Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
|
CCP Masterplan
C C P C C P Alliance
1731
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:27:43 -
[31] - Quote
xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for?
"This one time, on patch day..."
@ccp_masterplan | Team Five-0: Rewriting the law
|
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:28:20 -
[32] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:159Pinky wrote:So, now that all gates will be bubbled to **** to prevent entosis. When will you start add a limited timer for bubbles to be in space? SO ppl at least have to put an effort in to keeping their entrances bubbled The "timer" on a bubbled stargate already exists, and is directly linked to the DPS output of the ship you're trying to get through it.
The "timer" on entosis also exists already: it's called: undocking and doing something for your space. But CCP "fixed" that one, so maybe this one might get fixed as well. |
Taru Audeles
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:28:58 -
[33] - Quote
Took you guys long enough to understand what mess you got yourself and US paying customers into. You should have never released this mess in the broke state you did. It is a SMALL first step to fix it. Please keep it up and push for faster changes. This is not enough to bring FozzieSov to a semi usefull state.
Provi Invasion and MoA trolling should give you enough fancy statistics of your epic failure. |
Traumatica
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:29:07 -
[34] - Quote
Even we learned that you have to bring more than frigates to a fight if you want to win. |
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:30:15 -
[35] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken.
So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system. Granted, you can still do the same thing by using a Titan bridge, but the threshold for bypassing gatecamps is going up. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:30:51 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for? Unless I've read incorrectly, it will be necessary to be able to willingly freeport an outpost/conquerable station to transfer it.
One could also want to freeport it for its own sake. Unlikely, but potentially desirable.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:30:54 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for?
If we want to give a station to someone. Or just want to give up the space to whoever because defending it is too annoying.
Same reasons we would want to self destruct a sov structure. |
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:32:26 -
[38] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Atrum Veneficus wrote:These are all good changes. In general I think "ban x feature from y ship" is at best a band-aid, but it's a good first start. I have to agree with this. A number of different options could have had the same effect while having a much more broader positive change. Like, increased align time, mass increase, no prop mod activation, and reduced top speed (a little of each, not a lot of each) would have prevented the problems with interceptors trolling sov, as well as other slippery targets, while still letting interceptors be viable for capping sov for uncontested or grid-controlled areas. Also I think the new jump fatigue cap is interesting...but perhaps too generous? From the blog... Quote:a player who is mostly active on the weekend will have fully recovered from one weekend by the next Isn't that precisely what jump fatigue was supposed to prevent? A player who can jump around as much as he desires during his prime time, and it's all gone by the next time he plays, somewhat (not totally) defeats the purpose of the fatigue in the first place. Jump fatigue was supposed to prevent caps from racing along from this side of the universe to the other and nuking a carrier before heading home and doing the same thing 20 mins later.
It was not supposed to make all cap pilots want to biomass, nor make then utterly worthless outside of 10ly, but congrats to CCP for achieving that subcap stretch goal as well.
As a pilot wanting to jump his CAPITAL SHIP, in his PRIME TIME, more then 10 ly, this once a week deal still seems a mite bit raw. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:32:36 -
[39] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken. So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system. Good thing the dominant ship in the meta right now can conveniently fit for interdiction nullification.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
159Pinky
Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:32:56 -
[40] - Quote
Dreiden Kisada wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:xttz wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Reserved for FAQ Will there be a 'self-destruct' option for outposts that puts them into freeport mode? Something like a 'Abandon ownership' option? We don't have anything like that planned, but it is an interesting idea. What sort of situation would you see this being used for? If we want to give a station to someone. Or just want to give up the space to whoever because defending it is too annoying. Same reasons we would want to self destruct a sov structure.
Or to transfer it to renters more easily?
|
|
Dreiden Kisada
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:34:45 -
[41] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:The reason Interceptors have dominated is because the ability to warp before a hostile lock is possible and simultaneously ignore bubbles is effctively granting yourself a no-PVP flag in what is supposedly a de-restricted PVP environment. That their ability to take sov is being written out is the removal of the cherry on the cake, but they're still dumb and broken. So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system.
There was no skirmish warfare with the sov system.
Hostiles show up to sov laser things, some people who want to do pvp try to do pvp. Sov lasering inties run away crowing in local. next day, defenders go sov laser things back the way they were since the "elite pvp" inties from the previous day don't actually want the space.
Any skirmishes that happened would have happened if the attackers had shown up with no sov lasers, since the defenders who engaged do so for fun.
There will not be any more or less bubble camps on chokepoints. |
Spookay
Dixon Cox Butte Preservation Society Psychotic Tendencies.
14
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:38:34 -
[42] - Quote
Will fatigue accumulate at the same rate? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:39:08 -
[43] - Quote
Spookay wrote:Will fatigue accumulate at the same rate? Yes. All that got changed was the maximum fatigue you can get.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alain Colcer
Agiolet Security and Logistics
141
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:40:01 -
[44] - Quote
Please forbid using entosis links on interceptors, interdictors, Heavy Interdictors, Recons and Stealth bombers. |
Crazy Vania
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
33
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:40:16 -
[45] - Quote
Once again I'd like to remind CCP that combat entosis solo pilots exist.
I fit an entosis link on my frigs to hopefully kill the responding tackler when he lands. Removing the entolink from interceptors annoys me somewhat as it gives me less choice in ships but I don't really care, the best ship for this role are the pirate frigs anyways.
But that's not what I'm here for: CCP, please, please make the 4000m/s speed cap on the entosis module a "WHEN ACTIVE" debuff... Slow down the ship during the 5m cycle. By doing the current "WHEN FITTED (EVEN OFFLINE)" cap you are killing off a lot of ship fitting options for combat pilots for no reason.
Make the entosis link affect your speed only when the module is cycling. It gives you your intended result without nerfing actual pew pew. |
The Slayer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
272
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:41:58 -
[46] - Quote
Evelgrivion wrote:So your entire complaint is that gatecamps don't work against them, which meant that you couldn't dominate a constellation and prevent all entosis from taking place by holding onto the first choke point you come across with one big blob? The subsequent skirmish warfare that Entosis contests required were my favorite thing about the new sov system. Granted, you can still do the same thing by using a Titan bridge, but the threshold for bypassing gatecamps is going up.
I've only been on two or three system defence ops, so sorry if these were not the norm, but the ones I turned up to there WERE no "skirmish warfare" events. MOA would come along in 15 cormorants and try to catch stragglers. Sometimes an inty would wave a sov laser at something then run away when someone got within 50k of him. If the system, as it stands right now, was generating PVP content I would be ALL for it. As it is right now it doesn't generate anything.
|
Azgard Majik
Ilium Skies
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:42:26 -
[47] - Quote
If you're going to insist on keeping jump fatigue (the worst game mechanic in history), do it in style and make it 1 year maximum recovery timer. That way we can all move back to hi sec and leave the awful sov game play. |
Gigiarc
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:44:49 -
[48] - Quote
I'm liking these battlecruiser and sov changes. (sexually) |
Colman Dietmar
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
62
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:53:40 -
[49] - Quote
Why apply a restriction to a single ship class when you can just set the PG requirement to something like 100? |
Enddel Ayere
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:54:53 -
[50] - Quote
Very sensible change on the ceptors! and also the structure regen makes lots of sense in terms of game mechanics (maybe have a maintenance bots animation to keep the lore... auto repair blabla)
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1859
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:56:06 -
[51] - Quote
Colman Dietmar wrote:Why apply a restriction to a single ship class when you can just set the PG requirement to something like 100? It'd have to be higher than that. Two T2 MAPCs and a T2 ancillary current router on a crusader had me easily above 100 grid, with two lows and a rig slot left over for reducing my align time to below two seconds.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Evelgrivion
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
352
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:00:06 -
[52] - Quote
The Slayer wrote:I've only been on two or three system defence ops, so sorry if these were not the norm, but the ones I turned up to there WERE no "skirmish warfare" events. MOA would come along in 15 cormorants and try to catch stragglers. The problem with those seeking to harass the CFC is that there are no peer adversaries with the throw weight to seriously contest you, which is probably why you've never seen anything more than reinforcement timers that go uncontested. I can't imagine it's any fun, but on the plus side, uncontested timers will fix themselves soon.
The Slayer wrote:Sometimes an inty would wave a sov laser at something then run away when someone got within 50k of him.
They had a speed penalty before, and have a maximum velocity penalty now. You couldn't find anyone who could catch them? |
Milla Goodpussy
Federal Navy Academy
338
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:05:15 -
[53] - Quote
I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
I would like fozzie "the man of all focus rage" to urgently look at the sov system as a whole, for I think its not fair to allow the strategic indice to go to zero when an ihub is attacked and the sov holder still has sov.. this causes a terrible waiting time to deploy jump bridges for troops to assemble and defend their space.
its not fair you're still avoiding whats the purpose of having sov and living out in null sec if the big bad evil can simply come in and hit your ihub knocking off transportation systems for up to 35 days in a matter of a few hours. I also look at the above changes as a PR attempt to regain lost players that fozziesov/ageisov has pushed into leaving the game..
but I'm sure you wouldn't discuss numbers here or in a blog since we're headed to fall now.. perhaps everyone caught the flu and stayed logged off? hmm
|
Sporx Utensil
Colossus Enterprises
24
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:07:03 -
[54] - Quote
Colman Dietmar wrote:Why apply a restriction to a single ship class when you can just set the PG requirement to something like 100?
That severely compromises fits for other ships. I'm glad they didn't do that; although fair enough if what they did pick is a bandaid. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1866
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:07:57 -
[55] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
I would like fozzie "the man of all focus rage" to urgently look at the sov system as a whole, for I think its not fair to allow the strategic indice to go to zero when an ihub is attacked and the sov holder still has sov.. this causes a terrible waiting time to deploy jump bridges for troops to assemble and defend their space.
its not fair you're still avoiding whats the purpose of having sov and living out in null sec if the big bad evil can simply come in and hit your ihub knocking off transportation systems for up to 35 days in a matter of a few hours. I also look at the above changes as a PR attempt to regain lost players that fozziesov/ageisov has pushed into leaving the game..
but I'm sure you wouldn't discuss numbers here or in a blog since we're headed to fall now.. perhaps everyone caught the flu and stayed logged off? hmm
It may behoove you to defend your space. Additionally, it might behoove you to attack the space of those attacking you, as the same rules apply to whomever is attacking you.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
William Ruben
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
136
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:09:47 -
[56] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
I would like fozzie "the man of all focus rage" to urgently look at the sov system as a whole, for I think its not fair to allow the strategic indice to go to zero when an ihub is attacked and the sov holder still has sov.. this causes a terrible waiting time to deploy jump bridges for troops to assemble and defend their space.
its not fair you're still avoiding whats the purpose of having sov and living out in null sec if the big bad evil can simply come in and hit your ihub knocking off transportation systems for up to 35 days in a matter of a few hours. I also look at the above changes as a PR attempt to regain lost players that fozziesov/ageisov has pushed into leaving the game..
but I'm sure you wouldn't discuss numbers here or in a blog since we're headed to fall now.. perhaps everyone caught the flu and stayed logged off? hmm
says NPC corp alt |
Igor Nappi
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
128
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:09:52 -
[57] - Quote
CCP caving in to the nullbear whine - the devblog.
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
drunklies
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
7
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:13:44 -
[58] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:I'm just going to roll my eyes into the back of my head, but you're just caving to hotdroppers who have nothing to do with their big toys, watch how dropping caps becomes an activity once again on single ships. but oh well
Ahh, you hit it exactly on the head. All those thousands of supers and titans, with nothing to do. Only a fool would keep those subbed. CCP is again putting the cart before the horse. Rather then give supers/caps a decent and balanced role to play, they just shot them in the knees, promising a fix Soon TM.
Also, maybe you can put your inner peasant away and realise that capital gameplay might actually be end game play for some. |
Lena Lazair
Sefrim
544
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:13:46 -
[59] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:I'm sad that the fitting restriction is to Interceptors only - it's too trite.
Much more sensible would be to restrict it to Destroyers, perhaps even Cruisers, and above - due to 'size' constraints.
It's not the speed, size, or cost of inties that is the root problem; it's the bubble immunity. There is no need to restrict it from other small/fast ships that are not bubble-immune. Especially not with the capture decay thing coming later... |
Traumatica
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 21:17:24 -
[60] - Quote
Really if certain parties spent less time shooting sov structure in interceptors and more time mining or whatever pubbies do for money then maybe they could afford real ships to contest sov with. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 11 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |