap replenishment would be much more useful. Similar like cap boosters but without charges. Instead it balances it's much larger cap booster with a very long cycle-time so the energy/second gain is about 50% lower.
Perhaps combining this with some overdue balancing of the capacitor booster modules as well, so micro capacitor boosters becomes the a viable module for frigates and the bigger ones move up one ship-size. Perhaps finally adding a capital size one as well.
Cap Boosters should be the choice for long, drawn-out fights or if you prefer a steady trickle of cap, batteries for short skirmishes and roams that don't allow easy restocking of charges. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Rivqua
Omega Wing The Veyr Collective
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 10:01:00 -
[476] - Quote
@CCP SoniClover:
I notice the new shield boosters don't get affected by
A) Ship Boost Bonuses (Making them directly less useful on Minmatar instead of Caldari for example) (Intended to nerf Winmatar?) B) Are not affected by Blue Pills ?
Any comment. I realize it's late to post any changes now, but you could explain the intention for all to see ? :)
- Riv
|
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
161
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 11:55:00 -
[477] - Quote
I see a lot of dev responses here, but nothing about crap web drones being crap :p
Any word guys? Do you consider these drones balanced? Do you think the introduction of scout drones will result in more use of web drones? There should be a rather awesome pic here |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2302
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 11:57:00 -
[478] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.
heh I removed it
I hope it's already back on Sisi, isn't it? Tuxford to the rescue! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
444
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 12:43:00 -
[479] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing. heh I removed it I hope it's already back on Sisi, isn't it? Tuxford to the rescue!
Yep, I've seen it.
Why is it hidden in the context menu though? It deserves to get it's own new icon right next to the 'flag' and the 'sword'. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2302
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 12:53:00 -
[480] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing. heh I removed it I hope it's already back on Sisi, isn't it? Tuxford to the rescue! Why is it hidden in the context menu by the way? In my opinion the new 'mutual-lock' is one of the key elements of the new wardec mechanic. It certainly deserves to get its own new icon right next to the 'flag' and the 'sword'.
Because I'm an idiot and we'll probably do something better about it after release since there's too little time now CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
444
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:00:00 -
[481] - Quote
Don't be too harsh on yourself
Before launch, you might try to find some time for one helpful thing though: a confirmation box with some warnings about the rules of mutual wars. Right now it's VERY easy to get your corp locked into a mutual war if you're not careful.
Another thing: it might be a good idea for mutual wars to ask confirmation after a period of time (like 6 months or so). I noticed when the '50 most recent wars' filter was broken and it showed 555 of them instead, that there are still hundreds mutual wars open of corporations now long dead and forgotten as far back as 2005! It'd be nice if mutual wars with empty shells of corporations clean itself up at some point (without needing a petition).
And for something in the future: adding the way how wars ended (retracted, surrendered, disbanded, etc.) Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2302
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 13:26:00 -
[482] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Don't be too harsh on yourself Before launch, you might try to find some time for one helpful thing though: a confirmation box with some warnings about the rules of mutual wars. Right now it's VERY easy to get your corp locked into a mutual war if you're not careful. Another thing: it might be a good idea for mutual wars to ask confirmation after a period of time (like 6 months or so). I noticed when the '50 most recent wars' filter was broken and it showed 555 of them instead, that there are still hundreds mutual wars open of corporations now long dead and forgotten as far back as 2005! It'd be nice if mutual wars with empty shells of corporations clean itself up at some point (without needing a petition). And for something in the future: adding the way how wars ended (retracted, surrendered, disbanded, etc.)
awesome suggestions, thank you CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
TheButcherPete
Specter Syndicate CORE Alliance
185
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 14:46:00 -
[483] - Quote
Wait, you tasked TUXFORD with fixing something?
@_@ listen to yourself speak lass! My moncole doubles as a cigarette lighter, a flashlight, a laser and x-ray goggles. If you haven't noticed yet, I'm in love with Punkturis. -á-á-á
|
Haakyra Fly
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 15:01:00 -
[484] - Quote
Why nobody may answer to this question?
@SoniClover.... please could u explain how exactly capacitor batteries work?
ie: i should neut 100 cap.... i neut 100 cap but 12.5 is also neuted from my cap (as reflection)?
OR
i should neut 100 cap... i neut 87,5 AND ALSO 12,5 is neuted from my cap?
thanks in advance. |
mine mi
FW Scuad E C L I P S E
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:04:00 -
[485] - Quote
I think the war dec must do 2 things, one denied insured to the opponent Yes denied, all the contract will be suspended, and consider not only the contract but also the basic 40% until the war is over Consider that when war is declared not only alerts you to the concord but also to the insurance company
The other thing is, no one likes the troublemakers, for each ship you lose in empire, the corp and you will lose 0.1 of the faction and 1 point for NPCcorps residing in the systemGÇÖs loss. So the war ended, or because the defender surrendered or went to low sec or the attacker can not enter into the defender's living space.
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
445
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:13:00 -
[486] - Quote
mine mi wrote:I think the war dec must do 2 things, one denied insured to the opponent Yes denied, all the contract will be suspended, and consider not only the contract but also the basic 40% until the war is over Consider that when war is declared not only alerts you to the concord but also to the insurance company
The other thing is, no one likes the troublemakers, for each ship you lose in empire, the corp and you will lose 0.1 of the faction and 1 point for NPCcorps residing in the systemGÇÖs loss. So the war ended, or because the defender surrendered or went to low sec or the attacker can not enter into the defender's living space.
You clearly don't understand why wardecs are a necessary part of hi-sec.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
mine mi
FW Scuad E C L I P S E
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 18:21:00 -
[487] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:mine mi wrote:I think the war dec must do 2 things, one denied insured to the opponent Yes denied, all the contract will be suspended, and consider not only the contract but also the basic 40% until the war is over Consider that when war is declared not only alerts you to the concord but also to the insurance company
The other thing is, no one likes the troublemakers, for each ship you lose in empire, the corp and you will lose 0.1 of the faction and 1 point for NPCcorps residing in the systemGÇÖs loss. So the war ended, or because the defender surrendered or went to low sec or the attacker can not enter into the defender's living space.
You clearly don't understand why wardecs are a necessary part of hi-sec.
maybe, but it's still logical |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
120
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 19:04:00 -
[488] - Quote
Haakyra Fly wrote:Why nobody may answer to this question?
@SoniClover.... please could u explain how exactly capacitor batteries work?
ie: i should neut 100 cap.... i neut 100 cap but 12.5 is also neuted from my cap (as reflection)?
OR
i should neut 100 cap... i neut 87,5 AND ALSO 12,5 is neuted from my cap?
thanks in advance. Its the latter. The neut is less effective and you lose a bit more cap as well. |
|
Rivqua
Omega Wing The Veyr Collective
4
|
Posted - 2012.05.20 21:46:00 -
[489] - Quote
Rivqua wrote:@CCP SoniClover:
I notice the new shield boosters don't get affected by
A) Ship Boost Bonuses (Making them directly less useful on Minmatar instead of Caldari for example) (Intended to nerf Winmatar?) B) Are not affected by Blue Pills ?
Any comment. I realize it's late to post any changes now, but you could explain the intention for all to see ? :)
- Riv
^^ Any answer ?
Also, the new Ancillary shield booster does not count as a shield booster when it comes to the UI, it says "No Module" instead giving the amount of boost, Bug / Feature ?
- Riv
Edit: My bad on the ship bonus, I was .... erm... mistaken :) Only blue pills not applying it seems, intentional ? |
Masamune Dekoro
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
134
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 01:49:00 -
[490] - Quote
Plekto wrote:We already HAVE a method to counter missiles in the game. It just needs to be implemented properly.
It's defender missiles. The problem is that you have to manually target the incoming missile(s), every time, which is horrendous. If they automatically targeted any and all incoming missiles, then the solution would be to fit a few on a ship in your empty high slots to mitigate the damage.
Since most people group damage, you can SORT OF get away with targeting the group, but all it takes is the guy to do the old school finger across the keys trick and you have a chain of 6 or 8 missiles incoming and no way to physically click and target fast enough. Defender missiles are so useless in the game that I've never heard of anyone ever using them in PVP. Even newbies figure out that they are broken in minutes.
The "rats" do this automatically. This needs to be fixed. Then we'll not need a "nerf" by CCP. Then, if you don't like missiles, fit a defender or two in a small launcher.
Further on the defender missile idea -
IMO implementing a specific 'Defender Missile Launcher' as a utility high, automatically shooting down oncoming missiles would be nice. Even better if it had the capability to target another ship to 'defend', or if there is no ally being targeted, automatically 'defend' your own ship. Make it easy to shoot down light targeted missiles, harder to shoot down HMs and HAMs, and really hard to shoot down Cruises, and almost impossible to shoot down Torps (which already have high HP) - might address some of the other problems seen with the PVP viability of the BS sized launcher weapons. |
|
Altrue
Exploration Frontier inc
3
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 05:54:00 -
[491] - Quote
Masamune Dekoro wrote:Plekto wrote:We already HAVE a method to counter missiles in the game. It just needs to be implemented properly.
It's defender missiles. The problem is that you have to manually target the incoming missile(s), every time, which is horrendous. If they automatically targeted any and all incoming missiles, then the solution would be to fit a few on a ship in your empty high slots to mitigate the damage.
Since most people group damage, you can SORT OF get away with targeting the group, but all it takes is the guy to do the old school finger across the keys trick and you have a chain of 6 or 8 missiles incoming and no way to physically click and target fast enough. Defender missiles are so useless in the game that I've never heard of anyone ever using them in PVP. Even newbies figure out that they are broken in minutes.
The "rats" do this automatically. This needs to be fixed. Then we'll not need a "nerf" by CCP. Then, if you don't like missiles, fit a defender or two in a small launcher.
Further on the defender missile idea - IMO implementing a specific 'Defender Missile Launcher' as a utility high, automatically shooting down oncoming missiles would be nice. Even better if it had the capability to target another ship to 'defend', or if there is no ally being targeted, automatically 'defend' your own ship. Make it easy to shoot down light targeted missiles, harder to shoot down HMs and HAMs, and really hard to shoot down Cruises, and almost impossible to shoot down Torps (which already have high HP) - might address some of the other problems seen with the PVP viability of the BS sized launcher weapons.
I'm against the idea of having a module in high slot that can protect your own ship, EvE is not working like that :) Look at the reps for example, logistic can't heal themselves. I think that beeing able to protect other ships is a great idea, and it would create a 'weakness' in your fleet if one of these ships is not protected against missiles. The attacker would have to find who is using defender modules and kill this ship. Of course, we are talking about reducing the damage of incoming missiles, not creating a module that can simply erase all missile dps. And of course, this would remplace the strange tracking disruptor change originaly planned. I believe that EvE is designed like chess : The main goal is to plan enemy's gestures and counter them. Having a mid slot that simply counter any types of weapon is against this idea. (ok you can still dps with smartbomb )
(Also : Bad idea to add T1 without associated BPOs !) |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
448
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 09:50:00 -
[492] - Quote
Altrue wrote:I'm against the idea of having a module in high slot that can protect your own ship, EvE is not working like that :) Look at the reps for example, logistic can't heal themselves. I think that beeing able to protect other ships is a great idea, and it would create a 'weakness' in your fleet if one of these ships is not protected against missiles. The attacker would have to find who is using defender modules and kill this ship. Of course, we are talking about reducing the damage of incoming missiles, not creating a module that can simply erase all missile dps. And of course, this would remplace the strange tracking disruptor change originaly planned. I believe that EvE is designed like chess : The main goal is to plan enemy's gestures and counter them. Having a mid slot that simply counter any types of weapon is against this idea. (ok you can still dps with smartbomb ) (Also : Bad idea to add T1 without associated BPOs !)
Actually, defensive modules in high-slots are one of the most balanced things possible, especially when requiring turret or missile slots, because it automatically becomes a choice between defense and dps (or RR).
Also as stated by SoniClover in a earlier post in this thread, CCP made the wise decision NOT to make Tracking Disruptors affect missiles (and the CSM was quite against it during the Townhall Meeting as well by the way). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Azura Solus
Canibus Liberum
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 10:11:00 -
[493] - Quote
Hey Team SuperFriends quick idea. Would it be possible to add in a search function to the LP stores. So like say i know what i want ie a EM-806 implant. And i can just search for it like market. Just a thought.
Now on topic after reviewing the up and coming wardec changes. Thank you for the price changes the way they are on sisi now seems to be decent and will still allow for small corps like mine to continue deccing. Now on the ally system i know you stated that you wanted to put some type of contract time limit to the ally system but couldn't get it in for inferno. I believe that that should be on the top of the list. Also i believe the defending corp should have to pay on that contract weekly as well. Just my opinion tho.
In closing i like the new changes made but i still believe there is miles to go with it. Will wait and see how bad things get when they come to live defiantly wont be deccing till the kinks are worked out. Thanks for the hard work and for keeping in contact with us so far. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
122
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 14:37:00 -
[494] - Quote
Rivqua wrote:@CCP SoniClover:
I notice the new shield boosters don't get affected by
A) Ship Boost Bonuses (Making them directly less useful on Minmatar instead of Caldari for example) (Intended to nerf Winmatar?) B) Are not affected by Blue Pills ?
Any comment. I realize it's late to post any changes now, but you could explain the intention for all to see ? :)
- Riv
The way bonuses are handled is inconsistent, and thus more difficult to work with. Streamlining this system is on our todo list, until then we try to deal with these cases on case by case bases, but it may be impossible/impractical to scale it completely for every single instance. Long story short, this is a known issue that we're doing our best to deal with until a complete overhaul can be done. |
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 22:52:00 -
[495] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Daniel Darkside wrote:I noticed that inventing the Drone Damage Amplifier II requires Caldari Encryption Methods. Since this is a drone module, should it require Gallente Encryption Methods? Yes, this was an oversight that I have rectified. Thanks for the heads up.
I asked this else, and will repeat it here. Considering that the Drone Interfacing skill increases the mining drones ability - could the DDA be expanded to include this? |
Azura Solus
Canibus Liberum
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.21 22:56:00 -
[496] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Daniel Darkside wrote:I noticed that inventing the Drone Damage Amplifier II requires Caldari Encryption Methods. Since this is a drone module, should it require Gallente Encryption Methods? Yes, this was an oversight that I have rectified. Thanks for the heads up. I asked this else, and will repeat it here. Considering that the Drone Interfacing skill increases the mining drones ability - could the DDA be expanded to include this?
Dont mine anymore myself could never go back after that first drake kill but i digress. I think that would be a good idea for the indy guys out there. Would give them options of minerr vs drones mods, but then again with out looking at numbers might not be worth it. Eitherway +1 on the idea |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
15
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 03:01:00 -
[497] - Quote
Question to CCP:
Are the Adaptive armor hardeners stacking penalized like other armor modules or are they not? |
Copine Callmeknau
Kangaroos With Frickin Lazerbeams Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
166
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 05:42:00 -
[498] - Quote
Copine Callmeknau wrote:I see a lot of dev responses here, but nothing about crap web drones being crap :p
Any word guys? Do you consider these drones balanced? Do you think the introduction of scout drones will result in more use of web drones? Sooooooo seen as you guys don't wanna answer this, I'm assuming they're going in as broken and useless as they currently are on SiSi?
Awesome There should be a rather awesome pic here |
Quesa
D00M. Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2012.05.22 22:18:00 -
[499] - Quote
I have a concern about the war-dec system and it's defender component.
I didn't notice (correct me if I'm wrong) an NPC cost associated for defending another Alliance. Won't this open up the field for defender corp griefing and dodging the war-dec cost by simply signing up to defend another alliance? |
Alyna Stormwind
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 06:31:00 -
[500] - Quote
The war dec system is still bad and so is CCP |
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University Ivy League
1050
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 10:53:00 -
[501] - Quote
Quesa wrote: I didn't notice (correct me if I'm wrong) an NPC cost associated for defending another Alliance. Won't this open up the field for defender corp griefing and dodging the war-dec cost by simply signing up to defend another alliance?
Yes, but does it matter? You can't pick which corps decide to be the aggressor against your target. So if you try to go the "get hi-sec wars for cheap by being an ally", you're going to have limited selection of potential wardecs to pick from.
(I still think there should be a 10-20M ISK NPC fee, paid by the defender, for each ally brought into the war. Maybe even a 5-10M ISK NPC fee for the ally to apply to participate in a war. Mostly as an ISK sink and a minor limiter on the number of allies brought in. But I don't feel there should be limits on # of allies accepted or the # of wars that you can join as an ally. Not until the system matures and we can cancel ally contracts and ally contracts have contracted time limits of 2-7 days with renewals.)
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
522
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 11:14:00 -
[502] - Quote
The wars in the 'all wars' and corporation's war history should also show allies. Currently this is only show for the 'our war' tab of the corp panel. So basically only the parties involved are able to see the current allies, but I think this should be publicly available for obvious reasons.
Also please add some way for corporations to track which Director or CEO handled wardec related actions. At the very least add their name in the War mail.
Scrapyard Bob wrote:Quesa wrote: I didn't notice (correct me if I'm wrong) an NPC cost associated for defending another Alliance. Won't this open up the field for defender corp griefing and dodging the war-dec cost by simply signing up to defend another alliance?
Yes, but does it matter? You can't pick which corps decide to be the aggressor against your target. So if you try to go the "get hi-sec wars for cheap by being an ally", you're going to have limited selection of potential wardecs to pick from. (I still think there should be a 10-20M ISK NPC fee, paid by the defender, for each ally brought into the war. Maybe even a 5-10M ISK NPC fee for the ally to apply to participate in a war. Mostly as an ISK sink and a minor limiter on the number of allies brought in. But I don't feel there should be limits on # of allies accepted or the # of wars that you can join as an ally. Not until the system matures and we can cancel ally contracts and ally contracts have contracted time limits of 2-7 days with renewals.)
I think you guys seriously overestimate the 'problem' here. Could one of the devs please poke CCP Diagoras to share some statistics with the community on the impact of the new war dec system?
Also for the attacker having to deal with numerous opportunist 'allies' (that won't be any useful for the defender other then chaff), is one of the consequences that come with a bad choice in wardec victim. Making choices and having to deal with their consequences is EXACTLY what makes this new wardec system such a big improvement..
Aggressor corporations NEED to run the risk of pissing off a corporation that isn't impressed, calls the war mutual and then swamps the attacker with pesky allies. If you don't want that to happen, either behave and don't wardec, or pick better targets. Besides, any decent corp should be able to deal with most of these some opportunists effortlessly. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 15:24:00 -
[503] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:The wars in the 'all wars' and corporation's war history should also show allies. Currently this is only show for the 'our war' tab of the corp panel. So basically only the parties involved are able to see the current allies, but I think this should be publicly available for obvious reasons.
it is available for all.
I'm guessing you're a director so you'll get the window to send your ally offer to the defender if you click the ally button, but the mouse hint tells you how many allies are at the war.
If you double click on the entry you'll get a war report and there's also a ally button you can click to see the allies at that war.
If you're not a director, the ally button will pop up a list of allies.
It's on my backlog to make it easier for directors to see the list of allies from the war list
By the way, the team is gathering data on wars. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
524
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:10:00 -
[504] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:The wars in the 'all wars' and corporation's war history should also show allies. Currently this is only show for the 'our war' tab of the corp panel. So basically only the parties involved are able to see the current allies, but I think this should be publicly available for obvious reasons.
it is available for all. I'm guessing you're a director so you'll get the window to send your ally offer to the defender if you click the ally button, but the mouse hint tells you how many allies are at the war. If you double click on the entry you'll get a war report and there's also a ally button you can click to see the allies at that war. If you're not a director, the ally button will pop up a list of allies. It's on my backlog to make it easier for directors to see the list of allies from the war list By the way, the team is gathering data on wars.
Ah I see it now, VERY NICE!!! I was confused mainly because of the nested view of 'our wars' showing the allies and didn't see something similar with the other wars.
While I'm totally against public killboards for the amount of effortless intel and the incentive to stupid e-peen behaviour they provide, I'll admit that the war-report looks very good.
But the goal of setting empire ablaze certainly seems to work. There are so many wars, the '50 most recent wars' only goes back a single day. It would be nice if we could scroll back a bit further then that, perhaps similar as to how we can jump back to earlier entries in the transactions log of the Wallet.
I hope to see that data shared with the community. I'd love to know if any corporations are using the 'mutual' option to nail the attackers to the wall Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:16:00 -
[505] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:The wars in the 'all wars' and corporation's war history should also show allies. Currently this is only show for the 'our war' tab of the corp panel. So basically only the parties involved are able to see the current allies, but I think this should be publicly available for obvious reasons.
it is available for all. I'm guessing you're a director so you'll get the window to send your ally offer to the defender if you click the ally button, but the mouse hint tells you how many allies are at the war. If you double click on the entry you'll get a war report and there's also a ally button you can click to see the allies at that war. If you're not a director, the ally button will pop up a list of allies. It's on my backlog to make it easier for directors to see the list of allies from the war list By the way, the team is gathering data on wars. Ah I see it now, VERY NICE!!! I was confused mainly because of the nested view of 'our wars' showing the allies and didn't see something similar with the other wars. While I'm totally against public killboards for the amount of effortless intel and the incentive to stupid e-peen behaviour they provide, I'll admit that the war-report looks very good. But the goal of setting empire ablaze certainly seems to work. There are so many wars, the '50 most recent wars' only goes back a single day. It would be nice if we could scroll back a bit further then that, perhaps similar as to how we can jump back to earlier entries in the transactions log of the Wallet. I hope to see that data shared with the community. I'd love to know if any corporations are using the 'mutual' option to nail the attackers to the wall
Thank you:) I'm also very happy about the War Report!
We didn't want to clutter the "All wars" list too much, that's why we don't list allies directly there while "Our Wars" is something that's more informal to you, I guess, so we display everything there.
We also have in our backlog to be able to see older wars than the 50 most recent! It used to be so that you'd open the All Wars tab and nothing would show up until you had searched for a specific corp/alliance so displaying 50 most recent wars was just our first try.
In my opinion the data won't be too useful for everybody until the new system has been out for a few weeks, my guess is that the first week is more of people just testing how everything works and such. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
524
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:23:00 -
[506] - Quote
I do think however that the kill-categories are a bit poorly organized. Having T1 cruisers, HACs and T3 in a single category doesn't makes it very useful. Better would be allowing the main categories to fold out further into subcategories.
And perhaps adding a button on the entry for opening the war-report? It shames me to say it, but I wasn't aware of the war-report, simply because it didn't occur to me to try double-clicking it. And the entries don't have any context menu's either.
I agree on the data, though. It's just that CCP isn't always keen on providing actual statistics for ongoing discussions in the the community. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:25:00 -
[507] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:I do think however that the kill-categories are a bit poorly organized. Having T1 cruisers, HACs and T3 in a single category doesn't makes it very useful. Better would be allowing the main categories to fold out further into subcategories.
And perhaps adding a button on the entry for opening the war-report? It shames me to say it, but I wasn't aware of the war-report, simply because it didn't occur to me to try double-clicking it. And the entries don't have any context menu's either.
whaaaaat! your new mantra should me "when in doubt, double click"
we're trying to stay away from too much right clicking CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:34:00 -
[508] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I do think however that the kill-categories are a bit poorly organized. Having T1 cruisers, HACs and T3 in a single category doesn't makes it very useful. Better would be allowing the main categories to fold out further into subcategories.
And perhaps adding a button on the entry for opening the war-report? It shames me to say it, but I wasn't aware of the war-report, simply because it didn't occur to me to try double-clicking it. And the entries don't have any context menu's either.
whaaaaat! your new mantra should me "when in doubt, double click" we're trying to stay away from too much right clicking
Nit-picking here: Double-clicking on the entries opening the war-report a tad of loading-lag feels a bit unresponsive. So I still think adding a little war-report button to the right would be nice. That would also take away right-clicking. Besides, I like the new wardec icons, they look very good. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:38:00 -
[509] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:I do think however that the kill-categories are a bit poorly organized. Having T1 cruisers, HACs and T3 in a single category doesn't makes it very useful. Better would be allowing the main categories to fold out further into subcategories.
And perhaps adding a button on the entry for opening the war-report? It shames me to say it, but I wasn't aware of the war-report, simply because it didn't occur to me to try double-clicking it. And the entries don't have any context menu's either.
whaaaaat! your new mantra should me "when in doubt, double click" we're trying to stay away from too much right clicking Nit-picking here: Double-clicking on the entries opening the war-report a tad of loading-lag feels a bit unresponsive. So I still think adding a little war-report button to the right would be nice. That would also take away right-clicking. Besides, I like the new wardec icons, they look very good.
hey I fixed the loading lag (I think) - you'll get the new version on Tuesday! CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:42:00 -
[510] - Quote
Another good idea would be adding fold categories to the war history for ongoing wars and finished wars. Just look at RvB's war history and try to find their open war against all the other closed ones, to see why this would be nice.
Also, older pre-Inferno kills are available in the war report, but they don't seem to always be added tot he graph. How far back are these added anyway?
And what does the 0 ISK, left opposed to the total kill value, stand for? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:46:00 -
[511] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:Another good idea would be adding fold categories to the war history for ongoing wars and finished wars. Just look at RvB's war history and try to find their open war against all the other closed ones, to see why this would be nice.
Also, older pre-Inferno kills are available in the war report, but they don't seem to always be added tot he graph. How far back are these added anyway?
If you search for them in "All Wars" you get only active wars. We wanted to list the whole thing when you show info.
Old kill reports are in the war report yes, but we didn't have ISK value in kill reports until Tuesday and that's what displayed in the graph.
I've really want RvB to start a new war so they'll have more accurate data, and so that red isn't colored blue and blue colored red CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:55:00 -
[512] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Another good idea would be adding fold categories to the war history for ongoing wars and finished wars. Just look at RvB's war history and try to find their open war against all the other closed ones, to see why this would be nice.
Also, older pre-Inferno kills are available in the war report, but they don't seem to always be added tot he graph. How far back are these added anyway? If you search for them in "All Wars" you get only active wars. We wanted to list the whole thing when you show info. Old kill reports are in the war report yes, but we didn't have ISK value in kill reports until Tuesday and that's what displayed in the graph. I've really want RvB to start a new war so they'll have more accurate data, and so that red isn't colored blue and blue colored red
Will those ISK values of old kill reports be added retroactively? That would be pretty awesome.
But looking at RvB's prolific slaughter, I notice it's not hard to reach a point where the kills are no longer shown (50 kills or so?). Is this going to be extended, searchable/filterable, etc? IMHO too much easy access to info like that sucks, but it's not like most of it isn't already available on public killboards anyway.
As for the pwetty war-report button... please?!
I bet though if you'd ask nicely Mangala will perhaps even consider rebooting the RvB war for Inferno. They owe CCP one for showing the RvB splash ad the very day they wardecced EVE- Uni (and they got their new allaince logos). Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 16:57:00 -
[513] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Another good idea would be adding fold categories to the war history for ongoing wars and finished wars. Just look at RvB's war history and try to find their open war against all the other closed ones, to see why this would be nice.
Also, older pre-Inferno kills are available in the war report, but they don't seem to always be added tot he graph. How far back are these added anyway? If you search for them in "All Wars" you get only active wars. We wanted to list the whole thing when you show info. Old kill reports are in the war report yes, but we didn't have ISK value in kill reports until Tuesday and that's what displayed in the graph. I've really want RvB to start a new war so they'll have more accurate data, and so that red isn't colored blue and blue colored red Will those ISK values of old kill reports be added retroactively? That would be pretty awesome. But looking at RvB's prolific slaughter, I notice it's not hard to reach a point where the kills are no longer shown (50 kills or so?). Is this going to be extended, searchable/filterable, etc? IMHO too much easy access to info like that sucks, but it's not like most of it isn't already available on public killboards anyway. As for the pwetty war-report button... please?! I bet though if you'd ask nicely Mangala will perhaps even consider rebooting the RvB war for Inferno. They owe CCP one for showing the RvB splash add the very day they wardecced EVE- Uni.
no those are ISK values at the time of the kill so it's not really possible to go back in time with it.
You can see all kills, I don't know what you're talking about with only 50 kills..
If you want to see a list of all kills at once, you have to uncheck the show graph box, because we can't have an "all kills" option in the graph because it would ruin the display of it, obviously. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:02:00 -
[514] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:
no those are ISK values at the time of the kill so it's not really possible to go back in time with it.
You can see all kills, I don't know what you're talking about with only 50 kills..
If you want to see a list of all kills at once, you have to uncheck the show graph box, because we can't have an "all kills" option in the graph because it would ruin the display of it, obviously.
Uhm, graph or no graph, the list of entries below it is pretty finite in the number shown. Ofcourse for RvB for examply you can't really go and display 50.000 kills in that list. But with the currently limited number of kills show, I can't even go back and see what they killed yesterday. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
280
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:05:00 -
[515] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:Another good idea would be adding fold categories to the war history for ongoing wars and finished wars. Just look at RvB's war history and try to find their open war against all the other closed ones, to see why this would be nice.
Also, older pre-Inferno kills are available in the war report, but they don't seem to always be added tot he graph. How far back are these added anyway? If you search for them in "All Wars" you get only active wars. We wanted to list the whole thing when you show info. Old kill reports are in the war report yes, but we didn't have ISK value in kill reports until Tuesday and that's what displayed in the graph. I've really want RvB to start a new war so they'll have more accurate data, and so that red isn't colored blue and blue colored red Can you open up two war reports at once on Sisi i could not when I tested it a min ago. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:11:00 -
[516] - Quote
Pre-Inferno there was also a nice timeline showing kills&losses, I think it was on the Kill Report tab of the Corporation panel. This seems to have disappeared. Will it return at a later point as a part of the war report? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:14:00 -
[517] - Quote
you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
281
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:19:00 -
[518] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs Graph like on the war reports would be a great forth tab
|
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:21:00 -
[519] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs Graph like on the war reports would be a great forth tab
graph for all corp kills/losses? CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
281
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:24:00 -
[520] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs Graph like on the war reports would be a great forth tab graph for all corp kills/losses? yes like the war report has so it can be tracked would be better over time though like most War reports have.
Most trackers have a time element to it we killed two ships 2 days ago and lost 3 to day and there isk value type story. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:35:00 -
[521] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs
Well perhaps that timeline was already removed back in Escalation, but there definitely WAS a timeline on top of the kill reports tab of the corporation panel. It was a big blue bar with little lines showing when what was killed. I think it was on a scale of 6 months.
As for showing only 50 entries... how many should it show? Certainly not all 50 thousand of them, I hope! If I go to the RvB, war report it only scrolls down, both with and without graph, to a kill that happened at 14:00 today at the bottom end of the list. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
2363
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:39:00 -
[522] - Quote
Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs Well perhaps that timeline was already removed back in Escalation, but there definitely WAS a timeline on top of the kill reports tab of the corporation panel. It was a big blue bar with little lines showing when what was killed. I think it was on a scale of 6 months. As for showing only 50 entries... how many should it show? Certainly not all 50 thousand of them, I hope! If I go to the RvB, war report it only scrolls down, both with and without graph, to a kill that happened at 14:00 today at the bottom end of the list.
There's no Kill Report tab.. the Kill Reports were first introduced with Inferno (the report you pop up from the war lists).
I think you're just talking about the UI Design picture from SoniClover's dev blog and was also shown at Fanfest.. a photoshop made design that was never implemented? CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
525
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:53:00 -
[523] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Tobiaz wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs Well perhaps that timeline was already removed back in Escalation, but there definitely WAS a timeline on top of the kill reports tab of the corporation panel. It was a big blue bar with little lines showing when what was killed. I think it was on a scale of 6 months. As for showing only 50 entries... how many should it show? Certainly not all 50 thousand of them, I hope! If I go to the RvB, war report it only scrolls down, both with and without graph, to a kill that happened at 14:00 today at the bottom end of the list. There's no Kill Report tab.. the Kill Reports were first introduced with Inferno (the report you pop up from the war lists). I think you're just talking about the UI Design picture from SoniClover's dev blog and was also shown at Fanfest.. a photoshop made design that was never implemented?
No, it was something in the game.
It could be very well it wasn't called Kill Reports tab back then but I think 'kills & losses' or something? Just the tab in the corporation window showing a list of ships that your corp members lost to various reasons (like CONCORD). It used to have a blue timeline at the top of it and now it's gone. Though I'll admit I don't know when it dissappeared. It might even happened at Crucible. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
281
|
Posted - 2012.05.26 17:56:00 -
[524] - Quote
Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:you can only open one War Report at a time
you should be able to see all kills, I don't understand why you're only seeing 50
and I have no idea what timeline you're talking about. there were 4 tabs under Wars pre inferno - our wars - all wars - kills - losses
I combined kills and losses to war reports and added a drop down box to choose between kills or losses so no change except fewer tabs Graph like on the war reports would be a great forth tab graph for all corp kills/losses? yes like the war report has so it can be tracked would be better over time though like most War reports have. Most trackers have a time element to it we killed two ships 2 days ago and lost 3 to day and there isk value type story. Our wars needs to show past wars then have a green back ground for the active ones. Edit: Searching for an alliane/ corp in the "All Wars" tab in the corp interface does not show the clicked results this is on sisi do I need to bug report this? Number of entrys show or how far back the list goes is needed
bug report 136809 |
Adaahh Gee
Rock jockeyz
37
|
Posted - 2012.05.30 07:05:00 -
[525] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Drone damage module - the main reason to add this was to have all the main weapon types have a corresponding damage amplifying module. Plus, it's not like drones are overwhelming anything at the moment, so giving them a bit of love is ok. It's a low slot module. I'm at home, and I can't remember the exact fitting requirements, will post them tomorrow (for this and other modules).
Maybe there should be a module for missile boats, the equivilant of a tracking enhancer for turrets, a low slot module that makes it easier to put damage onto small, fast moving turrets, the same way as Flare catalyst and Rigor catalyst rigs. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page] |