Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Ryunosuke Kusanagi
40
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:29:00 -
[211] - Quote
I wrote a thing, it has many words:
A big thing with many words
The reason I chose to do it this way, is because there is a limit on the amount of characters that one can post on the forums, and there are many words in this (7 pages in fact) |
BlankStare
Aideron Technologies Sspectre
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:30:00 -
[212] - Quote
Posted my opinion of the Dust/EVE session on the Dust forums: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=232811#post232811
You need to be in the beta to see it but it basically boils down to:
- The lack of decent grouping/social tools in Dust is worrying
- That Corporations are not yet implemented and apparently still in the conceptual phase is very, very worrying
- That the CSM hasn't pushed the inclusion of these tools [b]as a very high priority[b] is deeply worrying.
In EVE, the players and their interactions are the game. That in Dust such interaction is not going to be possible (it would seem) from release leaves me doubting whether Dust will ever be considered as being as important a part of New Eden's society as EVE is.
I have grave concerns that CCP is not serious about Dust being a success. |
Magic Crisp
Amarrian Micro Devices Silent Infinity
38
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:38:00 -
[213] - Quote
uhm, for the starbases part.
Please consider that many of us are using currently POSs for fast storage, because we don't have to dock up to mess with the cargo. this is very useful when we're emptying PI offices, or unloading ratting loot.
Also, the forcefield allows a staging area before warping in to anywhere, where we can bump each other.
SMAs can also hold various ships for different proposes, which doesn't require docking, but allows us fast reshipping within the system.
Please consider these. |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
9045
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:40:00 -
[214] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Mag's wrote:So, just how many pirates are in the CSM?
If none, then who of you are backing the pirate corner?
This is not looking good. no pirates but i think alek is a merc... so half pirate... Ahh yes, the guy that thought it would be great and worried about can flippers.
Like I said, it's not looking good.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
733
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:46:00 -
[215] - Quote
Ms Michigan wrote:Yeep wrote:Fon Revedhort wrote:Quote:>> Hot-drops are too easy - I think we're reaching a place where there's a broad consensus on this being not a cool outcome for everyone except the guy jumping in.
Posted - 2011.05.12 16:01:00 So?.. As someone who was on both sides of a capital hot drop back when the capacitor penalty from jumping in actually meant something I'd be sad to see the element of suprise disappear. However I would agree that the pentalties for the aggressor need to be adjusted given the availability of T2 and the size of capital fleets. This is my whole thought as well. I have thought for a long time the problem isn't low sec gate camps so much as it is that fights are so short. Yeep references T2 and cap fleets. These are perfect examples to me of DPS being such that you just don't live long in a fight. All these ideas of escalating gate guns seem to me to be band-aids on DPS and the time fights last. Maybe there is a way to buff defense ACCROSS THE BOARD (or NERF DPS) so that fights just LAST LONGER IN GENERAL in every ship class. To me. PVP in EVE is getting to the point where (and is problematic BECAUSE) fights just go so damn fast. It is like playing a game of chess in 20 seconds. Whatever happened to the game taking a little bit longer and the tension building and giving people time to do more than die? What the hell? Eve is already too overtanked, ships take a crapload of time to actually pop. It takes Mach well over a minute to kill a single fugly Drake. How is that short?
Nerfing DPS or boosting tank even more is one of the most detrimental things one can ever come up with.
It's extremely stupid to think prolonged fights would also give more 'tension'. I've been playing since late '05 where we had like 1/3 of current EHP and guess what? - the game was much better in terms of DPS/tank balance. 14 |
Lyron-Baktos
Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle
287
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:48:00 -
[216] - Quote
still wanting a dev blog with a lot more info from the Art team. Also can't wait to see what else is done to the Amarr
Regarding the Amarr gold and how it was not supposed to be that shiny, did you not think that people would get use to it after it being that way for years? Pretty stupid to have something be wrong for so many years and then finally change it after people have grown to love it but I guess that's par for the course for CCP On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton where the dripping patchouli was more than scent, It was a sun-á |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2714
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 16:55:00 -
[217] - Quote
Jade Constantine wrote:
Still I can't shake the nagging feeling that whats in the pipeline for winter is not actually that much or particularly exciting. Seleene said it best in the opening section about waiting for the "money shot". I didn't really see it.
Perhaps the starbase feature will be absolutely incredible and change a whole lot of gameplay at various levels of eve and make it all worth while. Perhaps. But after seeing "war" trumpeted as the centerpiece for Inferno only to be represented by increased dec fees and a nerfed ally system I'm a bit doubtful.
This is going to be a criticism echoed by many as we go into Winter. But let's take a look back - this new direction CCP's gone in terms of development practice is a direct response to the "Jesus feature" era - where the "new shiny" trumped the less sexy iterations that were badly needed for so many features. Players demanded CCP focus on the core game, and support their already-released content, instead of always chasing the next best thing.
Its time to allow them to do just that. I for one am perfectly happy with the winter agenda - its finishing the other half of Inferno, essentially. Hell, I'd be fine with them calling it Inferno 2.0, and not even bothering with the fanfare of a brand new title. The point is, you're absolutely right - we could use more work on the war dec system, Faction Warfare CERTAINLY needs to have its lingering core weaknesses adressed, and features such as player-to-player contracts could have PROFOUND impacts on 0.0 alliance business relationships, and introduce a real mercenary marketplace, complete with a functioning bounty hunting system. (in fact, player to player contracts is one of the must underrated features that I believe could unlock immense amounts of emergent gameplay with even just a few concrete contract styles.)
I've been following player feedback temperatures closely for over a year now, and I vividly remember the bittervet outcries that CCP was catering to new players, chasing shiny avatars, spending too much time on Dust, and ignoring their core base.
Thankfully, they listened. I think we're kidding ourselves to think that something like Faction Warfare, or 0.0 sovereignty, or new POS's, could EVER be deployed intact within a single expansion. Many have argued that CCP should commit a team to a feature permanently once deployed, so that groups like the Incursion community gets the long-term supported needed to thrive. While i think this is unrealistic for a number of reason, at least doubling up a pair of expansions on a single feature set (war themed, in 2012's case) is a refreshing compromise.
Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
744
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:09:00 -
[218] - Quote
Markus Reese wrote:Reading this really surprized me, Comments as follows. Some were well on the ball, but the live events topic got to me, as I keep my experience from the sansha events as the highpoint of my time in eve.
Most importantly, I think can get into where they were talking about live events and just sat talking about the caravans. The most success for live events were the sansha incursions and barely touched on with more people showing up for them than any fleet battle ever to occur in null security. Largest fleet fight was a bit over 2000, but largest live event was when kuvakei attacked yulai and the response to it was alot larger and was pretty much open to all players.
You have to understand, the Incursions took place before I was at the company. I am in no position to comment on them in any official capacity. The caravans were something I was personally involved with and responsible for. We talked a lot about lore events (remember the 3 kinds - CCP events, Lore events, Player Run events) but the purpose of the conversation wasn't to reminisce, it was to gauge response to make future planning easier. CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
266
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:13:00 -
[219] - Quote
CSM minutes wrote:
Two step pointed out that a big barrier for new players was that most of the Incursion organizing was done through chat channels and not as much by corps and alliances, which made it harder for people to know where to go to join the better Incursion groups.
Interesting theory Two Step but your hypothesis falls flat in that the HI SEC Incursions which utilize chats have survived where the lo/NULL Incursions which relied on corps/alliances have absolutely died. The barriers to entry for the Incursion chats are alot less an obstacle ( what chat asks for API verification? ) even though there is no mechanic for advertising them in Eve. I think what you see as a barrier to entry actually was viewed as the opposite to many fed up with corp/alliance politics ( not that there is any lack of policking in the Incursion communities unortunely but it is easier to escape/ignore & contine to be part of the community )
=========================================================
EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents. EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
|
CCP Goliath
C C P C C P Alliance
744
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:15:00 -
[220] - Quote
Vera Algaert wrote: Live events was one of those meetings of no consequence - CCP Goliath thinks Live Events are cool, the CSM thinks Live Events are cool but nobody has any illusion that CCP will actually divert resources to Live Events in the foreseeable future, so they will continue being a spare-time hobby of CCP employees.
The only reason that session did probably make it on the agenda at all was as a pointer to CCP that players would like to see more resources assigned to Live Events (and that Goliath has the CSM behind him for whatever that may be worth), not to have an actual discussion on Live Events (what is there to discuss when all you can do is nod at each other and say "yeah, that would be really cool, if only we could actually do it....").
You need to cheer up buddy! All your posts in this thread have been so negative!
Live Events meeting was far from a meeting of no consequence. Coming up with, advertising and running live events is pretty challenging, but to be honest I don't think it would be a worthwhile full time position to create in the company. Firstly it requires input and effort from too many parties for it to be just one person - you need content to approve and create story arcs or lore references, you need programmers and authorers to make stuff for you, you need participants sometimes numbering over 100, etc. CCP gives us plenty of support and expects nothing but the best in terms of results from these events, but end of the day, our contracted jobs take priority which is why progress is probably slower than everyone would like. That's not to say that nothing is happening or will happen, which is what you're indicating here. I and others love doing events with players and if we use some of our spare time to do it, I say that's a good thing! CCP Goliath | QA Director | @CCP_Goliath |
|
|
Highauger's animated corpse
Eve Defence Force
27
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:25:00 -
[221] - Quote
CCP Goliath wrote:Vera Algaert wrote: Live events was one of those meetings of no consequence - CCP Goliath thinks Live Events are cool, the CSM thinks Live Events are cool but nobody has any illusion that CCP will actually divert resources to Live Events in the foreseeable future, so they will continue being a spare-time hobby of CCP employees.
The only reason that session did probably make it on the agenda at all was as a pointer to CCP that players would like to see more resources assigned to Live Events (and that Goliath has the CSM behind him for whatever that may be worth), not to have an actual discussion on Live Events (what is there to discuss when all you can do is nod at each other and say "yeah, that would be really cool, if only we could actually do it....").
You need to cheer up buddy! All your posts in this thread have been so negative! Live Events meeting was far from a meeting of no consequence. Coming up with, advertising and running live events is pretty challenging, but to be honest I don't think it would be a worthwhile full time position to create in the company. Firstly it requires input and effort from too many parties for it to be just one person - you need content to approve and create story arcs or lore references, you need programmers and authorers to make stuff for you, you need participants sometimes numbering over 100, etc. CCP gives us plenty of support and expects nothing but the best in terms of results from these events, but end of the day, our contracted jobs take priority which is why progress is probably slower than everyone would like. That's not to say that nothing is happening or will happen, which is what you're indicating here. I and others love doing events with players and if we use some of our spare time to do it, I say that's a good thing!
this, good work, keep it up |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
733
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:31:00 -
[222] - Quote
mini brutalis wrote:The state of EvE
Page 85 "Ytterbium wanted to hear some reasons why null sec was viewed as so dead."
I can say it pretty short: There is nothing at stake and there is nothing to hunt. It is 50 people sitting on a Titan bridge with a bait ship running around. Well said!
I wonder why CCP is absolutely silent when it comes to such an important issue. 14 |
Lili Lu
324
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:44:00 -
[223] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ogogov wrote:Active local tanks aren't exactly FOTM. Ever heard of an Ancillary Shield Booster? But he was talking about active armor tanking and upping the boost amount on a brutix from 7.5 to 10% per level. And he is right it will do absolutely nothing for active armor tanking.
Now if they reduced the fitting costs of reppers it might enable more dual repper setups both of which getting the boost. Or if there was an ancilliary armor repairer in the game that was as op as the asb then yeah that bonus would do something. But as it stands upping the armor repair bonus by 2.5% per level will not make it worth using and frankly people will continue to put thin shield buffers and all gank in the lows on those ships. The only place the 10% armor bonus matters is fw plexing with an incursus. For pvp the increased bonus won't matter. |
Lili Lu
324
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:54:00 -
[224] - Quote
Drake addict tears fuel me. I am looking forward to much more gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair as the day approaches when the BC for all purposes and more, finally has it's reign as the most overused ship in the game end.
You can cry about how whatever alterations are done to the ship and/or its weapon system will make it "unusable" or you can adjust to the reality that the ship will still be usable it just won't be overusable. The sooner you types move on to acceptance the better it will be for you and less your tears will fuel my admittedly sad thirst for them. My enjoyment of your fear and rage though is only proportional to the YEARS that this problem has festered in the game.
Also, there will be new fotm ships created by the rebalancing team as they fail to anticipate what players will be able to figure out in combining modules and ships. Hopefully as those become apparent the balancing team will move much more quickly than letting one ship top the eve-kill usuage stats by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin over the second place ship for litterally years. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
2715
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:57:00 -
[225] - Quote
BlankStare wrote:Posted my opinion of the Dust/EVE session on the Dust forums: https://forums.dust514.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=232811#post232811You need to be in the beta to see it but it basically boils down to:
- The lack of decent grouping/social tools in Dust is worrying
- That Corporations are not yet implemented and apparently still in the conceptual phase is very, very worrying
- That the CSM hasn't pushed the inclusion of these tools [b]as a very high priority[b] is deeply worrying.
In EVE, the players and their interactions are the game. That in Dust such interaction is not going to be possible (it would seem) from release leaves me doubting whether Dust will ever be considered as being as important a part of New Eden's society as EVE is. I have grave concerns that CCP is not serious about Dust being a success.
Maybe this was lost in the minutes creation process, but this is just patently untrue. Many of us made it very clear that social interaction needs to be up and running in a concrete form on launch day, and I sincerely doubt CCP would debut Dust 514 without this.
I know some of the discussion details (anything remotely touching release schedules) were withheld because of NDA considerations (Even commenting on the lack of a feature in the beta could be construed as breaking NDA, so be careful what you post here in EVE forums), but this is certainly not an issue the CSM is ignoring by any means.
The beta is just that, beta. CCP has said all along that much functionality is already built into the game and waiting to be "unlocked", so I think we need to take the beta with a grain of salt and not panic because its not where we'd like to see it quite yet. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
Centurax
Eve Engineering Authority Eve Engineering
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 17:58:00 -
[226] - Quote
Marconus Orion wrote:Centurax wrote:Blackops Battleships: At this point the best change that could be made to them is let them use covert ops cloaks. NO!!!! Slapping a covert ops cloak on a ships is not a way to ' fix' it. Not only would it send that ship well beyond in the the over powered zone, it would hardly give it a role. There is far too much cloaking going on in this game to begin with. I would much rather see local gone and the black ops battleship have something special about it to give a small fleet a slight advantage over a larger fleet to enable it to do some damage to the blob or something. Really tired of this ' slap a covert cloak on it to fix it' mentality.
Firstly it is not a mentality that I have that the covertops cloak will fix the ship, I perhaps could have chosen my words better or added a bit more explanation, but as far as any ship class it is the one change that is probably most requested, is that Blackops should have always had Covert ops cloaks.
But that aside, I agree that there are many issues with Blackops battleships, but could someone clarify what they think makes them so overpowered, because I personally think they could do with a bit more of a damage boost, make them more like covert ops Marauders that would probably be one way to go in my opinion. But if the only thing that makes them Overpowered is the ability to drop a whole load of Stealth bomber on a target, then that is a different problem. I know there was talk of Making Blackops into anti capital bombers, maybe that is something that would make it a bit more special.
|
Vanessa Vansen
Cybermana
43
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 18:03:00 -
[227] - Quote
Some 0.02 isk of mine ...
Industry - get rid of the ME, PE, copy, invention, reverse engineering slots ... just provide research slots that might be used for each
Starbase/POS - research slots (see above) will allow using slots the way you want - provide research equipment (consumed and non-consumed) that improves the duration of research - jumping ... immediate jump but 48 hours delay until next jump sounds more preferable to me - jumping2 ... how do you get back into high-sec? that should work out somehow, otherwise the whole process of taking down and setting up a POS would have to be done for that
|
Centurax
Eve Engineering Authority Eve Engineering
2
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 18:07:00 -
[228] - Quote
Lili Lu wrote:Drake addict tears fuel me. I am looking forward to much more gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair as the day approaches when the BC for all purposes and more, finally has it's reign as the most overused ship in the game end. You can cry about how whatever alterations are done to the ship and/or its weapon system will make it "unusable" or you can adjust to the reality that the ship will still be usable it just won't be overusable. The sooner you types move on to acceptance the better it will be for you and less your tears will fuel my admittedly sad thirst for them. My enjoyment of your fear and rage though is only proportional to the YEARS that this problem has festered in the game. Also, there will be new fotm ships created by the rebalancing team as they fail to anticipate what players will be able to figure out in combining modules and ships. Hopefully as those become apparent the balancing team will move much more quickly than letting one ship top the eve-kill usuage stats by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin over the second place ship for litterally years.
Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships. |
Ford Chicago
Ziz Zag Ziggurat
15
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 18:16:00 -
[229] - Quote
That is an unbelievably obnoxious and intrusive watermark.
|
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
266
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 18:18:00 -
[230] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:DarthNefarius wrote:If CSM was supposed to be about damage control it failed the Incursion community without any comments helpfull here. The June 'rollback' was a farce and I tend to think the outcry about the OTAs in CCP Affinity's DEV blog was the only real usefull feedback which will result in any help to the dying Incursion communities... I like to reiteriate the last sentence I quoted I think that appropriately shows the CSM7's view of HI SEC: " UAxDEATH would like to know how any of that related to null sec,"
Thanks very much CCP Affinity for the Incursion changes of Inferno 1.2 thank you for nothing CSM7 Nice of you to selectively quote things in order to give them a completely different meaning; right after the comma at the end of your bolded quote comes "followed by other CSMs asking to get back on topic" BECAUSE THIS SESSION OF THE SUMMIT WAS ABOUT NULLSEC, NOT INCURSIONS OR HI SEC. Way to be a complete bad.
Hmmm I did pull this out of the NULL not the CONTENT section, but the last time I checked Incursions are still in NULL in my journal ( and not a single NULL SEC MOM has died since they were 'broken' ) but I think I've proven my point that if something is damaged that doesn't affect this CSM individually they are not around for the rest of the community which it affects. =========================================================
EVE residents: 5% Wormholes; 8% Lowsec; 20% Nullsec; 67% Highsec. CSM 6: 100% Nullsec residents. EVE demographics vs CSM demographics, nothing to worry about... |
|
Marconus Orion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
374
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 18:28:00 -
[231] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Marconus Orion wrote:I see extremely little to no talk about power projection in the minutes. Was this brought up at all during the talks about sovereignty or anything? No one is concerned about a coalition transversing the entire galaxy in a matter of a few minutes? Nothing said about effort free intel gathering? Or was this stuff NDA? Many Faction Warfare folk would be MORE than happy to throw up cynojammers across half of lowsec......but Elise said he'd come poop on our parade. Nerf his throwing ability of poop. |
Lili Lu
325
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 18:42:00 -
[232] - Quote
Centurax wrote: Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships. Because it is not balance that is working. Balance is where the top 20 ships used in the game are bunched together in overall numbers. Balance is not what we have now where the Drake outnumbers the second place ship by a multiple of 2 or 3 to 1, and then all the other 19 ships used are within a much closer span.
Also, it is not just a few people that are pointing out that the empreror has no clothes. And it is the devs themselves that finally in the last year admitted that the usage disparity cannot continue. Drakes not only vastly outnumber other ships in usage. They are also used in ways that move them beyond what other ships in their class are typically used for. And all this not to mention the outlier benefits they have enjoyed in pve ever since their introduction.
Addtionally, you can't simply keep buffing everything. I'm actually a bit concerned with the current tech I frigate buffs. They push the need for destroyer buffs and cruiser buffs . . . People like buffs. Buffs are candy. But you can have too much of a good thing. In particular with BCs if the other 7 tier 1 and 2 BCs were buffed such that they could compete with Drakes for usage it would seriously degrade further the utility of HACs. So then we are left buffing HACs. But then BSs are toast so then we buff BSs. . . . Eventually you are back with Ttians and SCs (or simply BSs) able to munch on anything subcap and well do you start another round of buffs?
Buffs and Nerfs are both necessary. It is like an ecosystem. If any one species explodes in population and hunt to extinction too many other competing predators or the prey it becomes an unhealthy ecosystem. Do you want to play Drakes and Tengus Online? I don't. And even if you think you do it will become boring. So EVE would lose poeple . . and die. Everything dies, but hopefully this game will not be dying for a good long time. But one way to insure it dies sooner is not to fix usage disparities that make the game unattractive to people who don't want to fly shield tanking heavy missile boats and boring for those that do but come to find that is all they end up fighting with is other Drakes and Tengus. The health of the game is best served by both buffs and nerfs. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
734
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 19:44:00 -
[233] - Quote
Centurax wrote: Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships.
Don't be a fool, Drake is 'working' only cause its counterparts are underpowered. Either way. boosting the others or nerfing the drake directly, it will cease 'working' after the fix. It will become a normal ship like, say, harbinger.
Boosting DPS output and tank of all ships by 10 will not suddenly make them 10 times better, just like printing more money and doubling everyone's salary won't make people twice as rich in real life. Is it really that hard to comprehend? 14 |
Vera Algaert
Republic University Minmatar Republic
290
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 19:47:00 -
[234] - Quote
Centurax wrote: Almost never fly a Drake personally, but that wasn't my point, change the Drake, by why break (balance) what works, because a few people think they are overpowered. My point was the Drake is a good ship, the idea is that instead of making it something different, is make the other battlecruisers in line with it. Everyone complains that a ship is too powerful make it easier to kill, why cant we take the other approach, what makes that ship so good, how can we replicate that on the other ships. that approach to balancing inevitably ends in power creep |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 21:27:00 -
[235] - Quote
I'm really unimpressed by the level of pushback the CSM was capable of, especially in the 0.0 section. CCP basically declared they had no intention of iterating on 0.0 in any real form in any reasonable timeframe and the CSM simply sat back and nodded. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 21:36:00 -
[236] - Quote
Quote:CCP Bettik said that a lot of the price rises seemed to be based on market speculation and seemed to be a bubble.
holy crap this is wrong
next time, pull the numbers for "minerals produced" and compare it to "minerals consumed": you have the numbers, that tells you what the reality is
a ccp dev sticking their finger in the air to guess at the market effect of the drone region change is crazy |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
240
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 22:15:00 -
[237] - Quote
CCP Soundwave wrote:Just so we're clear, I've never said FW should be a testbed for 0.0, nor do I think it's a remotely good idea. I'm not sure where you got this information but it's blatantly false. Directly, no .. you have not said it. You have stated, however, on numerous occasions that changes made to FW is to bring it in line with null paradigms and that the good/worthwhile bits will be used when sovereignty gets its time in the sun .. for all intents and purposes you might as well have stated it as quoted. Just happy you (not you, but CCP) has not fallen into the trap of lazy design and added more EHP grinds as solutions to the multitude of issues still plaguing the FW corner of the sandbox.
Please accept my most humble apologies for misquoting you.
PS: When quoting walls, it is generally advisable to only include the relevant bits while indicating that it is a partial quote. Makes for a much cleaner and efficient forum.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Once and for all - FW AS A 0.0 TESTBED IS A RUNNING JOKE AMONGST CCP AND THE CSM. I can't believe people are taking this seriously still. Every time this is mentioned in the minutes, it was with laughter and intense sarcasm. Everyone needs to get over this, ASAP. We're six months past the initial quote that was taken out of context, and we still have people ranting about this, its ridiculous. Also, Veshta - grow up. You continually complain the game isn't up to your satisfaction, but resort to base insults at the developers on a continual basis. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe these two might be related? * Back to our regularly scheduled comments * See above, and
I continually complain because FW had been blue-balled by Devs for almost three years before you even set foot in the Universe, the complaints is all that's left. If you can find some of my earlier 'work' you'll realise that I wasn't always this shrouded in shadow .. quite the little fluffy bunny/happy go-getter/annoyingly overenthusiastic once upon a time .. personally don't care as endorphins/adrenaline is released by emotions on both end of the spectrum so I still get my jolts
On a side note: Forum rules need to be changed to state that "any comment regarding or pertaining to CCP staff with the slightest negative connotation is not allowed .. feel free to praise them however". The *snipped* part was no where near personal attack worthy yet was treated as such .. believe it or not, the last two posts that got censored (in retrospect, rightly so) taught me to moderate myself so intentionally "kept it down" this time around. |
Jeb Hataska
EVE University Ivy League
5
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 22:33:00 -
[238] - Quote
Page 125 of 165 wrote:The topic quickly bounced over to the idea of having a Frigate logistics class.
Elise rather bluntly stated that Frigate logistics would GÇ£be bad no matter whatGÇ¥.
CCP Soundwave countered that he liked the idea and didnGÇÖt think a balanced solution was impossible to find.
CCP Greyscale chimed in saying that extreme range would be a good solution for a Frigate logistics class.
At this point Hans interjected and stated that Frigate logistics would finally give people a reason to use all the faction small remote reps they get. On this like, Two step suggested there should be faction large remote reps, to which CCP Ytterbium was apathetic.
- Idea 1: Logistics frigates don't actively supply shield or armor HP to target ships, as logistics cruisers do. Instead, they boost the effectiveness of their targets' local repair ability.
- Idea 2: T1 logistics frigates have 2 bonuses:
Bonus to range of small remote repairers. The fast cycle time but low HP per second make them somewhat effective for supporting frigate combat because of frigates' low EHP, but definitely lackluster for supporting anything larger (when compared with logistics cruisers).
Bonus to increase the effectiveness of a Remote Signature Reducer module, which reduces the signature radius of the target ship. This module gives a flat reduction rather than a percentage reduction, making it effective at mitigating damage to frigates--and perhaps to destroyers/cruisers--but not noticeable on larger ships. This could be an indirect buff to the use of Target Painters, which are an easy counter, and possibly to scan resolution ewar.
These are probably not great ideas, but I think Soundwave is right that some solution could be found if frigate logistics were important to have. |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
103
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 22:34:00 -
[239] - Quote
I still get the idea that CCP moved from fearless to fear when it comes to Incarna. But I am happy that the CSM emphasized that the main reason players raged over the initial release was the diversion of resources.
I also think the detailed minutes help me have more faith in the CSM. Well, most of them anyway. Got a need for speed? SRV race thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=134270 Sub-warp racing event thread: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=107164 |
Arazel Chainfire
Sons Of 0din Dark Therapy
117
|
Posted - 2012.08.03 22:54:00 -
[240] - Quote
Oww... I just read all 165 pages over the past 3 hours. While it was interesting(ish) to see who said what, i found the sections that did a summary of what was gone over at the start far more informative than reading through exact comment lines. Possibly a better way to present things would be have a summary or overview at the beginning of each section, and then more detail down below in case people are still interested in what is being talked about.
-Arazel |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |