Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Job Valador
Super Moose Defence Force
182
|
Posted - 2013.08.12 22:44:00 -
[691] - Quote
you guys are a bunch of whiners. adapt or die "The stone exhibited a profound lack of movement." |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
88
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:14:00 -
[692] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:Pure and simple nerf to the good stuff. Not sure what you think you have achieved here...
I am waiting for some proper expansion stuff... waiting for a long while already. Since Dust and WoD, you focus on adjusting configuration stuff, getting people pissed off instead of adding some good stuff. this is not an expansion. this is an update. hence, the "1.1" in odyssey 1.1.
wait for the winter expansion. |
Akturous
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
220
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 00:19:00 -
[693] - Quote
60 s timer is bs if it creates it's own timer, so what you can't deag under links now? Make it inherit the timer from people in fleet, but creating one on it's own is complete rubbish.
In that case activating an rr module should also give you a 60s timer, not just inherit the one from the repee. I used to always put my links on grid so idiots could shoot them and get gate guns as I laugh at them with my 100mn ab and tank, but now I'll always leave them off grid, congrats on worsening the problem of off grid links. Vote Item Heck One for CSM8 |
mighty1
Hem-A-Roids To Asterroids Mining
2
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:38:00 -
[694] - Quote
Are you smoking crack fossie.....I find this a joke to nerf boosts as I spent a year on a boosting toon for you to change it so if this does go ahead i'l be finding a new game to play and I prolly won't be alone. Instead of trying to ruin every aspect off EVE why don't you ask what we want as we are the players and paying customers. |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 11:55:00 -
[695] - Quote
We've known this was coming for well over a year now. Man up and stop crying. I have a char with max gang link skills and this change is great.
If they ask you what you want you'd say invulnerable ships and free isk for you. |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1132
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:14:00 -
[696] - Quote
Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not.
Don't waste your time talking to this kind of individual, how can you even try to discuss with someone refusing to admit elemental thinking:
Buy plex = acquisition= change real money for a virtual good Buy toon= acquisition = change plex for an in game item or items (toon/ship/links/implants)
But nope, the guy didn't pay to win, in fact when he pays for the plex and then the toon he actually gets the money like his ideas and arguments, out of his ass once he takes the Avatar he puts in all day long. These dudes should stop on drugs or whatever they take. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 13:59:00 -
[697] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Cearain wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:I read it but it wouldnt change anything, the definition of Pay2Win is clearly buy stuff using Real Money to get better, i know its hard to accept for some People but trust me buying Plex to get expensive Drugs/Booster or buying an Account to Boost with fleet Booster is the same Problem.
Believe it or not. You say its the same but give no explanation other than "trust me." I highly doubt people pay ccp 15 dollars a month so they can sell a plex and buy drugs. But I bet many, likely most, booster alt accounts are paid by real money subscriptions. Moreover the people buying drugs are at least buying something made by players in game with in game isk. Extra accounts for god-mode is purely pay to win. There is no in game isk needed at all. Indeed it is inefficient to use ingame isk since there are discounts for longer than 1 month real money subscriptions. If people gave ccp as much real money for drugs and implants as they did for alt accounts ccp would not make alt accounts so much more powerful. Still I have a question: A) Are these bonuses based on the assumption ships need to be ongrid, Or B) when the link ships have to be on grid (assuming this is really ccps plan) will the bonuses increase? If its A then ccp should admit that the bonuses are not currently balanced, and will remain unbalanced until they are forced on grid. Did I miss and step into the forum of a free to play? Its not pay to win, you can start and sustain x-accounts indefinitely on plex, hell I bought four plexes out of three hours of scanning around over the weekend. The hilarious part is that wasn't it you saying that you have something like 8-9 billion in jump clones floating around? That will pay for a over a year of subscriptions for an alt account. Yeech man, HTFU.
The point is you can get the link alt without ever interacting with the eve economy. Just pay real money to ccp and you get your alt.
That is why there is no difference between this and gold ammo.
I like the way you say htfu because I am not interested in dragging a link alt around with me on roams. That is the sort of pathetic behaviour ccp is rewarding by this mechanic. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:04:00 -
[698] - Quote
mighty1 wrote:Are you smoking crack fossie.....I find this a joke to nerf boosts as I spent a year on a boosting toon for you to change it so if this does go ahead i'l be finding a new game to play and I prolly won't be alone. Instead of trying to ruin every aspect off EVE why don't you ask what we want as we are the players and paying customers. So you started training it after it was announced that work had commenced on taking links on-grid and reducing their power to be compliance with Eve's risk/reward dogma? And you are complaining about what exactly?
What's your poison: - Link platforms are becoming gank mobiles even when carrying links so Incursions are covered. - Mining hasn't even been addressed so there is still ample time to make changes to mining link platforms before they come on-grid. - Blobs will have more incentive to risk stuff (read: capitals) to ensure link availability when they come on-grid and will somehow have to muddle through with a less than 20% decrease in their boosts that apply to up to 250 people .. orbiting a POS is a nerf to AFK only and irrelevant. - Solo => Medium gangs will be tons more fun and fights will be more readily available once links come on-grid as one can no longer hide the doubling of combat efficiency that links represent, making fights either lopsided (technically ganks, not fights) or non-existent because :possiblelinks:. - Worm-folk .. see Incursions at top.
In short: There is nothing to complain about, except the ability to provide over-the-top augments while AFK sometime in the future. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
426
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:08:00 -
[699] - Quote
Cearain wrote:
I like the way you say htfu because I am not interested in dragging a link alt around with me on roams. That is the sort of pathetic behaviour ccp is rewarding by this mechanic.
That's not pay to win, that is you lazy. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Against ALL Authorities
89
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:29:00 -
[700] - Quote
mighty1 wrote:Are you smoking crack fossie.....I find this a joke to nerf boosts as I spent a year on a boosting toon for you to change it so if this does go ahead i'l be finding a new game to play and I prolly won't be alone. Instead of trying to ruin every aspect off EVE why don't you ask what we want as we are the players and paying customers. did you ever consider others might want boosts on grid? or did you really mean,"ask me what i want before you change things I like". And im getting real tired of people whining about how they train for something so it should never be changed or they pay for this game so it should cater to them. If you find you cannot enjoy a game because you can't afk POS a boosting alt then it really sucks to be you. |
|
Cearain
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
1058
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 14:30:00 -
[701] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Cearain wrote:
I like the way you say htfu because I am not interested in dragging a link alt around with me on roams. That is the sort of pathetic behaviour ccp is rewarding by this mechanic.
That's not pay to win, that is you lazy.
Another person who thinks spending more time doing tedious tasks (like dragging a multiboxed link alt around to safespots) in a computer game means you are not lazy.
This is the playerbase ccp is attracting to the game with making these ogbs = god mode, so no one should be surprised. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Harper Ei
Macabre Votum Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 16:20:00 -
[702] - Quote
Fozzie,
you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.
You forgot!
As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.
Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.
Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.
/H |
Sigras
Conglomo
496
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 17:55:00 -
[703] - Quote
mighty1 wrote:Are you smoking crack fossie.....I find this a joke to nerf boosts as I spent a year on a boosting toon for you to change it so if this does go ahead i'l be finding a new game to play and I prolly won't be alone. Instead of trying to ruin every aspect off EVE why don't you ask what we want as we are the players and paying customers. Setting aside the ridiculous assumption that most of us agree with you (which if this thread is anything to go by we dont), you're making an even more ridiculous assumption that what the players want is best for the game |
Mr Doctor
Los Polos Hermanos. Happy Cartel
39
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 18:15:00 -
[704] - Quote
Harper Ei wrote:Fozzie,
you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.
You forgot!
As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.
Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.
Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.
/H Except they will because T3s give less of a bonus but give nigh on uncatchable bonus which is why they are less good at it. Balance. Its utterly stupid to have T3s better than CS.... its stupid to have them even the same as CS. |
coolzero
Mortis Angelus WHY so Seri0Us
90
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:00:00 -
[705] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb? It can be used inside a pos field.
so does them mean also like with some of us on the rorqual have
Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II
on our rorqual so we boost the mining ships a bit with tanking the rats
does that mean we can boost mining but not anymore the extra boost for shield? |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
450
|
Posted - 2013.08.13 23:05:00 -
[706] - Quote
FOZZIE
you need to reduce the CPU of warfare links ... ships struggle to fit them there is no need for it to be topping out at 55CPU no other utility high requires that much CPU you will end up with ships unable to fit them. or very gimped if they do. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Gospadin
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 13:12:00 -
[707] - Quote
Harper Ei wrote:Fozzie,
you and I talked about this at fanfest last year, and you asked me to remind you of the mistake you are making now, should you forget.
You forgot!
As I told you at fanfest, doing this will result in the more or less complete halt in the use of Warfare Subsystems on T3's.
Noone, and I repeat, noone will fly T3's as fleet boosters after the patch. Everybody will be flying Fleet Command or Field Command ships.
Example: A Sleipnir will be so much better to field than the Loki, there will be no choice. You get more bonus, full tank and full guns. The Loki has no tank and no guns, and less bonus.
/H
Good. Then they'll buff T3 instead of the rumored nerf. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7364
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:04:00 -
[708] - Quote
coolzero wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Mingja wrote:Any changes for the rorqual yet?
Can't be used inside a PoS-field and having to deploay it for boostings makes the boost-bonus rather.. dumb? It can be used inside a pos field. so does them mean also like with some of us on the rorqual have Siege Warfare Link - Active Shielding II Siege Warfare Link - Shield Harmonizing II on our rorqual so we boost the mining ships a bit with tanking the rats does that mean we can boost mining but not anymore the extra boost for shield?
Yes, to activate the Siege links you would need to leave the shield. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Totured Veracity
Russian Thunder Squad Darkness of Despair
1
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 14:57:00 -
[709] - Quote
Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:00:00 -
[710] - Quote
Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot?
Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:04:00 -
[711] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes.
is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Mara Maken
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:06:00 -
[712] - Quote
Can someone please show the math to get to to the 25.9% armor/siege boost? Sorry but I'm having trouble doing the maths with the stacking percentages.
Also, the navy mindlinks, what are the pairings? Will there be skirm/siege, armor/siege, etc.? |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:06:00 -
[713] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's?
There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:08:00 -
[714] - Quote
fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:11:00 -
[715] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Totured Veracity wrote:Why not allow command proc to be fit either into med or into low slot? Adding a new low-slot version of the Command proc (we can't do single modules that go into multiple different types of slots) is an option we are considering, yes. is that whilst still allowing CS and T3 too have as many links as you can fit .. rather than setting a hard limit of 3 each? and the command processor could be aimed at bc's/navy bc's? There are a number of options we're considering. ATM my favourite is making Command Procs a rig. I like this option too, it allows t1 and (potentially) t3 ships to fit 4 links while leaving command ships with the greater 5 links. Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:12:00 -
[716] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links Ideas for Drone Improvement |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
451
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:14:00 -
[717] - Quote
Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links
again how does this make sense?
T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25%
Surely this makes more sense..... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
1443
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:15:00 -
[718] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense..... not at all Ideas for Drone Improvement |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7369
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:22:00 -
[719] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Omnathious Deninard wrote:Harvey James wrote:fozzie
have you thought about adding T1 mindlinks? and Navy warfare links? and how is Navy and T2 mindlinks having the same 25% making sense? Navy mindlinks have 2 25% bonuses, not one like the t2 links again how does this make sense? T1 mindlink 15% Navy mindlink 20% 2 links T2 mindlink 25% Surely this makes more sense.....
We have no intention of adding a T1 mindlink right now, but it could be an option someday. I won't rule it out.
And there's no requirement that faction items be worse than T2. We believe that the balance between the two implants will make for a valuable choice. Navy mindlinks are strictly better but their advantage is relatively slight for most applications and they're quite a bit more expensive. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
1521
|
Posted - 2013.08.14 15:32:00 -
[720] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The point is you can get the link alt without ever interacting with the eve economy. Just pay real money to ccp and you get your alt. By purchasing the link alt's ship, you are interacting with the eve economy.
Also, paying real money for plex also forces you to interact with the real eve economy whenever you convert the plex to isk (supply/demand determines the plex-isk exchange rate).
Finally, there is still the fact that there is no difference between a link alt and any other commodity in Eve such as a Titan alt, a Titan, Federation Navy Antimatter Charge S. These all can also be purchased in the same way a link alt can.
Summary: This portion of your argument is Red Herring. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 33 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |