Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1282
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 15:21:06 -
[91] - Quote
Thank you for fixing the absolutely terrible Thukker Shield Extenders. Now if you would just fix the Thukker Tribe LP store prices...
Even if those extenders are actually good, no one will use them if a Thukker Tribe MSE cost the same as a Republic Fleet SSE.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Soldarius
Naliao Inc. Test Alliance Please Ignore
1283
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 15:26:33 -
[92] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:Small shield extenders get double HP over 100mm plates. 200mm plates have roughly same HP but 10PG or more and slows the ship down.
Ships that will be fitting these modules won't prefer either really, just that PG is more valuable on small ships.
Because shield extenders come prenerfed with a penalty to sigRad, which makes the ship take more damage. And unlike armor plates, there is no skill to reduce that penalty.
Seems balanced to me.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
520
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 16:11:57 -
[93] - Quote
in shield spreadsheet there is a typo:
large shield extender II have 2 625 currently while in spreadsheet it have 2 600 (+25). I think it should be -25 in there or 2 650.
For CPU it shows similar problem: 46 in game, 45 (+1) in spreadsheet
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
CCP Delegate Zero
C C P C C P Alliance
212
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:02:11 -
[94] - Quote
The stats sheets have been updated with some changes we will make in light of feedback.
Change Sheets - Updated 22-05-15
Armor Plates Module Tiericide
Shield Extender Module Tiericide
In summary, on reflection the Tech II armor plates have had their HP values maintained as at current TQ numbers; the Storyline plates have been adjusted a group to have low fitting requirements but with less HP bonus than in the original proposed changes; the Syndicate faction plates have had a significant powergrid requirement cut in order to further differentiate them and hopefully make them an attractive option for some uses.
Minor adjustment to Storyline shield extenders to emphasize the lower fitting aspect of the modules is also included.
Hopefully this addresses the bulk of the concerns. We've listened to all the feedback but don't necessarily agree with all of it. I want to also note that these changes are taking place as part of the module tiericide effort and don't represent the last word in balance of these module groups.
CCP Delegate Zero | Game Designer | @CCPDelegateZero
|
|
Chrisfighter
Gladdebacher's
0
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:10:35 -
[95] - Quote
Very nice, this iteration is way better :)
Nur die harten kommen innen Garten, eh .... Eve xD
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
721
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:22:05 -
[96] - Quote
Very nice, though my initial concerns about sig vs HP on shield extenders still stand.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Valterra Craven
545
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:51:18 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Delegate Zero wrote: Hopefully this addresses the bulk of the concerns. We've listened to all the feedback but don't necessarily agree with all of it. I want to also note that these changes are taking place as part of the module tiericide effort and don't represent the last word in balance of these module groups.
Am curious about the parts you guys don't agree with?
It seems like a lot of the feedback here was "this was a start, but why not just redo these groups as a whole the first time sense you are expending effort on them now?"
Are these efforts PURELY teiricide just to cut down on the amount of "fluff" we have just so you can go back at a future time and redo everything again? If so, isn' that kinda a lot of effort duplicated? |
Perihelion Olenard
208
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 17:58:57 -
[98] - Quote
Any plan to make the Federation Navy plates offered through the loyalty point store through the Federation Navy (same for the other respective navys)? It seems odd that we have access to other armor modules, but not the plates.
I wear my sunglasses at night.
|
Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
24
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:23:31 -
[99] - Quote
I like it these changes. Good positive changes for a change.
Only thing... is why are we making the Crystalline Carbonide better than the Rolled Tungsten? Trying to flip the market values?
|
|
CCP Delegate Zero
C C P C C P Alliance
219
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:27:46 -
[100] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote: It seems like a lot of the feedback here was "this was a start, but why not just redo these groups as a whole the first time sense you are expending effort on them now?"
Are these efforts PURELY teiricide just to cut down on the amount of "fluff" we have just so you can go back at a future time and redo everything again? If so, isn' that kinda a lot of effort duplicated?
Those are fair points to make but the main effort in this exercise is the rebalance around the principles we are using to inform module tiericide combined with some of the implications of module tiericide, such as where modules and blueprints are removed.
A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them.
The great benefit of module tiericide is that it is establishing a more coherent framework that should make big changes easier to contemplate and implement.
Overall, it's a priority call where the allocated time is being focused on a relatively straightforward rebalance and some tidying up rather than on a more radical shift.
It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort.
CCP Delegate Zero | Game Designer | @CCPDelegateZero
|
|
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
723
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:32:56 -
[101] - Quote
I like this openness about a bunch of the process.
I also like how you are sounding out a revolutionary pass after this evolutionary pass for balance.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Valterra Craven
545
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 18:36:11 -
[102] - Quote
CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort.
Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched...
Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly... |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
723
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 19:00:03 -
[103] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched... Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly...
Which is good, as faction would otherwise eliminate much of the use of t2 and meta modules. While cost as an absolute isn't a balancing factor, price efficiency is. If you get x value for y isk, or you get x+5% value for 35y isk, there are reasons to choose both for different applications. Like if y is a small enough number relative to your isk and you need that ship to do better, then 35y for better performance is a no brainer. On the other hand, if fit q with module p that costs y for x performance is slated to die by the dozens daily, then faction for mod p is almost out of the question for most people/groups.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Valterra Craven
545
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 19:49:59 -
[104] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched... Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly... Which is good, as faction would otherwise eliminate much of the use of t2 and meta modules. While cost as an absolute isn't a balancing factor, price efficiency is. If you get x value for y isk, or you get x+5% value for 35y isk, there are reasons to choose both for different applications. Like if y is a small enough number relative to your isk and you need that ship to do better, then 35y for better performance is a no brainer. On the other hand, if fit q with module p that costs y for x performance is slated to die by the dozens daily, then faction for mod p is almost out of the question for most people/groups.
Um, do you even know what you are talking about? Have you looked at the tag costs of some of the items in LP stores?
Here's an example of an ok item:
Caldari Navy EM Ward Field (currently 26mil in jita) Lp 11,250 4.5mil isk 1x EM Ward Field I 2x Fed Navy Fleet Major I (115k isk ea in jita) 4x Fed Navy Fleet Colonel I (1.95mil isk ea in jita) 6x Fed Navy Fleet Colonel II (759k in isk ea in jita)
This item has same resists as t2 but has much lower fitting costs. Though to be fair you'd be stupid to buy/use one of these since the Dread Gurstas one has the same stats and is cheaper at 18mil... but that aside the price differential isn't all that bad.
Here's an example of a bad item
Caldari navy medium Shield Booster (currently 92mil in jita) Lp 40,500 12.2mil isk 1x medium Sheild Booster I 108x Fed Navy Fleet Captain I (240k isk ea in jita) 178x Fed Navy Major I (115k isk ea in jita)
This item has less cpu, same activiation, and slightly less boost than a t2 item. Again though, you'd be stupid to buy this since the Dread Guristas item has the exact same stats and sells for a whooping.... 16mil! Granted, this isn't due solely to tag cost, but the idea is still the same. If they are going to be redoing items and messing with faction stuff, these legacy prices should be looked at as well.
|
Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1045
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 20:17:47 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Delegate Zero wrote:A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them. Hopefully, you can understand player frustration here.
CCP as a company quite often flip-flops between "we don't want to just kick the can down the road" (the POS revamp being a recent example) and "we'll get back to this later" (constantly pushing supercap rebalance into the future being a recurring example). The first is the occasional recognition from devs that -- as a company -- your record on follow-up isn't the greatest. The second -- which you as a company pull out more often, including this time -- obviously perpetuates this belief.
Thus, the frustration and skepticism players feel.
aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2112
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 21:00:50 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Delegate Zero wrote:It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Gotta call bs on this I'm afraid. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard 'Don't worry, we are going to iterate on this feature - soon!'.
Just fix it now. It is the logical time to do it and frankly if you don't think it is important enough to do under this banner then it won't get done at all.
Even a simple renaming sweep so it makes sense to fit small things on small ships, medium on cruiser etc would be beneficial.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
James Zimmer
Furtherance.
15
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 21:22:18 -
[107] - Quote
I really appreciate the responsiveness to the player base. I'm fairly certain no other gaming company would plan changes, show them to the players and then tweak them almost instantly based off of player input. |
Midori Tsu
Evolution Northern Coalition.
139
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 21:29:56 -
[108] - Quote
I like the changes to the syndicate plates, might actually be a popular choice. |
Aliventi
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
859
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 22:07:01 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Delegate Zero wrote:Those are fair points to make but the main effort in this exercise is the rebalance around the principles we are using to inform module tiericide combined with some of the implications of module tiericide, such as where modules and blueprints are removed.
A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them.
The great benefit of module tiericide is that it is establishing a more coherent framework that should make big changes easier to contemplate and implement.
Overall, it's a priority call where the allocated time is being focused on a relatively straightforward rebalance and some tidying up rather than on a more radical shift.
It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. It's nice to say "Once all the modules go through a tiericide we can come back and take a look." Unfortunately, that is a long way off. Ship tiericide and rebalancing started years ago and we still have 8+ ship groups that need still need to be redone and many others that are still waiting a second pass. How many years until module tiericide is done? How many years before any modules are revisited? I have no idea. Could you possibly give us a date at which a these modules might be revisited by?
When CCP sold players the vision of 5-6 week expansions they made it clear that if something took more time that expected to do right then it could very easily be pushed off until the next expansion. Take the time and do it right. Push these changes off until you get the best solution in place. Spend that extra design time and effort to do the radical redesign. It will be much easier to sell the leadership on giving you the time to do a second look that is merely tweaking modules than it will be to sell a second look that redoes all of the modules again. You have these 5-6 week expansions so you can do things right, and do them right the first time. Take advantage of it. Please take advantage of it. |
Circumstantial Evidence
181
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 22:29:37 -
[110] - Quote
The train has left the station on this tiericide concept, they have held to this same methodology since the first couple parts sets were refined. I appreciate that they are taking it just a few module groups at a time, because the feedback thread would be insane if they dumped a giant spreadsheet full of module group changes for every part on us, all at once. Ship balancing never ends, and so to, with module balancing. |
|
Casivek Andrard
Bloody Cross Syndicate Violent Declaration
6
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 22:43:22 -
[111] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:The train has left the station on this tiericide concept, they have held to this same methodology since the first couple parts sets were refined. I appreciate that they are taking it just a few module groups at a time, because the feedback thread would be insane if they dumped a giant spreadsheet full of module group changes for every part on us, all at once. Ship balancing never ends, and so to, with module balancing.
Non sense look at the Ishtar, they refuse to fix the issue and just make it where it is the only viable ship for sentries more so than an Armageddon which is a drone boat BATTLESHIP no less. Instead they rather make pretty little stations and new ship models (still good but not important) instead of fix what actually pissed people off more. |
Circumstantial Evidence
181
|
Posted - 2015.05.22 22:55:14 -
[112] - Quote
Casivek Andrard wrote:Non sense look at the Ishtar, they refuse to fix the issue... They did change some stats on the Ishtar fairly recently, just not as much as a lot of people wished for. I was thinking of the Sentry thread, as I wrote the above
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
724
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 00:38:46 -
[113] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Casivek Andrard wrote:Non sense look at the Ishtar, they refuse to fix the issue... They did change some stats on the Ishtar fairly recently, just not as much as a lot of people wished for. I was thinking of the Sentry thread, as I wrote the above
They acknowledge it is a problem, and that sentries on ishtars and other drone boats, particularly 125 bandwidth cruisers (vexor, navy vexor, ishtar) are both a problem, and are iterating on it in just about every release, and seem intent on doing so until it is fixed by making more, smaller but faster and more precisely targeted balance changes, just like the change from biannual releases to 6 week releases with a smaller 1.1 patch to most 6 week patches at the end of the 2nd week of deployment of the 6 week patches was intended to do.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
724
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 00:48:17 -
[114] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:James Baboli wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:CCP Delegate Zero wrote: I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort. Ok, you'll just have to forgive us players if we have trust issues surrounding statements like this... considering its been longer than a decade since anything of this nature has been touched... Also, one other point, I really really really wish you guys would look at the faction stores for the items that you are redoing and redo their cost. When you factor in the tag cost for a lot of the items... well things get rather silly/extreme quickly... Which is good, as faction would otherwise eliminate much of the use of t2 and meta modules. While cost as an absolute isn't a balancing factor, price efficiency is. If you get x value for y isk, or you get x+5% value for 35y isk, there are reasons to choose both for different applications. Like if y is a small enough number relative to your isk and you need that ship to do better, then 35y for better performance is a no brainer. On the other hand, if fit q with module p that costs y for x performance is slated to die by the dozens daily, then faction for mod p is almost out of the question for most people/groups. Um, do you even know what you are talking about? Have you looked at the tag costs of some of the items in LP stores? *snipped examples* Granted, the cost differential isn't due solely to tag cost (though it does make up a large bulk of it), but the idea is still the same. If they are going to be redoing items and messing with faction stuff, these legacy prices should be looked at as well.
The same thing I said earlier about m4 vs t2 being out of whack due to the game having gotten bigger in some ways and incentives shifting significantly apply to this for certain. I think it is because LP has gotten cheaper, but tags have dried up and much more people are able to rat faster and this has flooded the market with the pirate faction items which drop medium frequently, and thus the supply and costs are out of whack from when the modules were concieved and released, making the costs make little sense. Then again, I know many people willing to pay extra for certain faction modules, even for ones which are worse in every way, because of which faction they like or RP as.
Quote: Has to do with m4 mods being, in many cases, just straight up better than m0-m3, and t2 better than m4 on everything but fitting, so they are used almost exclusively, which means that the intended balancing feature from when the modules were new, rarity, has completely been messed up in the time since, and so they are in need of actual balance, not scarcity from when the game was much smaller and there were fewer high sp folks toasting rats in one shot.
Talking more,
Flying crazier,
And drinking more
Making battleships worth the warp
|
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
166
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 01:07:10 -
[115] - Quote
First off I wanted to say, at least there will finally be a module tiericide that won't force me to sell all of my used to be meta 4's to buy what used to be meta 2's because CCP felt that the less fitting requirement that the old meta 4's used to have was better swapped with the meta 2's. So at least this time I can keep all my F-S9 Regolith extenders for their fitting benefits.
Second... what is with the war on screen space by making module names even longer than they were before? I understand the desire to add flavor and lore, but isn't there a description tab in the info window that would be a better place to flesh out the lore of a particular flavor of item instead of in the name? For example the new "400mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates" compared to the old "400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates". Seeing how all plates were called "XXmm Reinforced", the only unique part of the name we ever needed was "Rolled Tungsten". So now you feel that its not enough that we know the Rolled Tungsten plates are the best for fitting, you have to throw "Compact" into the name as added redundancy to address confusion that isn't even there. Yeah, when CCP first started doing these module changes and were nerfing the old meta 4's and replacing them with buffed meta 2's nobody used they must have felt the need to make sure we knew what was best about the "new" modules. But as long as they keep the module's use and practicality the same they wouldn't need to fluff the name with all the extra screen clutter. I can only make the left side of the market window so big... |
Lloyd Roses
Artificial Memories
1062
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 01:53:04 -
[116] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:First off I wanted to say, at least there will finally be a module tiericide that won't force me to sell all of my used to be meta 4's to buy what used to be meta 2's because CCP felt that the less fitting requirement that the old meta 4's used to have was better swapped with the meta 2's. So at least this time I can keep all my F-S9 Regolith extenders for their fitting benefits.
Second... what is with the war on screen space by making module names even longer than they were before? I understand the desire to add flavor and lore, but isn't there a description tab in the info window that would be a better place to flesh out the lore of a particular flavor of item instead of in the name? For example the new "400mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates" compared to the old "400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates". Seeing how all plates were called "XXmm Reinforced", the only unique part of the name we ever needed was "Rolled Tungsten". So now you feel that its not enough that we know the Rolled Tungsten plates are the best for fitting, you have to throw "Compact" into the name as added redundancy to address confusion that isn't even there. Yeah, when CCP first started doing these module changes and were nerfing the old meta 4's and replacing them with buffed meta 2's nobody used they must have felt the need to make sure we knew what was best about the "new" modules. But as long as they keep the module's use and practicality the same they wouldn't need to fluff the name with all the extra screen clutter. I can only make the left side of the market window so big...
I think the mechanical fluff name (compact/restrained) adds nicely, as it persists through all groups so far. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Get Off My Lawn
977
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 03:38:06 -
[117] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:First off I wanted to say, at least there will finally be a module tiericide that won't force me to sell all of my used to be meta 4's to buy what used to be meta 2's because CCP felt that the less fitting requirement that the old meta 4's used to have was better swapped with the meta 2's. So at least this time I can keep all my F-S9 Regolith extenders for their fitting benefits.
Second... what is with the war on screen space by making module names even longer than they were before? I understand the desire to add flavor and lore, but isn't there a description tab in the info window that would be a better place to flesh out the lore of a particular flavor of item instead of in the name? For example the new "400mm Rolled Tungsten Compact Plates" compared to the old "400mm Reinforced Rolled Tungsten Plates". Seeing how all plates were called "XXmm Reinforced", the only unique part of the name we ever needed was "Rolled Tungsten". So now you feel that its not enough that we know the Rolled Tungsten plates are the best for fitting, you have to throw "Compact" into the name as added redundancy to address confusion that isn't even there. Yeah, when CCP first started doing these module changes and were nerfing the old meta 4's and replacing them with buffed meta 2's nobody used they must have felt the need to make sure we knew what was best about the "new" modules. But as long as they keep the module's use and practicality the same they wouldn't need to fluff the name with all the extra screen clutter. I can only make the left side of the market window so big... I think the mechanical fluff name (compact/restrained) adds nicely, as it persists through all groups so far.
It makes far more sense to keep the compact/restrained part of the name and get rid of the old flavor names. Also, they need to get rid of the quotes around the storyline item names. This naming scheme below makes more sense to me.
1600mm Armor Plates I 1600mm Compact Armor Plates 1600mm Restrained Armor Plates 1600mm Armor Plates II 1600mm Bailey Armor Plates 1600mm Syndicate Armor Plates 1600mm Federation Navy Armor Plates 1600mm Imperial Navy Armor Plates
Maybe there are better reasons to keep the order the same, but I would prefer to see simpler and shorter names.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
Onslaughtor
Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems
142
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 03:42:47 -
[118] - Quote
So I feel I need to say this again. Can we not have the t1 modules be so much worse than the rest of the meta, at least in the primary stat? |
Circumstantial Evidence
181
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 05:09:33 -
[119] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:It makes far more sense to keep the compact/restrained part of the name and get rid of the old flavor names. ..... I would prefer to see simpler and shorter names. I kind of agree, but also was one of many who missed the old flavor names. Perhaps they could be buried in description text. Still, I like many of the flavor names. They help with market searches, due to their uniqueness.
|
Max Kolonko
WATAHA. Unseen Wolves
520
|
Posted - 2015.05.23 14:15:41 -
[120] - Quote
CCP Delegate Zero wrote:Valterra Craven wrote: It seems like a lot of the feedback here was "this was a start, but why not just redo these groups as a whole the first time sense you are expending effort on them now?"
Are these efforts PURELY teiricide just to cut down on the amount of "fluff" we have just so you can go back at a future time and redo everything again? If so, isn' that kinda a lot of effort duplicated?
Those are fair points to make but the main effort in this exercise is the rebalance around the principles we are using to inform module tiericide combined with some of the implications of module tiericide, such as where modules and blueprints are removed. A more radical approach could be contemplated, for sure, and we briefly chatted about it but it is actually a significant bit of extra design time and effort to decide what of various radical options should be taken and to then design around them. The great benefit of module tiericide is that it is establishing a more coherent framework that should make big changes easier to contemplate and implement. Overall, it's a priority call where the allocated time is being focused on a relatively straightforward rebalance and some tidying up rather than on a more radical shift. It's also I would say useful sometimes to see how changes work out knowing that we have the flexibility to revisit and perhaps do more due to the way we now release features. I would anticipate some revisiting once we've done the basic sweep through modules in the current effort.
Dear CCP Delegate Zero, can you please look over AGAIN on the numbers. There are still errors in brackets (change to current TQ version) is staggering. Just for example:
T2 1600 plate takes 33 CPU while in the new sheet it takes 35 (+3) it should be either: (+2) or 36 CPU.
I can only assume You put there there manually, maybe use a function to present these numbers.
Read and support:
Don't mess with OUR WH's
What is Your stance on WH stuff?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |