Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hendrink Collie
Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 16:57:27 -
[91] - Quote
Gideon Enderas wrote:Hendrink Collie wrote:Kant Boards wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:Gideon Enderas wrote:Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid. It makes perfect sense: it equals to less time when nullsec krabs need to stay docked. I'm sure it was supported by all CSMs. Sorry about your low-risk pvp What, don't you know that boosted nano cruisers are totally balanced and high-risk pvp ships that are super easy to tackle and kill. So, what I'm hearing from you is that the issue is actually the current meta? We often risk fighting heavily outnumbered and outgunned, as a result we pick ships that we can easily engage and disengage.
Actually, yes. And risk aversion by both parties. One side for dogpiling and the other side for picking ships that snipe off tackle and can easily avoid fights. We all suck is what i'm trying to say. |
Janeway84
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
172
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:00:00 -
[92] - Quote
Damn!
CCP Seagull been spanking the devs hard for them to put out so many dev blogs lately! Good job guys! |
The Mach
STEEL CITY. Illuminati Confirmed.
5
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:00:46 -
[93] - Quote
Still nothing on cloaky camping and defending our space against it? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1750
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:04:33 -
[94] - Quote
The Mach wrote:Still nothing on cloaky camping and defending our space against it? I wouldn't really expect any word on this (if anything) to happen until/if the new POS/deployables start showing up next year.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Lashawna Krause
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:15:10 -
[95] - Quote
Querns wrote:The Mach wrote:Still nothing on cloaky camping and defending our space against it? I wouldn't really expect any word on this (if anything) to happen until/if the new POS/deployables start showing up next year.
What makes you say year? Just assumption based on CCP's speed of smell release mechanics?
Any word on Outpost/Outpost upgrade revamp? |
alpha36
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
47
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:16:01 -
[96] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:The anom change is a great change, by the way, especially undoing the over-nerfing of garbage truesec in the original greyscale anom nerf. It might be tolerable to live in now. PB/Fade rejoice! |
Rainus Max
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
49
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:16:57 -
[97] - Quote
Any news on the Relic sites for the rogue drones?
If not could we at least have a small chance of one of the other pirate faction's sites spawning? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1750
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:22:38 -
[98] - Quote
Lashawna Krause wrote:Querns wrote:The Mach wrote:Still nothing on cloaky camping and defending our space against it? I wouldn't really expect any word on this (if anything) to happen until/if the new POS/deployables start showing up next year. What makes you say year? Just assumption based on CCP's speed of smell release mechanics? Any word on Outpost/Outpost upgrade revamp? It was a Fanfest presentation for the new structures. It was the only time that anyone at CCP had even hinted at providing a way to defang AFK cloaking ships. Hence, I suspect that it won't really be visited until then.
Also, I said "next year", not "in a year" -- 2015 is more than half over, after all.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Ransu Asanari
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
285
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:25:44 -
[99] - Quote
Overall I like most of these changes. I think it's a good start.
I don't see anything in these changes about being able to remove or offline specific IHUB upgrades. Considering how the current system works, once they are plugged in they cant be removed, and the upkeep cost keeps going up. This is why many sov holders had multiple IHUBS in system so they could online one with limited system upgrades for ratting/mining bonuses, but switch on a different IHUB if they needed more expensive bonuses - like Supercap building, Cyno Jammer, Jump Bridge/Beacon.
Since the new system only allows one IHUB per system, how will we be able to micromanage this? Can we plug and unplug upgrades? Turn them on/off individually? It's kinda important to know this.
Adding more bonuses to make lower truesec systems more attractive - finally an incentive to actually want to take sov space, and upgrade it; as well as partially addressing the population density issue for systems to be able to support more pilots in a smaller footprint. Whether it will be enough incentive for smaller groups to try to grab currently unwanted space remains to be seen - but at least you're finally showing us a carrot instead of just beating us with a stick.
The increased bonuses from the Pirate Detection Array, Survey Networks, Entrapment Arrays all sound good.
For the Data/Relic Sites, the value of most of that loot has ALREADY been depressed, and people have been complaining about it for months. The last change from Team Space Glitter did nothing to fix the issues. So start planning to step in and make changes NOW, because it's already bad. For reference, please read this thread.
Will the Survey Network also increase the chance of spawning Sleeper Cache or Ghost Sites?
Keep in mind that truesec affects more than anomalies and rat difficulty. Sounds like the mining yields won't be adjusted from the Ore Prospecting upgrades. How will lower truesec systems be upgraded to increase Planetary Interaction yield, or Booster Gas sites?
Pretty pissed off at the wormhole changes to be honest. Absolutely no discussion on it publicly - so basically specific CSM members complained, and you're making more changes to increase safety for nullsec at the expense of wormholers. At least this devblog has more information than the patchnotes- and I think it's the lack of transparency that has most of us upset.
Would definitely want to see some deployment location restrictions for the ESS. Placing the ESS inside an active anomaly, then purposefully spawning multiple waves to protect it; or putting it on a POS to guard it is clever, but the goal is to make the inhabitants actually undock to defend their riches. I'd like to see the ESS limited to being anchored on a planet, so these kind of tricks are harder to do. Whether or not it can be on grid with one of the new Citadel structures is another discussion - especially if it has to be gunned to fire at something.
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2008"
|
Janeway84
Def Squadron Pride Before Fall
172
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:32:32 -
[100] - Quote
Azrael Sheriph wrote:We are investigating an update pass on the ESS in which we would simplify its operation by converting it to use the Entosis Link for sharing and stealing, restrict its deployment locations somewhat, and increase the potential value to match the higher risk. The ESS has great potential for allowing Sov holders to choose the level of risk they are comfortable with and receive rewards that match. A revamped ESS also has potential to provide excellent content for roaming PVP forces as well. - See more at: http://evenews24.com/2015/07/08/dev-blog-summer-of-sov-nullsec-pve-and-upgrades/#sthash.x9uFBcfB.dpuf why not use the hacking moduals instead rather than the modual that cost 100mill each. that way you can 1 use the mini game.
this sounds like a great idea! |
|
Dersen Lowery
Scanners Live in Vain
1692
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:35:09 -
[101] - Quote
Ransu Asanari wrote:Would definitely want to see some deployment location restrictions for the ESS. Placing the ESS inside an active anomaly, then purposefully spawning multiple waves to protect it
There's no reason to put in arbitrary restrictions when a more natural solution is available: Why wouldn't rats do their level best to destroy something that makes killing them more attractive?
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
I voted in CSM X!
|
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
250
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:38:56 -
[102] - Quote
Aryth wrote:I would also point out that nerf was directed at PL and us. The only two major groups using that mechanic to hit remote hostiles regularly. We are ok with it, I am sure PL might be a bit miffed though.
There is a compensating control but I don't think we will roll it out yet. Maybe later though!
The big thing was "PL always won because of Slowcats/Supers/Titans" then Pheobe came and we starting using wormholes and subcaps
We still killed **** tons of capitals using ALL SUBCAPS
Now, it has morphed into PL can't login or I might lose my fleet boo hoo boo hoo
Next, fatty gay will apply to gate jumps
We will find a way around this, abuse the living **** out of something else, we are good at it, be sure of that
|
Denidil
Cascade Crest
645
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:46:37 -
[103] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Ab'del Abu wrote:Increasing anomaly spawns is somewhat contradictory to incentivize group PVE, you know that right?
I really think Pirate Detection Arrays should work more like Survey Networks and Entrapment Arrays do, i.e. it only increases the chance that a particular sites spawns in the system, however, it doesn't give you a fixed amount of sites to run. This way, PVE content per systems would be limited and people would actually be forced to spread out and travel to make isk (similar to the way it is in wormholes).
You keep going on about your idea that you want to more small and independent groups out in nullsec and more localized conflicts. You won't be accomplishing that as long as it is viable for extremely large groups to live off a comparatively small space. Period. uh you realize the more systems our unassailable space empire needs, the less room for small and independent groups there is your logic could not be more backwards, this is an impressively bad post
he's been rage shitposting on Reddit about this too. we just had to downvote him to oblivion and tell him to shut up and go back to his wormhole
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
|
Tribal Trogdor
The Lobster Farm
6
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:49:14 -
[104] - Quote
Wormhole groups crying about how safe null is. Good laughs |
Alexis Nightwish
308
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:54:09 -
[105] - Quote
Dev Blog wrote:In this release, we are increasing the number of guaranteed anom spawns provided by each Pirate Detection Array level from 4 to 7. This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase). This allows more pilots to operate at their current levels within the same solar system, increasing potential population density. Translation: We here at CCP can see the massive amount of ISK that is generated at will by the players via the PDA. Since we hold the interests of SOV nullsec well above all the other areas of space, we're going to increase the ISK faucet per system by 75%. By doing so we increase population density so nullbears won't have to leave the safety of their jump bridge network to make dank, afk ISK.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Denidil
Cascade Crest
645
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:56:26 -
[106] - Quote
Increasing the number of ratting sites in 0.0 systems decreases the incentive to log over/jump clone to play incursions.
increasing populations in 0.0 systems means more pvp targets.
quit your "zomg nullbears so safe" bitching.
Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.
|
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
155
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 17:56:57 -
[107] - Quote
Not feeling it.
The space compression and shrinking of difference between true and less valueable nullsec might be nice and so are the value buffs to some upgrades and the ESS, but I doubt very much they're going to make anyone move to null.
It's certainly not motivating to fight people 15 jumps away over whatever slight difference in bounties they might get.
We'll see.
The UI is still bad.
|
Sadew42
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club
14
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:17:24 -
[108] - Quote
Gideon Enderas wrote:Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid.
I have to agree with this. I daytrip, and when i get the time to search around for WHs, and get inside and map a few WH systems, I usually don't have much time to run the sites. If It was 16 horus from the time I found the WH, that'd be plenty, but that's usually not the case. Either please keep it at 24 hours, or allow the quantum flux generator to increase the lifetime of WHs. If the reduction of Null-Null and Null-C5 connections is to encourage use of the quantum flux generators, this might backfire as those are some of the more popular types of connections. Why not allow alliances to set the kinds of connections they would like to be more likely? But not guarantee that, of course. Could be done with different versions of the quantum flux generator. |
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:21:52 -
[109] - Quote
At last, the ESS revamp is coming!
This was the subject that started me posting on these forums, and I am glad to see CCP acknowledging that defenders have it too easy today with the capability to deploy them in anomalies and get the rewards from a simple pod!
Can't wait!
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Cpt Buckshot
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
24
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:25:48 -
[110] - Quote
Reserved *** speechless atm ! |
|
Saisin
State War Academy Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:30:50 -
[111] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote: It seems like the intent is to curb power projection through wormholes into nullsec. This imho means making it safer for the locals, because their would be killers have much harder time (or much lower probability) getting there to do the killing.
If this is not the deliberate intent of the change, then I wonder why they state it in the devblog and what the real intent is.
I would disagree with that.
CCP has increased the ratio of WHNull Sec exit on July 4th, from what the patch notes are saying, and they are just changing the duration of NS WH from 24 hours to 16 hours, which is not a bad change.
It will allow K346 and their likes to cycle more often, not less into NS.
I also like the reduction of direct NS to NS WHs.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
1789
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:41:05 -
[112] - Quote
Quote:Team Five 0 is hoping to be able to take what we have learned from developing Burner Missions and combine it with the new NPCs and AI under development by Team Space Glitter to create some compelling new content that would only be available to groups of pilots working together within Sov Null. Drifter Incursions only for null you say...
Akrasjel Lanate
Member of Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Citizen of Solitude
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1752
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:42:56 -
[113] - Quote
Sadew42 wrote:Gideon Enderas wrote:Why the heavy handed nerf to wormholes? I can understand the spawn rate reductions, but the 16 hour lifetime is absolutely stupid. I have to agree with this. I daytrip, and when i get the time to search around for WHs, and get inside and map a few WH systems, I usually don't have much time to run the sites. If It was 16 horus from the time I found the WH, that'd be plenty, but that's usually not the case. Either please keep it at 24 hours, or allow the quantum flux generator to increase the lifetime of WHs. If the reduction of Null-Null and Null-C5 connections is to encourage use of the quantum flux generators, this might backfire as those are some of the more popular types of connections. Why not allow alliances to set the kinds of connections they would like to be more likely? But not guarantee that, of course. Could be done with different versions of the quantum flux generator. C5s are not the only wormholes in eve, and this change specifically targets them.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Yroc Jannseen
Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:44:42 -
[114] - Quote
Quote:This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase)
This sounds great, but surely your statistics show that there is a huge drop off in the number of anomalies that are run below Forsaken Hubs.
So in the example Quote:+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point.
Only 7 of those are sites that will likely be run. Are you looking into the reasons why players have deemed half of the anomalies in a system to be useless? |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
706
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:48:52 -
[115] - Quote
Saisin wrote:CCP has increased the ratio of WHNull Sec exit on July 4th, from what the patch notes are saying source?
SSC Brokering Service
|
Harry Saq
Blueprint Haus Blades of Grass
92
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:51:16 -
[116] - Quote
The CSM is an elected representative body, and as such any change implementation sought, recommended, and most certainly approved/implemented absolutely MUST be made public, and most certainly IS NOT voluntary disclosure by the CSM members.
I assume this is just the ignorance of the dev that put together the blog, but seriously, name the CSM members making the proposal along with the justification in the actual blog now please. Don't make us read random forums or have to go digging to find out. The CSM members are there because they have been elected and should be given the due credit or criticism for their recommendations. It's not like they were part of an anonymous testing group, or a few concerned pod pilots that came forward from the shadows.
Make it so, now please. |
Di Mulle
107
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:52:36 -
[117] - Quote
Edwin Wyatt wrote:CCP needs to understand their own game better.
An ISK faucets is an activity that require next to no player input. Prime example, Moon mining.
Calling a PVE activity that should require player input an isk faucet is wrong, if you put in the time and effort, the rewards should be endless.
But we will let your subscription number continue to tell you how bad of a job you're doing CCP, and it speaks loud and clear.
You, the young padavan, are apparently still too young to decide who needs to understand the game better.
ISK faucet is commonly understood as activity which is rewarded with ISK by a game - or you may say, by CCP. So PVE activity is a pure ISK faucet.
Moon mining is not rewarded with ISK by the game. Moon goo is sold to other players, so it is not an ISK faucet, but an exchange of ISK. No new ISK, not even 0.01 appear in the game due to moon mining.
I am not arguing there whether moon mining is good or bad. But ISK faucet it certainly is not.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
|
V1P3RR
Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:56:01 -
[118] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Quote:This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase) This sounds great, but surely your statistics show that there is a huge drop off in the number of anomalies that are run below Forsaken Hubs. So in the example Quote:+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point. Only 7 of those are sites that will likely be run. Are you looking into the reasons why players have deemed half of the anomalies in a system to be useless?
so much this...
|
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
328
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 18:58:04 -
[119] - Quote
Urziel99 wrote:DaReaper wrote:3) Consider removing moon goo and making it ACTIVE mining. Enough with the poassive mining, you wan tto see null sec mining rates go up? Give the miners in null the gold. T2 ore (former moon goo) needs to be added to null, and moon mining needs to die. This change alone would be a massive shock to the nullsec ecosystem, in a good way. No more could any major power sit idly by controlling a moon empire butressed by a massive supercap fleet whilst safely staging in npc nulsec and immune to the changes in the new sov system. (PL and BL are the worst offenders since they rarely control sov in the area of their moons.) Add to this the ability to use Entosis on npc null and lowsec stations and this might be a good system.
How dare you judge us. We don't 'rarely control sov'. We only 'accidentally' sov. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11704
|
Posted - 2015.07.08 19:07:19 -
[120] - Quote
Yroc Jannseen wrote:Quote:This means that a fully upgraded system will have 35 anomalies instead of the current 20 (a 75% increase) This sounds great, but surely your statistics show that there is a huge drop off in the number of anomalies that are run below Forsaken Hubs. So in the example Quote:+2 Sanctums, +3 Havens, +2 Forsaken Hubs, +4 Forsaken Rally Points, +2 Forlorn Hubs, +1 Hub, and +1 Forlorn Rally Point. Only 7 of those are sites that will likely be run. Are you looking into the reasons why players have deemed half of the anomalies in a system to be useless?
This may be true where you are at, but actually people do run other anom types ever since CCP upped the escalation chances across the board. Forsaken Rally points have always been good and knowledgeable anom runners do them instead of F.Hubs because of the awfulness of the 9/10 (8/10s across the board have horrible drop rates, but it's better than doing a 30 jump Fleet Staging point). And Forlorn Hubs pay better while being easy to afktar or sniper-rat in. Regular Hubs are great for new players.
The only 'useless' addition is the Forlorn Rally point and all the "Hidden" null anoms, those need some work.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |