Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
331
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 22:34:12 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera. With this round of module tiericide we haven't touched the overall balance of the modules by too much, since most of them were in a good place already. With that being said, in general T2 modules should have the most powerful effects (not including storyline, faction and officer modules) but also the largest skill and fitting requirements. Conversely, the new 'Basic' variants have much lower skill and fitting requirements and much weaker effects. T1 is your basic, and the named modules are between T1 and T2 in power and fitting, with their own niche specializations. We applied this reasoning to as many module types as we could without breaking existing economies or causing other issues.
So with the obvious skill requirements, I still do not see people use meta as much. I posted this in the past and I still think it should be the case:
on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the best Tech 1 (meta zero): average all bonuses from the mod end up about a 3 Tech 2: average of all bonuses end up at 4, with fitting being a 1 or 2 (hard to fit) Tech 1 ( 0 < meta): all bonuses average a 2 but the primary bonus (say range or tracking) is a 5.
The bonus of a meta mod is higher than a T2 but all other stats would be reduced to below T1 standards. |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 23:02:53 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right?
Your spirit is the true shield.
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
263
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:17:03 -
[93] - Quote
Looks like another awesome patch, looking forward to the Exeq!
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
544
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:18:00 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:So question here...if hull and prop upgrades like overdrives and nanos use no pg or cpu, what exactly will be unique about cleaning up the meta with them? will they just have intermediate stats or will you be changing the mods themselves in some way? The named modules in these categories are almost all being combined into a single module. This module has intermediate stats between the T1 and T2 variants and usually of the Restrained type, meaning the module drawbacks are not as severe. Kudos to you for participating in the forums, Terminus.
With regards to module tiericide, please don't forget that it isn't only about merging metas and tweaking stats. You also need to rebalance the module economics by looking at the BPO build cost for the T1 version, particularly relative to the reprocessing value of the metas and their drop rate from NPC wrecks. Most of those build numbers have not been tweaked since the modules were first introduced into the game.
You also need to look at the in-game supply of the metas and adjust the NPC drop rate accordingly. In most cases, when you combine all of the metas into a single meta module, it will result in a large market surplus of that combined module. Esp. if the NPCs continue to drop them at the rate of the low metas. This tends to push the price of metas down to their reprocessing value, which is always lower than the T1 build cost, since the 50-55% change to reprocessing.
Keep in mind that if the metas have better stats, identical skill requirements, plenty of supply and lower price, then the T1 versions have no place in the game.
And, thanks for reading and responding - it is greatly appreciated by all. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
987
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:24:38 -
[95] - Quote
Let's go through what we got. Recons finally getting rebalanced, every other hull except t3's And black ops have been touched (in regards to subcaps).
The d3's are the test for the t3's and I know they need more review.
If there was a review round to be done on ships, I would take a second look at assault frigates because interceptors have blurred the line so much, they are a bit difficult to distinguish. I think they all need a second look to determine whether they are all where they should be at. Some are ok, some people don't bother with.
The arbitrator needs a second and third look at. Both a model revamp and a stat review (and this actually looks like a good ship already).
The vexor needs a model "update". It looks good, just needs to have it really bling itself vs just looking like a petite potato.
The ferox needs a total model revamp, but it is a decent ship, it just looks like crap (just my opinion but it looks like garbage)
The cyclone also falls into this area. It probably just needs a model revamp.
Regarding the combat recons and their dscan immunity, these ships now have a purpose, a role, and something that isn't "cloak", but might as well be. Combat probe scans will be much more viable, and the d3's now have a primary target to kill.
Looking good so far.
Yaay!!!!
|
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
7447
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:34:02 -
[96] - Quote
Quote:The vexor needs a model "update". It looks good, just needs to have it really bling itself vs just looking like a petite potato. It have ugly part of texture in the upper front. That is my only issue with it, for the model I can't complain, As my first character was Gallente, I really wanted to fly it because it looked badass.
Don't look any further for negative energy, you will find it by being lazy.
|
novasux
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:37:41 -
[97] - Quote
i know this is probably is long shot but is it possible to have a patch that actually fixes something in the game instead of breaking it or making it worse. the force projection changes had some interesting effects on capitals but some massive down sides to black ops. their pretty much useless at this point. maybe instead of making hulls look better and recons not visible to d scan witch is stupid to begin with. perhaps this is the intent of ccp to drive the players away that have played this game since day one and bring in more people who play for a month or to and then go away.
im sorry if i come across as a bitter old vet stuck in my old ways but when i have a dozen accounts sitting idle and theirs no use for them i get bitter. short of rolling my supers through gates just to get killed by Ishtars theirs not much left in this game..
thank you ccp for yet another useless patch
sincerely the bitter old vets |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4166
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 03:22:09 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:...With that being said, in general T2 modules should have the most powerful effects (not including storyline, faction and officer modules) but also the largest skill and fitting requirements. Conversely, the new 'Basic' variants have much lower skill and fitting requirements and much weaker effects. T1 is your basic, and the named modules are between T1 and T2 in power and fitting, with their own niche specializations. We applied this reasoning to as many module types as we could without breaking existing economies or causing other issues.
I don't see the reasoning for this, as meta modules are considerably more difficult to acquire in quantity than tech 2 ones.
Consider Light Neutron Blaster II, a module that is considerably better than all of the meta variants. I could produce a thousand of them in a week on just this character, logging on less than twice a day. There's probably a quarter million or more of them produced each week gamewide. On the flip side, judging from the market statistics, the meta 4 version, Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, probably only enters the game at a rate of a few thousand per week gamewide.
The scramble by the Goons to keep alliance-level stockpiles of Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I at the beginning of the Halloween War added a lot to the game, IMO, and I say that as someone whose only interaction with that market was as a trader seeking to exploit the Goons' desperation to get them.
Had Remote Sensor Disruptor II been the overall superior choice, the Goons would have had a more steady supply of their new weapon of choice, and the market waves wouldn't have reverberated through highsec the same way.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
153
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:03:43 -
[99] - Quote
Not looking forward to this one.
First, and hot on the heels of the senseless Incursus redesign comes the redesign of my all-time favorite ship in eve. There are so many ugly ships in EVE you keep messing with the Gallente ones. If you want to redesign a Gallente ship go with the Celestis.
Second, let's break EVE completely and unbalance it by making recons invisible to d-scan.
Very dissapointed. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5627
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 05:47:40 -
[100] - Quote
Morihei Akachi wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right?
"Dear newbies GǪ despite their name, the Hobbled Overdrive Injector System is actually better than the basic Overdrive Injector System I."
(Elements of this story have been exaggerated for dramatic effect)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
545
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 10:13:46 -
[101] - Quote
Can we also get the annoying fade up, fade down, fade up, fade down, fade up, ad nauseam effect removed from window backgrounds in Proteus, if not much, much sooner?
Every time you switch window focus, or have a popup window appear, this effect happens and it really causes eye strain when working with a lot of windows, such as when you are updating a lot of market orders. I feel like I'm watching an old CRT monitor which has a seriously bad phosphor persistence problem.
At the very least, add an option to disable it.
Thank you.
And, yes, I've posted this same request in the other forum threads, but no one from CCP appears to have read it yet, since this simple-to-fix UI bug has not yet been fixed. |
Cpt Gini Seal
Cosmic-General-Company
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 11:27:34 -
[102] - Quote
Deutscher Text steht unten an
If even the Corps to be revised , then I would have some suggestions:
1. Money transfer to the main account should also be simplified for the members here , which means that you can transfer money from his account. What my Noobs only about detours is possible!
2. Hangar sale permit , I've Equipment , Skills , and ships are for Noobs in my hangar and must take everything into their own hands if I want to sell it to them. Why not just allow the corp hangar , as a sale , just for the Corp ?
Can sort or classify 3. Hangar better, the seven main hangars, should be able to be classified under way , according to need , we have a lot of stuff lying on station and tens of thousands of containers where everything is in it!
4. Pos: Pers+¦nhnliche hangars should be appreciated as well as the station hangars members , whenever I need to break down what I destroy one probably unintentionally something , one probably should also be possible that you can remove the stuff out of the hangar as a package as CEO and the Members may determine as contractual .
5. mailing system , one probably should be revised times so you can for example set instances to write mail to the entire Corp 's easy. But one probably should not consider a title related mailings.
6. revise the entire Corp. system , my director for the Corp has made to award the title , had already complete a half EVE - study so that we at all times by a look which had for what items are fixed . Where are the Info button , dammit. And please no official German course when it comes . We do not want to study play !
7. Corp Logo , the possibility also upload their own thing ? nothing against the kits but they are probably a bit poor . Then you could make a lot more drau+ƒ if you sometimes can even ran .
8. Colors of vessels can be one probably a color designer to create? For example, the ships Corp uniformly plate? must not be much yes, STO can design all compatible with each other .
so that it was only once , as far as I think.
Wenn schon die Corps ++berarbeitet werden, dann h+ñtte ich noch einige Vorschl+ñge :
1. Geld auf das Hauptkonto ++berweisen, sollte hier auch f++r die Member vereinfacht werden, das hei+ƒt das man von seinen Konto aus ++berweisen kann. Was f++r meine Noobs nur ++ber umwege m+¦glich ist!
2. Hangar verkauf erm+¦glichen, ich habe Ausr++stung, Skills und Schiffe f++r meine Noobs im Hangar liegen und mu+ƒ alles in die Hand nehmen wenn ich es ihnen verkaufen will. Warum nicht direkt vom Corphangar, als verkauf, nur f++r die Corp erm+¦glichen?
3. Hangar besser sortieren oder einteilen k+¦nnen, die sieben Haupthangars, sollten nach M+¦glichkeit gegliedert werden k+¦nnen, je nach Bedarf haben wir viel Zeug auf Station liegen und zig tausend Container wo alles drin liegt!
4. Pos : Pers+¦nhnliche Hangars sollten genauso einzusehen sein wie die Stationshangars der Member, wenn ich mal was abbauen muss, zerst+¦re ich vllt ungewollt etwas, vllt sollte auch die M+¦glichkeit bestehen das man als CEO das Zeug aus dem Hangar als Paket entfernen kann und dem Member als Vertrag zustellen kann.
5. Mailling System, sollten vllt mal ++berarbeitet werden damit man zum Beispiel Instanzen setzen kann, Post an die gesamte Corp zu schreiben ist ja einfach. Aber vllt sollte man noch eine Titel bezogene Postsendungen erw+ñgen.
6. Das gesamte Corpsystem ++berarbeiten, mein Direktor f++r die Corp der die Titelvergabe gemacht hat, mu+ƒte schon ein halbes EVE-Studium absolvieren damit wir ++berhaupt mal einen durchblick hatten f++r was welche festen Titel sind. Wo sind die Info-Buttons, verdammt. Und bitte verst+ñndlich kein Beamtendeutsch wenn es geht. Wir wollen spielen nicht studieren!
7. Corp-Logo, besteht die M+¦glichkeit auch was eigenes hochzuladen? nichts gegen die Baus+ñtze aber die sind ja wohl etwas d++rftig. Da k+¦nnte man viel mehr drau+ƒ machen wenn man auch mal selbst ran kann.
8. Farben der Schiffe, kann man vllt ein Farbdesigner erstellen? Um z.B. die Corpschiffe einheitlich zu Kennzeichen? mu+ƒ ja nicht viel sein, bei STO kann man ganze Design aufeinander abstimmen.
so das war es erst mal, soweit denke ich. |
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 15:48:09 -
[103] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Morihei Akachi wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right? "Dear newbies GǪ despite their name, the Hobbled Overdrive Injector System is actually better than the basic Overdrive Injector System I." (Elements of this story have been exaggerated for dramatic effect) So as stated earlier we've revised the naming system taking your guy feedback into account. More specifically the naming style will now consist of three parts [flavour] [specialization] [module type]. So you will see Restrained modules, but they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors for example. This will also be retroactively applied to modules which lost their flavour names in the last tiericide pass so everything should be consistent.
There will be a dev blog out about the module tiericide most likely on Tuesday. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
943
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 17:35:57 -
[104] - Quote
when are you going to do modules that actually matter? |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1421
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 18:16:27 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
I really hope this doesn't mean changing our ability to mine as a relaxed activity where intel, scouting, and logistics are the mainstay of the workload, into some high activity operation that favours the wants of those who don't actualy mine now. Unless of course your intent is to completely destroy the economy with massive mineral shortages due to all the current miners unsubbing, and those who cry for something different failing to pick up more than a fraction of the slack.
If you're talking about ADDING new ways to mine, or new stuff to mine, like moving moongoo into an actively mined item (PLEASE THIS), sure, just don't wreck the playstyle of many of us who like it how it is now. |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
132
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 18:55:26 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors GǪ (I'll save the long version for the dev blog.)
Your spirit is the true shield.
|
Justin Zaine
The Scope Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 19:54:07 -
[107] - Quote
Really loving all the new ship models coming out lately CCP, good work on the Exequeror.
Now please redesign the Celestis, it looks like a green piece of **** and I don't want to be embarrassed taking it out in public after these upcoming recon changes. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1665
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 19:56:05 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors GǪ Excellent - nicely balances simplification with flavour and lore. The best solution I think.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
skandra Kishunuba
Perkone Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:05:46 -
[109] - Quote
No mention of revisiting the UI changes made in the last patch.
Is this something that is going to be looked at or are people with issues just going to be ignored? |
Angmar Udate
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 09:10:01 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Seagull wrote:.. We are doing design work and preparing for big changes to structures overall in EVE--including structures involved in sovereignty mechanics. As input into that work, we are running a survey on structure related gameplay in EVE, including a number of questions around sovereignty structures and gameplay. Please give your thoughts and perspective by participating here: http://structures.questionpro.com..
In de survey there is talk about
Quote: Starbase management Outpost deployment Outpost upgrading Outpost Management
As a player in null I know about POS (player owned structures or starbases) and Stations (technically outposts). What is what? Is my assumption that outposts refer to stations and starbase to POS correct? Why are there three separate options for one and just one option for the other? Typically a very small player group deals with managing and building outposts or stations. I imagine a bit of a larger group deals with POSses. Is directing these questions at the general EVE public effective? |
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 18:06:30 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
It's to be hoped CCP redact the travel nerfs or they will have precious few players left willing to play, takes so much time now just moving around or moving anything around that they often as not run out of play time, 4 jumps to Empire will now consume over a full hour of game time jst spinning in stations waiting for timers to run down, for someone who's time online is limited this is unacceptable, result they do not engage with those activities.
Similar with people simply moving around a region, using JB's to reduce travel time and increase security for there expensive assets is now something they rarely consider doing, instead they remain locked into single systems with vast areas under utilized that were once thriving with players, now there all turtled up in one place unable to move for fear of catching ''SPACE AIDS'' crippling there ability to travel in Alliance fleets at a later time.
Sorry guys but you really screwed the pooch on that one, less time on looking more un-required changes, lot more time looking at the ramifications of what you just did to the game, for most it,s not been good. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
249
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:06:32 -
[112] - Quote
Then there's lots of folks like me who love the Jump Fatigue changes, it is a necessary evil...and one of many needed steps to a newer, more vibrant Nullsec. Hopefully CCP's occupational sov rings the Death Bells for coalitions, because if CCP really wants to see an environment where new entities can stake a claim in space, they are going to have to roll a hard six.
And while I would like to see coalitions die, the objective CCP really needs is to implement a system where they are just plain irrelevant. Forced localisation will mean that systems will only be held by whatever local inhabitants live and defend there. It must be quick and easy to conquer systems, and just as quick and easy to take them back. It must be so easy to do, that if an aggressing force wants to take and hold a system, they have to actually stay there or risk losing it almost immediately. |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty. Circle-Of-Two
5226
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 21:31:13 -
[113] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:It's to be hoped CCP redact the travel nerfs or they will have precious few players left willing to play, Except you're in a vanishingly tiny minority of players that actually dislike the changes. Everything I've seen on the forums is people celebrating the changes wildly and a few people upset about them because probably spells the beginning of the end for cluster-spanning coalitions.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
548
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 22:49:26 -
[114] - Quote
The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics:
1) Bouncing ships: simply put, when ships collide with each other, or with other objects, they look like balloons or toys. Breaks the illusion of massive starships for me every time.
2) Lots of ships undocking from station at same time: interpenetrating and bouncing ship models look completely unrealistic.
For (1), I'd like to see something more realistic - an image of a Nyx crashing into a station comes to mind. Ships should take massive damage when colliding, with appropriate explosion effects. However, if this is simply too complicated to implement, or would excessively unbalance the game, then I'd at least suggest that ships always veer off from hitting other objects, rather than bouncing off of them.
For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station. |
Justin Zaine
The Scope Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 04:26:05 -
[115] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics:
1) Bouncing ships: simply put, when ships collide with each other, or with other objects, they look like balloons or toys. Breaks the illusion of massive starships for me every time.
2) Lots of ships undocking from station at same time: interpenetrating and bouncing ship models look completely unrealistic.
For (1), I'd like to see something more realistic - an image of a Nyx crashing into a station comes to mind. Ships should take massive damage when colliding, with appropriate explosion effects. However, if this is simply too complicated to implement, or would excessively unbalance the game, then I'd at least suggest that ships always veer off from hitting other objects, rather than bouncing off of them.
For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station.
1. It's a game
2. It's a game
3. You realize that we warp through planets, that our ships somehow turn and maneuver with only one point of thrust, that celestials don't have orbits and so on?
4. This would be interesting but would never be able to be done. Would also bring new meaning to the phrase "Don't bump the ******* titan." |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
548
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 05:08:23 -
[116] - Quote
Justin Zaine wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics... 1. It's a game True enough - sometimes the "realism" in EVE Online does reminds me of Minecraft... lol. |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty. Circle-Of-Two
5229
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 10:00:24 -
[117] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station. There are already several stations that very clearly have multiple docking ports, although some of them are very large and look like they could (or were, in fact, meant to) house freighters or capital ships.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Vala Ancalagon
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:30:00 -
[118] - Quote
I don't like the new Exeq model, it lacks the un-symmetric aspects that made the original so interesting. It lacks that organic feel of Gallente ships. And it simply looks like a Caldari vessel now. =( |
Niraia
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
272
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:16:52 -
[119] - Quote
It would be fun if we could choose which language Aura uses, regardless of the language setting :)
Niraia
EVE Online Hold'Em
|
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
427
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:49:23 -
[120] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness
Yes, symmetry must stop.
Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |