Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
259
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 21:56:55 -
[31] - Quote
Personal ship maintenance arrays for sure! |
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
301
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 15:10:27 -
[32] - Quote
Ore sites as anomalies was really bad for wh mining, and not sure if is necessary even in k-space after scanning was made so much more accessible.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1018
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 13:59:00 -
[33] - Quote
Just a few specific items actually.
1) add ore anomalies, so that their are both ore sites and ore anomalies (we argued for the change back, but its best just to have both.
2) t3 discussions need to happen. Their are three big elephants in the room, their tank, the recent overuse of tengus by everybody (mostly nullsec though), and their future configuration (will they turn into how d3's function, this isn't a bad option and should not be instantly removed from the table just because).
3) ishtars. Yes this needs to be brought up still. Their dronebays and bandwidth are too high for a cruiser. At max, the most a cruiser should have is 100 bandwidth, yes t2 and t3 versions also. Dump the ishtar to 100 bandwidth, reduce its dronebay to that under a battleship (225 to 250 bandwidth seems about right), should do it. And drop down the bandwidth of heavy drones from 25 to 20, so that the nerf will solely be towards sentry options of ishtars.
Yaay!!!!
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
260
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 14:34:42 -
[34] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:2) t3 discussions need to happen. Their are three big elephants in the room, their tank, the recent overuse of tengus by everybody (mostly nullsec though), and their future configuration (will they turn into how d3's function, this isn't a bad option and should not be instantly removed from the table just because).
I'd like copying the new Destroyers functionality to be an idea that is entirely chucked into the bin with regard to T3 cruisers. It's a completely different set of art assets, the destroyers are a single ship with some animations, you'd need to redo the T3 models to make the most of this. Considering the T3 cruisers are some of the best looking (or most detailed...) ships in the game it would be a huge waste of art.
I'm 100% happy with the current way subsystems work. They just need some rebalancing in a few areas, namely a reduction in ehp and probably mobility. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1019
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 14:42:53 -
[35] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:2) t3 discussions need to happen. Their are three big elephants in the room, their tank, the recent overuse of tengus by everybody (mostly nullsec though), and their future configuration (will they turn into how d3's function, this isn't a bad option and should not be instantly removed from the table just because). I'd like copying the new Destroyers functionality to be an idea that is entirely chucked into the bin with regard to T3 cruisers. It's a completely different set of art assets, the destroyers are a single ship with some animations, you'd need to redo the T3 models to make the most of this. Considering the T3 cruisers are some of the best looking (or most detailed...) ships in the game it would be a huge waste of art. I'm 100% happy with the current way subsystems work. They just need some re-balancing in a few areas, namely a reduction in ehp and probably mobility.
I'm not saying "just do it", I'm saying that they should keep everything on the table until the T3's have been discussed entirely. If at the end, going the route of the D3's is the best option (or only option), then it should be considered. T3's cannot be balanced by simply "reduce this and their fixed". They are used in multiple aspects of the game, from Seiges, to Missions, Escalations, small gangs, exploration, hunting, etc.
I don't have the answer, I doubt they do also, but we cannot start removing avenues of addressing T3's without having the outright discussion of it first. Whatever happens, whatever they decide, we will all be more comfortable that they at least talked about them in-depth first before firing out fixes.
Yaay!!!!
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
768
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 17:09:39 -
[36] - Quote
Put some higer class wh sites in lower class wh. Sprinkle some in so low end users can get a taste of the high end stuff. I think it would be pretty sweet to have the rare ability for a C2 occupant that has a capital ship to be able to do an escallation.
I think it would go a long way to repopulating higher end wh space if folks had a way to get the occaisional taste of the high end sites in the 'relative' comfort of their home wh. |
Alundil
Isogen 5
825
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:39:15 -
[37] - Quote
Allow us to assemble T3 ships in space at a POS. We can refit them now, finally (thank you for that), now take all the way and let us assemble them in wspace.
So aggravating when either building them in system for use or when shipping in x number of hulls + subs and having to drop them in the closest station system to assemble them forcing them to all be flown in one by one.
CCPls
I'm right behind you
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
262
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 14:03:55 -
[38] - Quote
Alundil wrote:Allow us to assemble T3 ships in space at a POS. We can refit them now, finally (thank you for that), now take all the way and let us assemble them in wspace.s
Whaaaaaat? Is that really not possible at the moment? Yes this definitely needs fixing. I can recall being unable to swap subsystems at POS but didn't realise you couldn't even assemble the ships in the first place. (I've never been in a corp with much wormhole industry) |
Alundil
Isogen 5
830
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 14:43:36 -
[39] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Alundil wrote:Allow us to assemble T3 ships in space at a POS. We can refit them now, finally (thank you for that), now take all the way and let us assemble them in wspace.s Whaaaaaat? Is that really not possible at the moment? Yes this definitely needs fixing. I can recall being unable to swap subsystems at POS but didn't realise you couldn't even assemble the ships in the first place. (I've never been in a corp with much wormhole industry) Previously (since the Apochrypha and the introduction of T3) you couldn't assemble T3 at a POS OR swap subsystems. A couple patches ago (Hyperion I think?) CCP added the ability to swap subsystems at a POS, but it's still not possible to assemble them in space. So assembly must be done in kspace somewhere in a station. PITA.
I'm right behind you
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
262
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:28:52 -
[40] - Quote
That's bonkers lol. I've swapped subs semi regularly since the ever handy mobile depot was released, I guess it would have been that patch that it became possible to swap subs at POS.
Whilst I think of it, just posting to echo some other things I've seen people mention. +1 Alliance Bookmarks +1 To sites from other class wormholes spawning |
|
Kynric
Sky Fighters
245
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 01:52:30 -
[41] - Quote
I really do not clearly know what I want santa-ccp to give me next year, but I do know I want, perhaps even need my game experience to be different than it has been lately. Space is empty, fear is real and when the scouts find another group for one reason or another fights are not had. So often people only feel what they can lose so nothing happens. I can jump solo into a hole with active moving ships and they scatter in fear. A buzzard can be hacking cans with the nearest support five systems off yet the residents hide for fear of what is not even there. As the game is sculpted it would be nice if the optimum solution were to interact with other ships rather than to hide as hiding is rather terrible gameplay for both parties. Clearly there is a problem. Encounters are too rare and often one sided with the other party having no chance at all and no consolation prize, only loss for trying. As future changes are discussed please watch for opportunities to increase interaction and decrease the all to common one sidedness of so many encounters. Perhaps attractive isking opportunities could spawn as a result of and in the wake of battle, perhaps the mechanics of fights could be changed to yield more mixed rather than one sided results.
PS, it would be nice if the c13s were little ship holes rather than little armor ship holes as little ships is rather limited without the further limitation of tank. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
776
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 12:19:20 -
[42] - Quote
Kynric wrote:I really do not clearly know what I want santa-ccp to give me next year, but I do know I want, perhaps even need my game experience to be different than it has been lately. Space is empty, fear is real and when the scouts find another group for one reason or another fights are not had. So often people only feel what they can lose so nothing happens. I can jump solo into a hole with active moving ships and they scatter in fear. A buzzard can be hacking cans with the nearest support five systems off yet the residents hide for fear of what is not even there. As the game is sculpted it would be nice if the optimum solution were to interact with other ships rather than to hide as hiding is rather terrible gameplay for both parties. Clearly there is a problem. Encounters are too rare and often one sided with the other party having no chance at all and no consolation prize, only loss for trying. As future changes are discussed please watch for opportunities to increase interaction and decrease the all to common one sidedness of so many encounters. Perhaps attractive isking opportunities could spawn as a result of and in the wake of battle, perhaps the mechanics of fights could be changed to yield more mixed rather than one sided results.
PS, it would be nice if the c13s were little ship holes rather than little armor ship holes as little ships is rather limited without the further limitation of tank.
I think this is an obvious byproduct of 2 things. One is the mass/range change which went a long way to convincing smaller corps to leave wh space for incursion isk. The second is the small group of big wh corps that routinely field large fleets.
I haven't looked at skyfighters numbers, but I'll be honest w/ you - when I see one of your guys I think blob and either close a connection to be done w/ you or go out to the kitchen and make a pot of soup (substitute mow the lawn in appropriate months). I come back in a few hours and re-evaluate and go from there.
Here's where I'm coming from on this. I don't like the 30 man prot/guardian/jamgu/loki fleet. I don't like to be in it. I don't like to fight it. That's for a couple of reasons. It's boring to me. I don't like the day to day burden of dealing with that large a number of guys. It makes for more work (keeping everyone entertained), more drama, and any time you get more then 50 guys together one of them feels a need to espouse (my opinion here) liberal propoganda crap. I don't log into eve to deal w/ any of that. (NOTE: your average liberal guy doesn't want to hear me talk about the second amendment in the US or my views on taxes and other stuff - there are 2 sides to the coin - I get it - I just don't want to deal w/ the other side of the coin when I play a game to relax)
I'm not saying any of the above stuff is outright wrong, it's just stuff I choose to not be apart of. If you like that sort of stuff - go for it. So, I'm in a small group of good guys that I really like to play eve with. No drama, no pressure to entertain, no views I don't want to listen to. It's all good for me (thanks guys). So that leaves me with an inability to compete/pvp w/ larger folks. I choose to just ignore them. I think arranged fights where folks agree to this and that is kind of wierd, so I don't go for that either.
I just choose to bypass dealing with larger wh corps to the extent I can. I'm happy to do that. Sure I miss out on some fights. Sure I get possed up by superior numbers from time to time. These things I am glad to trade away to hang w/ a small group of guys that I get along with, a laid back corp structure and play style, no drama and no 'going to work' feel when I log in.
My point?? I don't fear you, I just choose to not deal w/ the big you that may or may not be 2 wh out. We don't sit on comms complaining that some big bad wh bro is blocking us from enjoying eve. We do other things until you pass. We accept what we are and where we are and are happy for it.
You've chosen to be in one of the larger corps. You need to accept that folks aren't going to fight you because of that choice. I don't think there is a cure. It's human nature. Some guys like to mob around in big fleets and do that stuff. Some guys don't. Accept it and keep scanning or change what's making the game unfun for you.
TL/DR Bane Nucleus and skyfighters are evil.... I hate them! |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
245
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 13:25:00 -
[43] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Kynric wrote:I really do not clearly know what I want santa-ccp to give me next year, but I do know I want, perhaps even need my game experience to be different than it has been lately. Space is empty, fear is real and when the scouts find another group for one reason or another fights are not had. So often people only feel what they can lose so nothing happens. I can jump solo into a hole with active moving ships and they scatter in fear. A buzzard can be hacking cans with the nearest support five systems off yet the residents hide for fear of what is not even there. As the game is sculpted it would be nice if the optimum solution were to interact with other ships rather than to hide as hiding is rather terrible gameplay for both parties. Clearly there is a problem. Encounters are too rare and often one sided with the other party having no chance at all and no consolation prize, only loss for trying. As future changes are discussed please watch for opportunities to increase interaction and decrease the all to common one sidedness of so many encounters. Perhaps attractive isking opportunities could spawn as a result of and in the wake of battle, perhaps the mechanics of fights could be changed to yield more mixed rather than one sided results.
PS, it would be nice if the c13s were little ship holes rather than little armor ship holes as little ships is rather limited without the further limitation of tank. I think this is an obvious byproduct of 2 things. One is the mass/range change which went a long way to convincing smaller corps to leave wh space for incursion isk. The second is the small group of big wh corps that routinely field large fleets. I haven't looked at skyfighters numbers, but I'll be honest w/ you - when I see one of your guys I think blob and either close a connection to be done w/ you or go out to the kitchen and make a pot of soup (substitute mow the lawn in appropriate months). I come back in a few hours and re-evaluate and go from there. Here's where I'm coming from on this. I don't like the 30 man prot/guardian/jamgu/loki fleet. I don't like to be in it. I don't like to fight it. That's for a couple of reasons. It's boring to me. I don't like the day to day burden of dealing with that large a number of guys. It makes for more work (keeping everyone entertained), more drama, and any time you get more then 50 guys together one of them feels a need to espouse (my opinion here) liberal propoganda crap. I don't log into eve to deal w/ any of that. (NOTE: your average liberal guy doesn't want to hear me talk about the second amendment in the US or my views on taxes and other stuff - there are 2 sides to the coin - I get it - I just don't want to deal w/ the other side of the coin when I play a game to relax) I'm not saying any of the above stuff is outright wrong, it's just stuff I choose to not be apart of. If you like that sort of stuff - go for it. So, I'm in a small group of good guys that I really like to play eve with. No drama, no pressure to entertain, no views I don't want to listen to. It's all good for me (thanks guys). So that leaves me with an inability to compete/pvp w/ larger folks. I choose to just ignore them. I think arranged fights where folks agree to this and that is kind of wierd, so I don't go for that either. I just choose to bypass dealing with larger wh corps to the extent I can. I'm happy to do that. Sure I miss out on some fights. Sure I get possed up by superior numbers from time to time. These things I am glad to trade away to hang w/ a small group of guys that I get along with, a laid back corp structure and play style, no drama and no 'going to work' feel when I log in. My point?? I don't fear you, I just choose to not deal w/ the big you that may or may not be 2 wh out. We don't sit on comms complaining that some big bad wh bro is blocking us from enjoying eve. We do other things until you pass. We accept what we are and where we are and are happy for it. You've chosen to be in one of the larger corps. You need to accept that folks aren't going to fight you because of that choice. I don't think there is a cure. It's human nature. Some guys like to mob around in big fleets and do that stuff. Some guys don't. Accept it and keep scanning or change what's making the game unfun for you. TL/DR Bane Nucleus and skyfighters are evil.... I hate them!
You fear something that is not there. Five man fleets is pretty normal for us, sometimes a bit bigger, sometimes just a single ship looking for trouble. We do not "ping" although numbers do swell if things get rolling on teamspeak. I had enough of being pinged while walking the dog or eating dinner out to last a lifetime. I am not sure if intel is too good or too bad but it is preventing content. Fights that do not happen is not fun, I would say it is my number one complaint with Eve. We spend hours hunting to find actual active people and then when we do find them it is a big "nope." I cant imagine logging off is fun for them either.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
778
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 14:36:40 -
[44] - Quote
I don't fear you, I just choose to play the game in a manner that prevents me from taking you head on. That being said I wouldn't normally take the time and expend the effort to see if you have something I can deal with. I just play the odds and don't.
You see fear, I see an opportunity to make some Ham and Bean soup (yeah, I put hand made rivvels in it, so it's the good kind). I'm not saying you're wrong in all cases. I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there that do fear you.
I'm saying that's the price you pay for being in a corp that has a 133 in the players attribute on a show info. I just took the time to check you KB and you have much more reasonable numbers than I would have guessed. So you're more right and I'm more wrong, but that doesn't change your corps rep. You guys are known and notable, and that has a price.
In the rare times we meet, in the future we'll probably have a go at you. We're pretty lazy and I think only one of us (not me) is any good at all about checking current KB in real time as we meet folks.
I'd say overall it's name recognition. You guys went big on rep a while back. Good or bad, it's a rep you earned - now you have to carry it. Want some fun? Create a new corp w/ all the same guys in it. Call it something bearish and womp up on guys like me that don't take the time to research stuff. |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
203
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 15:01:44 -
[45] - Quote
I am not sure if this is the place but I want to drop some ideas for the upcoming t3 rebalance.
I strongly suggest our CSM take initiative and get some sort of semi-official discussion going (maybe create a thread in Features & Ideas Disussion and have it stickied) before CCP goes all solo on this matter. I think many will agree that the Recon rebalance failed so utterly because a single Dev felt like reinventing himself ... leaving a significant portion of players unhappy and disappointed.
FIrst, what I think might be current issues with t3:
- many believe t3 are or should be flexible. However, they are not (really). Rather than changing subs and fittings people tend to opt for a second, third or fourth version of the same ship in order to assume different roles. This is due to rigs but also refitting things being a pain in the ass. Which brings me to the next two points:
- Rigs probably need to go and some of their stats incorporated into the hull / subsystems
- t3 are too cheap. Lately, prices have gone up, but ~500m for a t2 fitted strategic cruisers is still low given how powerful they can be
- Skill point loss is not necessarily a bad thing, but should def. be discussed since it's an important factor in t3 balancing.
Now, my vision of t3 is sort of a blend of current d3 and t3 features. This means, subsystems are staying, however, t3 also get more flexibility by way of a mechanism that enables t3 to quickly change their abilities. Rather than predefined modes (as with d3) strategic cruisers would have the ability to swap their fitting (NOT subsystems, only mods) on a whim. E.g. a t3 could have up to 3 profiles that can be fitted differently and swapped by pushing a single button.
Points for discussion go into bulled points, because lazy
- Technical feasibility (rather a question for CCP). Fittings are probably associated 1:1 to a hull, so things would need to be changed in the backend to allow for multiple fittings per ship. Shouldn't be too complicated to get some abstraction layer between hull and ship, yet who knows ... it might be interfering with the POS code or something -.-
- One would need to discuss when and where a t3 would be allowed to swap profile (e.g. everywhere? or maybe just when docked or in refitting range of an SMA),whether or not a swap would be instantaneous and the duration of a cooldown
- One could also discuss whether or not t3 hulls should be usable without any subsystems whatsoever, with subsystems being optional boni providing things. In such a case it could be interesting to use multiple subsystems from the same category: e.g. to create a legion that can use a covert cloak, missiles, bonused neuts and bonused probes. This would obviously screw with the current ship/subsystem models, but I guess CCP is going to somehow consolidate them anyway or they would have made a statement on this matter when releasing PBR.
Again, these are just some ideas from the top of my head which (might be really bad and) would require some serious changes for t3 base stats and subsystems boni. I know there is a huge crowd that would rather not see any changes to t3 at all, but they will come ...
I hope that corbexx & co. will lead some discussion on this topic before CCP takes it into their own hands (provided that process hasn't already started). |
Kynric
Sky Fighters
246
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 15:37:27 -
[46] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:I don't fear you, I just choose to play the game in a manner that prevents me from taking you head on. That being said I wouldn't normally take the time and expend the effort to see if you have something I can deal with. I just play the odds and don't.
You see fear, I see an opportunity to make some Ham and Bean soup (yeah, I put hand made rivvels in it, so it's the good kind). I'm not saying you're wrong in all cases. I'm sure there are plenty of guys out there that do fear you.
I'm saying that's the price you pay for being in a corp that has a 133 in the players attribute on a show info. I just took the time to check you KB and you have much more reasonable numbers than I would have guessed. So you're more right and I'm more wrong, but that doesn't change your corps rep. You guys are known and notable, and that has a price.
In the rare times we meet, in the future we'll probably have a go at you. We're pretty lazy and I think only one of us (not me) is any good at all about checking current KB in real time as we meet folks.
I'd say overall it's name recognition. You guys went big on rep a while back. Good or bad, it's a rep you earned - now you have to carry it. Want some fun? Create a new corp w/ all the same guys in it. Call it something bearish and womp up on guys like me that don't take the time to research stuff.
No, I am not going to rename my corp. I can't imagine what a headache of pos anchoring and unanchoring that would be. Then there a are the old friends I have not seen in ages, but that I enjoy greatly when they drift back for a month or two. I value those relationships. Perhaps a simpler answer would be to move the pilot of a ship and owning corp from public info to info which must be found with a ship scanner or at least allow us to opt out of broadcasting such information to other peoples overviews. More actual encounters between ships would make for a much better game than the current metagame research projects which we have now instead. Somehow, someway we need ti have more opportunities to fly our ships than we currently have. The ratio of hours spent looking for fights to seconds in actual fights is all wrong. |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
203
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 17:03:18 -
[47] - Quote
Oh before I forget:
Renaming your ship doesn't sync instantaneously to other people's dscan. Would be very useful if it was ... |
Neevor Airuta
Grey Horizon
73
|
Posted - 2015.01.15 20:05:02 -
[48] - Quote
Some things for CCP to be reminded of: #1: mission structure needs revamp badly and for a long time - all mission content is fully mapped, and as such offers little to no risk, NPC standings should influence wich missions are available from given agent, and not just binary available/unavailable status, and some of missions need to be moved to a diffrenet level completely (I'm looking at you Material for War, what are you even doing outside lv2s?) #2: at least some of the releases each year should be devoted to finishing/polishing content that has been added incomplete - I'm mostly thinking Epic arcs, COSMOS chains, storyline agents and their rewards; and those are only the ones off the top of my head, I'm sure there's more. #3: overwiev revamp: both expanding on funcionality and visual aspect; a few releases back, before introduction of ISIS art team offered a glimpse of class-specific overview icons - implementing those would be good start; display filters would be another good one. |
Montgomery Black
Awakened Ones
70
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 08:38:47 -
[49] - Quote
The recall probes button repositioned away from the scan button. like move it to the other side of the probe scanner window.
tired me recalls combats instead of intiating scan. = site running domi's get to live another day |
Peonza Chan
Gloryhole Initiative
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.16 11:08:56 -
[50] - Quote
Would be nice if my scanned signatures still scanned once I go out and re-enter the system. |
|
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
144
|
Posted - 2015.01.19 09:58:30 -
[51] - Quote
There should be a way to force corpbookmarks to syncronize. My understanding is that it is linked to sessionchanges but there are times when you can-¦t do a sessionchange on your scout without showing up on scan. So you have to wait for up to 5 minutes what is a timeframe to cleara lowendsite, a siegecycle or enough time for sleepers to spawn in gas/oresites. |
umnikar
Fishbone Industries
54
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:16:53 -
[52] - Quote
looks like the other thread is no longer watched/updated? So I repost my little **** in here.
Dscan Window: Since we have this filter selection for dscan, I always wanted to have a second one. So instead of the checkbox to turn the filter on/off there should be a switch to select between 2 filter selections.
Scan Probes: If they identify the signature but not pointed it down(shown as a circle or sphere) I'd like to see those colored yellow instead of red.
Gas/Grav Sites: Sleepers should spawn immediately. Too many ninja miners around.
ah yeah .. 5-10 k162 per day is too much for my taste, but others seem to like? |
umnikar
Fishbone Industries
54
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 11:20:04 -
[53] - Quote
Montgomery Black wrote:The recall probes button repositioned away from the scan button. like move it to the other side of the probe scanner window. tired me recalls combats instead of intiating scan. = site running domi's get to live another day
are you so nervous and shakin before possible gank? |
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
544
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 17:39:56 -
[54] - Quote
umnikar wrote:looks like the other thread is no longer watched/updated? So I repost my little **** in here.
Dscan Window: Since we have this filter selection for dscan, I always wanted to have a second one. So instead of the checkbox to turn the filter on/off there should be a switch to select between 2 filter selections.
Scan Probes: If they identify the signature but not pointed it down(shown as a circle or sphere) I'd like to see those colored yellow instead of red.
Gas/Grav Sites: Sleepers should spawn immediately. Too many ninja miners around...
And put them on the Gas clouds, not on the beacon!
The gas sleeper hounds should be guard gods instead of idleing the beacon half an hour too late.
Dear Corebexxx, the reason the Prospect is not very popular is that the tech2 gas miners do not get the cycle time reduction of the ship bonus.
Both the tech1 and tech1 gas harvesters mine the same amount of gas at the same time, so why on Earth would you buy a 25 million isk boat when you can make 20000 bazillion of 200k isk boats that have a scram bonus on them to do the same thing for 1/10th the price?
(Ventures are awesome!)
Most ore anomalies don't have Mercoxite to mine
Please add some ore to the other nullsec relic and data sites (currently only the Monument sites contain ore).
Fix some of the combat anomalies that 'go away' as soon as you leave them in the last wave to get ammo or let your cap regenerate for a fex moments.
signature
|
Lloyd Roses
809
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 18:02:35 -
[55] - Quote
Initiate-probe-scan and Initiate-dscan hotkeys please!
I GÖÑ Sleipnir
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
1197
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 18:06:52 -
[56] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Initiate-probe-scan and Initiate-dscan hotkeys please!
summit is over now but i'll ask about it once i'm home
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
elitatwo
Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team
547
|
Posted - 2015.01.27 01:54:39 -
[57] - Quote
Oh and while you are at it, a polarization timer like the gate aggression thing in the top left.
signature
|
Soldarius
Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent
1128
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 15:47:13 -
[58] - Quote
ExookiZ wrote:Maria Kitiare wrote:POSes are fine. It's the roles that needs fixing. It doesn't make sense that you can't give a corp member access to make stuff like drugs, without giving him the keys to the kindgom.
I don't need a new shiny holy Jesus POS from heaven, especialy not if CCP is still considering docking/mooring/whatever. All I need is the ability to give people access to what I want them to have access to without compromising the entire corp. this X 1000
If CCP could separate POS access from global corp roles, that would make things so much simpler. Or if they could allow for a way to assign a particular moon as a base location, then a CEO or director could assign that location as a base to an individual player. Then potentially that player could be given full rights to do whatever at just that moon.
Actually, I think that might be feasible depending on how POSes are stored and referenced in the database. I know that in the SDE all celestials all have a reference to the item which they orbit, called an orbitID. If POSes also have this orbitID, then could not something point to it via that reference? In this case, the orbitID for the POS would be the moon's itemID.
As stated above, running reactions at a POS requires that universal roles be given to a player because of the need to online/offline the silos before adding or removing materials. For that matter, so does adding or removing materials. Honestly, the entire reaction system needs to be redesigned from the ground up, especially the terribad UI. If I could get one small wish, it would be to let us rearrange the items in the production flow tab rather than having them in fixed locations. The new locations should be remembered.
Strat Cruiser rebalance needs to happen before any others.
Sentry Drones and their role in pvp need to be re-examined. They are a bit OP no matter what you do with them.
A potential balance lever for all drones is bandwidth. Its a shame this lever has never been used. It could allow for a much wider variety of drone usage cases for subcaps, as well as a balancing lever for capitals.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
157
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 22:43:08 -
[59] - Quote
I guess this thread should be deleted and replaced with his wormhole alt. |
Herecura
Noob Corp Inc
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 10:41:03 -
[60] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:I guess this thread should be deleted and replaced with his wormhole alt. rekt |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |