Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 69 post(s) |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:06:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi everyone,
Please find a note of the new features and changes currently on Sisi. Please note, that this is not an exhaustive list nor is it a final list of 1.1 features. Teams may add new things over the next week (for instance, GoD will add Unified Inventory fixes and changes).
Superfriends
GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never be more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Trilambda
GÇó Minmatar V3 GÇó Re-designed Caldari Drake GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship. GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
Game of Drones
GÇó Adding some new items to FW LP stores GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:16:00 -
[2] - Quote
How is a reduced cycle time on Reactive Armor Hardeners a good thing? |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:24:00 -
[3] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:How is a reduced cycle time on Reactive Armor Hardeners a good thing?
Decreases the time between modification of resistances. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Spyker Slater
Bliksem Bende
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances.
It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well?
|
Krelian Lann
The Zohar Project
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 11:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
I disagree with:
GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared)
It seems like an attempt at negating the huge cost against wardeccing huge Alliances but wasn't that the purpose, to prevent people from easily deccing entities like Goons and TEST, just to get kills in Jita ?
I don't really understand the reasoning here. |
Cathrine Kenchov
Ice Cold Ellites
11
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Hopefully this:
All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter. will make my Guardian into a candy red & sun gold 0wnmobile that it was |
im mrmessy
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:18:00 -
[7] - Quote
How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying |
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe Against ALL Authorities
320
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs
OMG finally ! I might even rejoin Gallente FW again.
GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
I also would love to see the return of the shiny Golden Fleet FIRE FRIENDSHIP TORPEDOES ! Louis's epic skill guide v1.1 |
Greg Valanti
Looney Clones
48
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
im mrmessy wrote:How about something that fixes the wardec pile ons. Goonswarm has 37 corps allied with one war target. I have no idea on how to fix this or make it less annoying
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
|
Trading Unknown
Republic University Minmatar Republic
18
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:42:00 -
[10] - Quote
Quote:GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship.
How's this work? No more zooming to zero when your ship dies? |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
301
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:45:00 -
[11] - Quote
Trading Unknown wrote:Quote:GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship.
How's this work? No more zooming to zero when your ship dies? Yes it keeps same focus now when ejecting but if you reboard it jumps back out to 20K range |
Di Jiensai
Domination. En Garde
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 12:54:00 -
[12] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
why? If you hire mercs to fight on your side of a war, why would they be out after 2 weeks if the war is still on? Whats the reason for this change?
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)
Why? This is eve, why should you not be able to wardec someone and then hire mercs to fight for you? With this change, that will not be possible anymore. I can see no reason at all to take this option away from your players, care to give a reason?
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared)
Why? 500m is pocket change for big alliances. or even medium ones for that matter. do you seriously think 500m is a lot in todays eve?
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
Why? There must be a better way for additional isk sinks. What is the reasoning behind this change? Again, this is eve, a sandbox game. why do you see the need to restrict warring corporations/alliances in this way?
I dont like these changes at all. Maybe it would be easier to accept them if there was some kind of explanation. Or at least we could offer counterarguments then.
tl;dr CCP implements lex goonswarm. or lex AAA. or lex [insert big alliance here]
not cool. |
Sarmatiko
733
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:01:00 -
[13] - Quote
I only hope that current Vagabond, Rapier, Tempest Fleet Issue models are temporary and CCP decided not to invest too many resources and effort, planning future redesign of these ships.. Actually there will be shitstorm anyway after masses will log in their fugly vagabonds in 1.1, hang on to your helmets
Also like some posters already pointed - why Angel Cartel npc ships have Thukker Tribe logos and color scheme? |
Daneel Trevize
The Scope Gallente Federation
138
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:07:00 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote: GÇó Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship. GÇó Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out. GÇó All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.
GÇó Removing EWAR from all FW NPCs
Instantly 100x better than 1.0.
Any details on when the Guardian will have the front repainted correctly? (Red or Gold but not black) |
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ...
|
Mata1s
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
205
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:16:00 -
[16] - Quote
Many of the V3 Minmatar ships look absolutely awesome (The Tech2 and Faction Tempest Hulls in particular also the Wolf <3), however the T1 versions look too bright and very cartoony.
The Core Complexion ship skins (Sabre, Rapier, Scimitar etc.) however are just horrible the Thrasher and Cyclone hulls are two of the few awesome looking Minmatar hulls and the Claymore and Sabre especially have had all their character removed by making them pitch black. |
|
CCP Paradox
293
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
As for the Super Friends stuff, a dev blog has been written and we're hoping it will be out pretty soon so we can discuss it further. CCP Paradox | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Super Friends @CCP_Paradox |
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
NeoTheo wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Hi everyone, GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ...
This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response.
Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table.
Think it through with this example.
9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance.
Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.
Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:28:00 -
[19] - Quote
Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
filingo rapongo
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
14
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:28:00 -
[20] - Quote
glad to see goons are ensuring that nothing like t20 ever happens again by placing goons into dev positions.
devswarm, its not good for goons - its good for all of us |
|
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote: This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response.
Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table.
Think it through with this example.
9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance.
Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.
Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.
Now its no longer "pay to grief" for small wars, for small conflicts its fixed as designed thats cool.
If you are large allaince however it iseems you can still pick and choose your terms - LAME. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:35:00 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance.
The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place!
Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani.
In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table.
And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out.
You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
NeoTheo
Dark Materials
2
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:38:00 -
[23] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...
I will be interested to read the "dev blog", back when you guys initially stated your goals for revamping the wardec system you stated one thing - this changes that, the frustrating thing however is that its pretty much in faviour of the agressor.
People can talk about things being fair and locking folks in to combat - what i liked about the mutual thing however is that it actaully put some REAL consiquence behind that "declare" button, it would stop people doing it on a whim. Now your taking that away and we are back to some micky mouse system where people can dock up for 2 weeks if they want.
Thats a shame, because for all the nice mechanics you put in. they dont mean a dam thing if there is no consiquence for hitting the "declare" button. Troll wars in effect are back. |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
522
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:42:00 -
[24] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance. The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place! Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani. In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table. And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out. You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy.
Which devblog are you referring to? CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
Kashe Kadeshe
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:44:00 -
[25] - Quote
Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful.
|
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1827
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:50:00 -
[26] - Quote
Just to quickly cover the changes coming to the Ally system, if the costs are kept fairly low, it shouldnt be much of a problem, even when they scale exponentially. After all, someone who *wants* to fight the aggressor will likely just give the defender the ISK if its less than the cost of a wardec.
Also, as a real-world example, we had something like 30+ allies in a recent war, all offered free assistance, and none of who were involved in any kills/losses - its important to note that this isn't the 'mercenary marketplace' which was mentioned, and that should come later, but for now its a way to provide some repercussions for the aggressor.
All this will do is 'moderate' the numbers a little so the defender needs to be a little more selective.
Free 'mercs' != regular mercs who you hire to do stuff. Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
134
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
Regarding the war dec system changes being some goonswarm conspiracy - all of these changes were decided (and most implemented) long before this particular goonswarm war even started. Do you really think we add new stuff a few days before a release just because of one war?
Regarding defenders now being defenseless, etc. This change will make it a little bit more difficult to defend, but what we have to do is strike a balance between defender options and incentives to declare war. We can give defenders all kinds of shiny new tools to defend themselves, but if they result in nobody declaring war anymore, then why bother? Yes, we want the system as a whole to have more consequences, but that cuts both ways. |
|
Ben Fenix
5
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:55:00 -
[28] - Quote
Even though I've always liked the idea of seeing missiles come from the old Drake's build in Missile Launchers I think the redesign looks pretty good. I'm kind of satisfied with it.
But my favorite feature on SISI right now is the Missile Flares. Finally Missiles aren't only almost unnoticable smokey trails on dark backgrounds.
Now just please redesign the Torpedo Explosion Effects, because they just look silly for a missile of that size. Almost undistinguishable compared to cruise or heavy missiles. Ben Fenix http://benplus.de |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
2003
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Jade Constantine wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind... Seriously Goliath. This does look exactly like a change to suit one particular alliance. The changes you have proposed make it impossible for a smaller organization to add significant allied numbers against an incoming wardec from a 9000 person alliance (goonswarm) without paying massively more isk than Goonswarm have to pay to make the wardec in the first place! Your devblog could have been drafted by Mittani. In addition the mutual wardec change means that its literally impossible to bring any kind of pressure to bare on a much larger attacker that would make them want to actually surrender at some point in the future. Because you can't bring in allies on mutual then you can't bring pressure to the table. And if you don't go mutual then the attacker can simply stop paying the moment they want out. You have utterly defanged the Inferno Wardec system and turned it into a joke just because one particular large alliance is currently wardecced against 70 or so allies across a couple of outgoing "griefing" decs and I have to tell you it looks damned fishy. Which devblog are you referring to?
I mispoke "patchnotes" :
I have underlined the bits that give a huge advantage to Goonswarm in the changes.
CCP Goliath wrote:Superfriends
GÇó Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks GÇó Allies can not be part of mutual wars GÇô defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period) GÇó Cap on War Dec cost GÇô it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared) GÇó New UI control for War options in war lists GÇó Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war GÇô hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war. GÇó Added new skill GÇô Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners
Perhaps you'd care to explain how it is reasonable that:
A) it will become fiscally impractical to add enough allies (100+) into a war that only costs the attacker 50m isk to declare to make a difference.
B) by removing allies from mutual status you make it impossible to trap a very large attacker into a war with genuine consequernce.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom Epic Inferno Wardec Test, Sign up and shoot Goons for free! |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
135
|
Posted - 2012.06.11 13:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
Kashe Kadeshe wrote:Spyker Slater wrote:CCP Goliath wrote:Decreases the time between modification of resistances. It will also eat my cap faster, except if you decreased that as well? Is the incoming damage detection cycle separate from the cap consumption cycle? If so, it sounds like a nice thing, but further clarification would be helpful.
No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5). |
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 28 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |