Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 85 post(s) |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor Fidelas Constans
30
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 14:19:36 -
[271] - Quote
CCP Fozzie and Team five 0- "This goal would be broken if certain types of forces could somehow just ignore enemies (for instance, through overwhelming remote repair or through evasion) or if mechanics pushed fights towards indefinite deathless stalemates. This goal is the reason for most of the special restrictions and limitations on the Entosis Link, such as the GÇ£no remote repsGÇ¥ rule."
How are we supposed to be testing this when quite literally it is an endless stalemate if, when both sides have equal numbers and when one side has superior numbers the can just field AT ships and infinite Capitals and Sub-Capitals and pretty much use the same Dominion bully tactics. Play testing the mechanic is nice but when you made it a competition and didn't take into consideration the actual dynamics of the competition you pretty much said "hey, IDGAF if you guys use blobs to hellcamp like the Dominion SOV system just have the numbers to do that and spread out and capture everything and you get to win"
Furthermore, The Evasion statement is 0% true when the Entosis Link II can basically be used out to 250km on a ship that can speed tank at range... Guess what beats that...NOTHING. You can't accurately scan down a ship going as fast as what some people have seen on the test server and even if you do by the time you land on grid they are already too far away to do anything. Add this to the absurd fleet warp changes and you basically have an invincible ship that can entosis freely or prevent counter entosising.
As expected a few things happened
1. Brave had their usual drama and pretty much gave up because they stopped caring which in turn screwed over their "blues" because from a tactical standpoint, aligning with your next door neighbor is smart, but from an execution based standpoint, Brave is cancer and anything it touches goes to ****.
2. PL flexed it's Supercarrier and Titan muscle due to the practically zero risk involved(other than it being gone on the test server). You don't have you enemy plus 2k-3k other people trying to whore on KMs. So, you can freely use things like this with no repercussions nor did they have to worry about a larger alliance countering them with their own Super and Titan Blob. Giving PL far too much freedom to maneuver things that they would not use so excessively in a scenario where the loss would be real.
3. The excessive use of unrealistic doctrines lead to mass disinterest due to the fact that the people who were testing got what they needed to know out of it with a base understanding of how to attack and defends SOV and after that didn't care because through unrealistic doctrines the testing value ceased to be anything outside of who has more people willing to participate.
4. Most alliances who didn't show up early on had a few people figuring out how the SOV system works and will likely be coming into the competition near the end when capping SOV actually means you can keep it cause the competition is at its end and it will be impossible to capture it back when zero day hits.
The FozzieSov mechanic is new and interesting and will likely add some interesting changes to the Nullsec dynamic but this "competition" is absolute cancer and at this point is the Spectre and PL show. Everyone else has basically lost interest; between the incomprehensive UI, the inability to know how much, by % or by time, you have completed of you "attack or defense", and the absolutely ridiculous doctrines that are being used; nobody really seems to care anymore. |
DNLeviathan
Dead Or Alive Inc. Praetorian Directorate
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 14:53:34 -
[272] - Quote
My somewhat small alliance has not lost interest in this and are still going when we can.
As for blobs and at doctrines, we fielded a rather small t3 fleet the other night and we killed alot more AT ships than we lost T3's and no we didnt have any logi. it was only when supers arrived on field that we moved on. we have been doing this quite a bit since this started and not just in t3's, we have used t1 bs and smaller with similar results.
as for the actual test, i think its going well, still a few minor things but i for one am almost convinced to return to null sec and a few of my alliance mates are considering the same also. |
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
7
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:18:02 -
[273] - Quote
the main thing that killed this competition is lack of dedication from most of the alliances that registered.
|
CoffinBait
Colonial Cartel Praetorian Directorate
2
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:46:30 -
[274] - Quote
Dare I say we got more activity on duality than we do on some of our ops and roams on tranquility ? :) |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor Fidelas Constans
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:51:55 -
[275] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:the main thing that killed this competition is lack of dedication from most of the alliances that registered.
This, exactly this. The problem is that everyone is complaining about the exact things I mentioned previously and refuse to participate because of it, the frustration lies, not only in the lack of participation but, in the complaints that are becoming the scapegoats everyone eludes to. It is frustrating being one of the few people that is trying ATM within the alliance and about all I can do is have conversations about random philosophical stuff and make horrible typo mistakes in the chat channels that are highly embarrassing for me regardless of how much nobody gives a crap.
I can hardly actually participate in the testing environment since it is rather hard to do anything with a maximum of 5-10 people other than be annoying and that really doesn't add anything of value to the testing environment.
The reality is if you want max participation these are the things that need to change because the value of learning the new mechanic is lost when you don't have the proper participation. The UI is buggy and there are a lot of thing that were mentioned that would make this FozzieSov mechanic better. I know it is still in the testing stage and will continue to be buggy for a while. If you combine the buggy mechanic and UI with the aforementioned complaints it makes for an unwillingness to participate. Not only do people want to learn the new FozzieSov but they would like to experiment with realistic doctrines and fight a war on a footing that would be realistic in a competitive environment. If the devaluation of in game assets allows for market hubs that have been free-ported to become ship pinatas where is the value in testing anything within the context of competition. I have no actual issue with the current way things are and I will continue to try to urge people to participate in order to learn this new mechanic and get some experience with it but I can only relay the complaints that are discouraging people.
I, myself, do enjoy being able to use things I never would be able to use on TQ because it's fun and interesting. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way and a lot of people saw that PL was involved and knew for a fact they would abuse their sheer number of supers and titans. This caused them to shy away at first. Then after that the excessive use of unrealistic doctrines based on the sheer isk inefficiency that those doctrines would produce if they were defeated on TQ caused a lot of people to stop participating because this was supposed to be a competition and now it has become a game of who can reship the fastest into the hard counters to doctrines that are not efficient or likely at all due to the general misering of the actual AT ships.
The sentiment is if I wouldn't see in on TQ why should it be in play on Duality during a wargame exercise. When participating in a wargame IRL I never was given equipment that I wouldn't use during actual combat, or that was either experimental or not part of the unit's MTOE (Modifications of Table of Equipment) and if the equipment was down for maintenance or was called out of play due to a catastrophic kill it was out of play. You turn a playtest into a wargame run it like one, if you don't have the knowledge of what a wargame is than do not call it that. There is a strong military community within EVE and all you have to do is ask about these kinds of things. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13022
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:57:50 -
[276] - Quote
Hey everyone. We had a defect yesterday that caused the initial entosis reinforcement of structures to ignore the defense multiplier. We've fixed the issue early this morning and I've gone through and done the same thing we did at the beginning of the competition when a similar issue appeared. We've removed some of the reinforcement timers and left others, to roughly simulate what could have been reinforced with the same amount of effort if the capture times had been correct.
I'm also going to be doing a run through the competition zone tonight and adding some strategic indexes to systems that are still owned by their original alliances. This will allow you folks to test out strategic IHub upgrades (which should be working now).
IMPORTANT NOTE: You should be receiving corporation bills for your IHubs now. At the moment those bills don't do anything when they expire, but we're going to change that at some point soon and that would mean structures exploding when bills aren't paid. The SCC does not **** around. Pay your bills folks.
And here's a list of the remaining active reinforcement timers for the next 24hrs:
Exit Time Solar System Structure Owning Alliance Defense Multiplier Ongoing VKI-T7 Station Suddenly Spaceships. 3.7 Ongoing 9-F0B2 TCU Brave Collective 3.1 Ongoing 4B-NQN TCU Brave Collective 5.7 Ongoing Z-RFE3 IHub I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 4.2 Ongoing E-YJ8G Station Eastasia Alliance 5.3 Ongoing FX-7EM Station Freeport Freeport 1 Ongoing 2-TEGJ Station Freeport Freeport 1 2015.06.24 16:23 Shintaht Station Fidelas Constans 4.1 2015.06.24 16:42 D61A-G Station Fidelas Constans 2.5 2015.06.24 16:46 D61A-G IHub Fidelas Constans 2.5 2015.06.24 17:02 D61A-G TCU Fidelas Constans 2.5 2015.06.24 20:09 18XA-C TCU Pandemic Legion 2.2 2015.06.24 20:42 H9-J8N Station Pandemic Legion 5.2 2015.06.24 22:22 D-6WS1 Station Freeport Freeport 1 2015.06.24 22:53 3GXF-U Station Freeport Freeport 1 2015.06.25 00:10 7MD-S1 Station Freeport Freeport 1 2015.06.25 00:53 G-AOTH Station Pandemic Legion 1.6 2015.06.25 02:16 49GC-R Station Freeport Freeport 1.6 2015.06.25 03:40 YWS0-Z IHub Brave Collective 4.6 2015.06.25 04:29 3KB-J0 Station I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 5.3 2015.06.25 07:10 BK4-YC Station Freeport Freeport 5.2 2015.06.25 07:28 4B-NQN Station Freeport Freeport 4.8 2015.06.25 10:34 3D-CQU Station No Not Believing 2.7 2015.06.25 11:26 F-YH5B Station Freeport Freeport 5.2 2015.06.25 13:01 H-GKI6 Station Freeport Freeport 3.4 2015.06.25 13:56 G-5EN2 Station Freeport Freeport 3.4 2015.06.25 14:20 9-F0B2 Station Freeport Freeport 2.2
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
314
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 16:20:24 -
[277] - Quote
Blaed Drwd wrote:Quote:SilentAsTheGrave Posted: 2015.06.24 07:01
Ruune en Gravonere wrote: SilentAsTheGrave wrote: For each system adjacent that is not part of the same alliance sov, lowers the defensive multiplier cap by one.
That i understood thanks
So... thoughts?
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
I see where you're going with that, and it makes sense. I'd ,however, limit the modifying factor to adjacent systems that are in the same constellation. With that your capital system (your core) is nice and snug and secure with your borders being a little squishy. But if you manage to hold a whole constellation that should be....rewarded?...and the ADM should remain intact. Make sense? I understand. I like the idea of there always being a soft spot to start on and at the same time, I like the idea of a reward for controlling the whole constellation. I'm torn.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
DaReaper
Net 7
2240
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 16:50:23 -
[278] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Ruune en Gravonere wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote:For each system adjacent that is not part of the same alliance sov, lowers the defensive multiplier cap by one. That i understood thanks So... thoughts?
Too close to the abomination that was Constellation Sov. Which was the worst thing ccp had ever done to sov
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Lisselle Rotsuda
SN Holdings Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:00:30 -
[279] - Quote
@Fozzi... um... we seem to have had all our sov indexes kinda messed up... mistake?
EDIT***Also.. it means we have no idea what our vulnerability window is as we didnt see the numbers before they came out... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13022
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:04:58 -
[280] - Quote
Lisselle Rotsuda wrote:@Fozzi... um... we seem to have had all our sov indexes kinda messed up... mistake?
EDIT***Also.. it means we have no idea what our vulnerability window is as we didnt see the numbers before they came out... Can you be more specific?
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
Viaharo Musa
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
26
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:08:27 -
[281] - Quote
I would have loved to see a realistic test. But sadly. Its been a shitshow from the beginning. Reasons why: Unrealistic ships and fittings due to no cost on the server. This lead to unrealistic fleets and tactics.
As a side effect, way to much clutter for even the most robust gaming system to have some lag due to so many wrecks / abandon'd drones (again prob due to no cost on the server)
All said i really like the new sov setup but just be aware, it will change nothing really in TQ due to the fact that capitals will still be blob'd to control the sub cap forces. Triage carriers will be a thing with probably triage supers. In all my time playing eve, and all i have seen in null, i don't see this new sov iteration changing anything really in null. Sure more small fights will happen, but big boys will still be using massive super blobs to rule the field. This will turn in to the same as usual. Bigger critical mass blobs farming the little guys.
I see null becoming even more stagnant. Lets hope im wrong. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13022
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:12:15 -
[282] - Quote
I want to make sure we're clear that this was never intended to be a test of fleet compositions and tactics. Unfortunately there was no way to make those aspects realistic on a test server.
This test is intended to help find bugs, to help us improve the UI and how the system is communicated in the client, and to allow players and alliances to try out the mechanical nuts and bolts and understand them better (which helps us get better feedback).
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Parley Queen
Dimensional Drift
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:27:02 -
[283] - Quote
Viaharo Musa wrote:I would have loved to see a realistic test. But sadly. Its been a shitshow from the beginning. Reasons why: Unrealistic ships and fittings due to no cost on the server. This lead to unrealistic fleets and tactics.
As a side effect, way to much clutter for even the most robust gaming system to have some lag due to so many wrecks / abandon'd drones (again prob due to no cost on the server)
Dude i am dualboxing on a freaking laptop and the performance is exactly the same as TQ no matter how cluttered a grid is. Please keep the excuses coming why this test is bad, the responses from brave and fcon so far have been pure gold. The simple fact that so many people are unable to adapt to two new things at once(market seed+new sov) and rather chose to quit is astonishing. What will the brave AT team say when they have to fight AT ships in the AT? 'Awh too bad, they had supers and the grid was cluttered and their AT ships are too OP for us, at least we salvaged one wreck'
also SFA is recruiting if you want to afk nodes and/or fight PL hopefully. |
Lisselle Rotsuda
SN Holdings Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:40:52 -
[284] - Quote
[/quote] I assume you mean the strategic upgrades being reset? That happened when we switched around the back-end for it, and I'm gonna pass out some new strategic levels so people can test their ihub upgrades.[/quote]
Sorry... really didnt compute what you said with what was in system... :) |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor Fidelas Constans
32
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:31:11 -
[285] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to make sure we're clear that this was never intended to be a test of fleet compositions and tactics. Unfortunately there was no way to make those aspects realistic on a test server.
This test is intended to help find bugs, to help us improve the UI and how the system is communicated in the client, and to allow players and alliances to try out the mechanical nuts and bolts and understand them better (which helps us get better feedback).
The simple fact of the matter is you created something that defeats that purpose exactly, you should have not incorporated a competition into it, people are so diverted away from the actual purpose of playtesting that some bugs that are major enough to highly affect the effectiveness of the new system of SOV will be hidden away so that when this does go live people can exploit them as much as they did on the test server. When you only have 2 alliances left willing to participate that are "blue" with each other what makes you think that they will expose any bug that gives them a tactical advantage to exploit when this goes live. This is the fundamental flaw with calling this a Wargame there is no incentive to expose bugs that can be exploited if it gives you an advantage over your opponent. Not to mention the level of realism that a Wargaming implies.
I am not bashing on you at all CCP Fozzie I absolutely love the idea of FozzieSov and think it is a fresh new mechanic that will really improve player experience all together. In my opinion you could have gone about this differently and give a little better incentive to the participants as a whole not just the alliance naming rights of a module. Not everyone cares all that much about lore, and corporations come and go within alliances if the incentive was player focused like the free SP on sisi incentives I feel like there would have been a far better turnout than the current dismal number of people actually playtesting this.
I purpose better incentives such as a guaranteed spot in the alliance tournament next year for the top 4 alliances who have the most active participants. You want to get an effective play test when making it a wargame give us something more than a mod to name.
I am going to continue to try and get as many people to participate as possible just so the knowledge isn't focused to one individual or a select few individuals. The more people know what they are doing when taking SOV the better. This is so that the employment of tactics from the test server can be properly executed and disseminated to the lowest level FC's and leaders to prepare them for the upcoming changes rather than leave all of it reliant on a SOV team who has to coordinate so far ahead that they will not have the mobility to be successful in the new SOV system.
Just what insight I have. No hate, All love. |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor Fidelas Constans
32
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:46:43 -
[286] - Quote
Parley Queen wrote:Viaharo Musa wrote:I would have loved to see a realistic test. But sadly. Its been a shitshow from the beginning. Reasons why: Unrealistic ships and fittings due to no cost on the server. This lead to unrealistic fleets and tactics.
As a side effect, way to much clutter for even the most robust gaming system to have some lag due to so many wrecks / abandon'd drones (again prob due to no cost on the server)
Dude i am dualboxing on a freaking laptop and the performance is exactly the same as TQ no matter how cluttered a grid is. Please keep the excuses coming why this test is bad, the responses from brave and fcon so far have been pure gold. The simple fact that so many people are unable to adapt to two new things at once(market seed+new sov) and rather chose to quit is astonishing. What will the brave AT team say when they have to fight AT ships in the AT? 'Awh too bad, they had supers and the grid was cluttered and their AT ships are too OP for us, at least we salvaged one wreck' also SFA is recruiting if you want to afk nodes and/or fight PL hopefully.
If the same thing were happening to you this would be the exact way you would respond. If FCON and Brave had the participation on the test server to outnumber what the participation of PL and SFA has been the exact complaints would be fielded by the opposite side and we would have the same response you are having.
If you cannot look at something like this from an unbiased perspective and imagine the situation reversed onto you, then you are failing to grasp the true complaint, which is people will not participate in a Wargame that has limited levels of realism or practical application. The value of this is simply who can get the most people to log onto a server where actions have zero effect on the live server and the incentive is not enough for enough people to care.
I'm not trying to call SFA/PL out or be salty, yes I am frustrated at the lack of participation but I am glad someone is participating I really wish our turnout was better for this. If it were we could have actually put up a fight. I just hope that something can be learned from this and it does at least the job of the playtesting and work out all the bugs and hiccups. When this goes live people will have no choice but to participate and I truly think it will be utterly chaotic, which, I am looking forward to |
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1322
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 19:35:31 -
[287] - Quote
Ryno Caval wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is you created something that defeats that purpose exactly, you should have not incorporated a competition into it, people are so diverted away from the actual purpose of playtesting that some bugs that are major enough to highly affect the effectiveness of the new system of SOV will be hidden away so that when this does go live people can exploit them as much as they did on the test server.
I'm just going to say this flat out, but if you don't report bugs that have to do with the sov system on Duality you're dumb as hell.
~
|
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor Fidelas Constans
32
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 19:49:08 -
[288] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Ryno Caval wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is you created something that defeats that purpose exactly, you should have not incorporated a competition into it, people are so diverted away from the actual purpose of playtesting that some bugs that are major enough to highly affect the effectiveness of the new system of SOV will be hidden away so that when this does go live people can exploit them as much as they did on the test server.
I'm just going to say this flat out, but if you don't report bugs that have to do with the sov system on Duality you're dumb as hell.
Unfortunately not everyone is this "honorable" and will let some of the bugs slip through. I wish this were not the case but it's not just in EVE, this is a mentality that is ported from real life. Perhaps my faith in humanity if just non existent due to personal experiences but who knows. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13025
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 20:18:34 -
[289] - Quote
Latest timers:
Exit Time Solar System Structure Owning Alliance Defense Multiplier Ongoing 4B-NQN TCU Brave Collective 5.7 Ongoing 18XA-C TCU Pandemic Legion 2.2 2015.06.24 20:42 H9-J8N Station Pandemic Legion 5.2 2015.06.24 22:22 D-6WS1 Station Freeport Freeport 1 2015.06.24 22:53 3GXF-U Station Freeport Freeport 1 2015.06.25 00:10 7MD-S1 Station Freeport Freeport 1 2015.06.25 00:53 G-AOTH Station Pandemic Legion 1.6 2015.06.25 02:16 49GC-R Station Freeport Freeport 1.6 2015.06.25 03:40 YWS0-Z IHub Brave Collective 4.6 2015.06.25 04:29 3KB-J0 Station I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth 5.3 2015.06.25 07:10 BK4-YC Station Freeport Freeport 5.2 2015.06.25 07:28 4B-NQN Station Freeport Freeport 4.8 2015.06.25 10:34 3D-CQU Station No Not Believing 2.7 2015.06.25 11:26 F-YH5B Station Freeport Freeport 5.2 2015.06.25 13:01 H-GKI6 Station Freeport Freeport 3.4 2015.06.25 13:56 G-5EN2 Station Freeport Freeport 3.4 2015.06.25 14:20 9-F0B2 Station Freeport Freeport 2.2 2015.06.25 16:47 Shintaht IHub Fidelas Constans 3.5 2015.06.25 16:53 H6-CX8 Station Fidelas Constans 5.6 2015.06.25 17:01 Y-MPWL Station Fidelas Constans 3.2 2015.06.25 17:08 Y-MPWL TCU Fidelas Constans 3.2 2015.06.25 17:09 VKI-T7 Station Freeport Freeport 3.7 2015.06.25 17:14 H6-CX8 IHub Fidelas Constans 5.6 2015.06.25 17:18 H6-CX8 TCU Fidelas Constans 5.6 2015.06.25 17:35 Shintaht TCU Fidelas Constans 3.5 2015.06.25 17:37 Y-MPWL IHub Fidelas Constans 3.2 2015.06.25 17:39 SI-I89 Station Fidelas Constans 4.8 2015.06.25 17:49 SI-I89 TCU Fidelas Constans 4.8 2015.06.25 18:00 SI-I89 IHub Fidelas Constans 4.8 2015.06.25 18:06 Shintaht Station Freeport Freeport 3.5 2015.06.25 18:15 E-YJ8G Station Freeport Freeport 4.4 2015.06.25 18:32 D61A-G Station Freeport Freeport 2 2015.06.25 19:37 VKI-T7 TCU Pandemic Legion 3.7 2015.06.25 19:43 UL-7I8 Station Praetorian Directorate 3.7 2015.06.25 19:50 F-YH5B TCU Suddenly Spaceships. 6 2015.06.25 20:00 7MD-S1 TCU Praetorian Directorate 4.3 2015.06.25 20:02 UL-7I8 TCU Praetorian Directorate 3.7 2015.06.25 20:03 ERVK-P IHub Praetorian Directorate 4.3
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Lisselle Rotsuda
SN Holdings Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 21:43:18 -
[290] - Quote
@fozzie did you get a chance to reset the sov levels? we want to set up our JB network |
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1323
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:04:51 -
[291] - Quote
Ryno Caval wrote:Elise Randolph wrote:Ryno Caval wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is you created something that defeats that purpose exactly, you should have not incorporated a competition into it, people are so diverted away from the actual purpose of playtesting that some bugs that are major enough to highly affect the effectiveness of the new system of SOV will be hidden away so that when this does go live people can exploit them as much as they did on the test server.
I'm just going to say this flat out, but if you don't report bugs that have to do with the sov system on Duality you're dumb as hell. Unfortunately not everyone is this "honorable" and will let some of the bugs slip through. Also there is no way of knowing if a bug is being reported or discovered by enough people for it to be reported for certain. I wish this were not the case but it's not just in EVE, this is a mentality that is ported from real life. Perhaps my faith in humanity if just non existent due to personal experiences but who knows.
Are you just always high or something
~
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13025
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:32:08 -
[292] - Quote
Lisselle Rotsuda wrote:@fozzie did you get a chance to reset the sov levels? we want to set up our JB network
You should be good to go now.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
JEFFRAIDER
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
380
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:47:18 -
[293] - Quote
Is this the appropriate thread to let CCP know what we would like our prize module to be named?
Pandemic Legion officially requests:
JEFFRAIDER's Modified Compact Entosis "SovSucker5000" Link
Thank you.
JEFFRAIDER Official Pandemic Legion High King |
Gabriel Karade
Noir. No Not Believing
256
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:48:25 -
[294] - Quote
IHub's still seem to be bugged for installing upgrades.
War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
13025
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 23:29:23 -
[295] - Quote
Gabriel Karade wrote:IHub's still seem to be bugged for installing upgrades. Please send in a bug report with details. Thanks.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
1323
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 23:36:01 -
[296] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: IMPORTANT NOTE: You should be receiving corporation bills for your IHubs now. At the moment those bills don't do anything when they expire, but we're going to change that at some point soon and that would mean structures exploding when bills aren't paid. The SCC does not **** around. Pay your bills folks.
Just a friendly reminder to dudes: if you had autopay turned on for all sovereignty bills that is NOT ENOUGH. The bills actually show up under a new category: http://i.imgur.com/gimLb8u.png
~
|
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
56
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 01:00:27 -
[297] - Quote
Ryno Caval wrote:I'm not trying to call SFA/PL out or be salty
You sound pretty salty TBH. You should relax a bit and enjoy the ride. |
Cannonfodder Ellecon
Cabbage Corp
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 04:41:34 -
[298] - Quote
Fozzie
Can we please get Constellation "04-H4M" Strategic Index reset back to lvl 5 so we can do IHUB testing
Thankyou
EVE Down Under - a Fanfest for the AUTZ
27-29 November 2015 in Sydney, Australia
www.evedownunder.com
|
Warmeister
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
10
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 09:20:21 -
[299] - Quote
One of the latest patches broke the freeport stations capture. The nodes now seem to take into account defense multipliers from the system, and take ages to capture instead of usual 12 minutes |
|
CCP Lebowski
C C P C C P Alliance
622
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 10:18:07 -
[300] - Quote
Cannonfodder Ellecon wrote:Fozzie
Can we please get Constellation "04-H4M" Strategic Index reset back to lvl 5 so we can do IHUB testing
Thankyou Any system still owned by their original Alliance have had their levels reset to the level they were at at the start of the tournament (Note this was not level 5 for all systems). If your seeing issues with this could you tell us which systems exactly are incorrect?
Warmeister wrote:One of the latest patches broke the freeport stations capture. The nodes now seem to take into account defense multipliers from the system, and take ages to capture instead of usual 12 minutes Yep, I've confirmed this issue this morning and we'll get a fix in asap, likely this evening. Any events still affected after the update will be fixed.
CCP Lebowski | EVE Quality Assurance | Team Five-0
@CCP_Lebowski
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |