Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Ben Fenix
CapStream
17
|
Posted - 2013.08.19 18:01:00 -
[61] - Quote
Yeah, new build is up...but the skills "Target Navigation Prediction" and "Guided Missile Precision" are still named completely wrong. --> Thread/Post
Why reiterating the whole skill tree when failing at the details? If not taking the details into account then why the effort to do the work in the first place? Sticking to those plain wrong names means work simply isn't done. CapStream Because Cap Is Life |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
166
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 09:37:00 -
[62] - Quote
My feedback:
new industrials - I am very happy with these. They are now strong enough to be the spark point for an escalating fight in low, null or wh space. The specialised cargo holds are probably not useful (to me) but I understand that it's much easier to find a role for existing hulls than to simply erase them from the game.
command ships - they seem to me to perform well in their roles. Not overpowered in combat, strong enough to take in a fleet but not so OP that players will choose them over T1 BCs or BSs for doing front-line DPS. I am very much looking forward to off-grid boosting being deprecated. This will give me an opportunity and a reason to actually use the command ships on grid. This wil increase the tactical options available during a fight. That's got to be a good thing.
HACs - awesome, every one of them. I think the design team got this just about right.
Skill name changes - ridiculous waste of time.
railguns - happy that the damage is up, a bit dubious about the scale of the tracking penalty, but difficult to test because it's not easy to organise a proper fleet fight on the test server. I tried them on a HAC, I probably should also try them on the brutix before commenting further.
bug reporting - I can't report bugs because the bug reporting system does not fill the category drop-down, which means I can't complete the form. The forms cannot be submitted when incomplete.
Nighthawk would not let me activate more than 1 gang link (yes they were all different...) so I think there's a bug there that needs to be addressed.
+15% to local reps - long overdue. Thank you for doing this. local armour rep/buffer hybrid is now viable in skirmish combat. That's very welcome. ASBs are still too OP. They need to be limited to 1 per ship. There's no excuse for this. They are designed as emergency backup for skirmishers. When used dual (or triple) they are perma-mega-neutproof tanks. That's just ridiculous and is damaging the game. Gist x-type shield boosters have no equivalent in armour and are still too powerful (they use far too little cap). They need to be scaled back in my view.
Report over. Thanks for all the hard work. Eve is a better game post-1.1
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4525
|
Posted - 2013.08.20 20:20:00 -
[63] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:My feedback:
new industrials - I am very happy with these. They are now strong enough to be the spark point for an escalating fight in low, null or wh space. The specialised cargo holds are probably not useful (to me) but I understand that it's much easier to find a role for existing hulls than to simply erase them from the game.
command ships - they seem to me to perform well in their roles. Not overpowered in combat, strong enough to take in a fleet but not so OP that players will choose them over T1 BCs or BSs for doing front-line DPS. I am very much looking forward to off-grid boosting being deprecated. This will give me an opportunity and a reason to actually use the command ships on grid. This wil increase the tactical options available during a fight. That's got to be a good thing.
HACs - awesome, every one of them. I think the design team got this just about right.
Skill name changes - ridiculous waste of time.
railguns - happy that the damage is up, a bit dubious about the scale of the tracking penalty, but difficult to test because it's not easy to organise a proper fleet fight on the test server. I tried them on a HAC, I probably should also try them on the brutix before commenting further.
bug reporting - I can't report bugs because the bug reporting system does not fill the category drop-down, which means I can't complete the form. The forms cannot be submitted when incomplete.
Nighthawk would not let me activate more than 1 gang link (yes they were all different...) so I think there's a bug there that needs to be addressed.
+15% to local reps - long overdue. Thank you for doing this. local armour rep/buffer hybrid is now viable in skirmish combat. That's very welcome. ASBs are still too OP. They need to be limited to 1 per ship. There's no excuse for this. They are designed as emergency backup for skirmishers. When used dual (or triple) they are perma-mega-neutproof tanks. That's just ridiculous and is damaging the game. Gist x-type shield boosters have no equivalent in armour and are still too powerful (they use far too little cap). They need to be scaled back in my view.
Report over. Thanks for all the hard work. Eve is a better game post-1.1
I'm in full agreement with this assessment, except for the skill name changes.
It may be a ridiculous waste of time to you, but for anyone trying to figure out the game in a logical manner it's likely a godsend. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
198
|
Posted - 2013.08.22 18:08:00 -
[64] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote: I'm in full agreement with this assessment, except for the skill name changes.
It may be a ridiculous waste of time to you, but for anyone trying to figure out the game in a logical manner it's likely a godsend.
Well OK, but some of the new names are just... insulting.
"Spaceship Piloting" might sound ok to Scandinavian ears after running it through google translate, but to an English person it sounds like baby language. I don't want to play a game that uses baby language. It's a sci-fi game and I want it to be, as far as possible, scientifically and grammatically correct.
And calling an energy transporter a "capacitor transferrer", or whatever they called it, is just juvenile. It does not transfer capacitors. Capacitors are devices that store and release energy. The modules transfer ENERGY (it's even measured in giga-joules). They are ENERGY TRANSFER ARRAYS.
Using this terrible language in game is bad press and I am concerned that it will discourage other intelligent players. These are the players the game needs, because Eve requires intelligent people to create strategies and scenarios (like the Fountain War) that other players enjoy.
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
Anariasis
V0LTA Verge of Collapse
33
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 20:11:00 -
[65] - Quote
Yeah, no idea why they have to make everything in a way even the biggest idot can understand.
Capacitor Transporter is just wrong, leave it on energy transporter and everything is fine. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4535
|
Posted - 2013.08.23 20:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
Oh, I agree some of the terms used could use some work, but even as they are they make far more sense to a new player than what we have now. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Silvonus
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
52
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 20:29:00 -
[67] - Quote
X-posting this from Information Portal, since there is no specific thread in test server feedback for probing.
Not sure if intentional or not. When scanning anomalies on singularity (build 8.33.590979), the map only remembers the "red dot" of the last scan that had a result, not the best. I can do a wide "pinpoint formation" scan and get dots on the map for all the signatures, if I then move my probes to the edge so only one probe overlaps one of the signatures I get a "red sphere" for the one signature and dots for the rest. if I then move all my probes off all the signatures, the sphere persists for the one signature and dots for the rest.
This is frustrating when you have a wormhole with lots of signatures it's when moving probes around to transition from dots back to rings and spheres, even though you have had a previous "better" result. With the new system on singularity, it would be better for me to get a wide spread and dots for everything, then go down super narrow to avoid hitting any other sigs, to preserve their dots, instead of narrowing the probes down in steps.
I would like it if every scan could compare the signal percentage to previous ones and only keep the "best" sphere/ring/dot instead of the "last". |
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices Masters of Flying Objects
639
|
Posted - 2013.08.24 20:40:00 -
[68] - Quote
Silvonus wrote:X-posting this from Information Portal, since there is no specific thread in test server feedback for probing. Not sure if intentional or not. When scanning anomalies on singularity (build 8.33.590979), the map only remembers the "red dot" of the last scan that had a result, not the best. I can do a wide "pinpoint formation" scan and get dots on the map for all the signatures, if I then move my probes to the edge so only one probe overlaps one of the signatures I get a "red sphere" for the one signature and dots for the rest. if I then move all my probes off all the signatures, the sphere persists for the one signature and dots for the rest. This is frustrating when you have a wormhole with lots of signatures it's when moving probes around to transition from dots back to rings and spheres, even though you have had a previous "better" result. With the new system on singularity, it would be better for me to get a wide spread and dots for everything, then go down super narrow to avoid hitting any other sigs, to preserve their dots, instead of narrowing the probes down in steps. I would like it if every scan could compare the signal percentage to previous ones and only keep the "best" sphere/ring/dot instead of the "last". A bug report was sent in by me about how the info for the wh you are sitting by does not retain the actual distance you are away from it. So you get miss matches between the scan info and the overview. |
Velarra
267
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 13:52:00 -
[69] - Quote
Still getting dizzy/nauseous after using stargate.
note: Use of map gradually breaks client after repeatedly invoking the map screen & reloading grid before and after system jumps. Particularly if grid is very populated & includes a fleet the pilot is in. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
272
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 15:35:00 -
[70] - Quote
Velarra wrote:Still getting dizzy/nauseous after using stargate.
note: Use of map gradually breaks client after repeatedly invoking the map screen & reloading grid before and after system jumps. Particularly if grid is very populated & includes a fleet the pilot is in.
Please stop forcefully moving the camera before / during the jump.
File it as a bug report. If enough people do that, eventually some hardworking developer will fix it without checking with the designer first - then we'll all feel less nauseous when jumping through stargates (one of many reasons I avoid k-space as much as possible).
A Capacitor Transporter is a device for transporting capacitors. An Energy Transfer Array is a device for transferring energy from one spaceship to another. Please learn the difference. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |