Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
935
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 11:28:58 -
[181] - Quote
sero Hita wrote:zipperstopperking wrote:Masao Kurata wrote:zipperstopperking wrote:So please tell me CCP why citadels are appearing only after 1.8 days There was an event giving out fully researched BPCs which could then be manufactured in poses or outposts or whatever it is gives the max time efficiency bonus. For someone who apparently cares a lot, you sure didn't pay much attention to the citadels release. Of course CCP has rigged lotteries in the past so I'm not saying it's above board. well I never received notification and I watch the launcher every day Well, it was in a devblog so not exactly hard to find... Not hard to find if you troll dev blogs every day, would be a better way to word that reply.
CCP has never been good at advertising Dev created content.
And when they do, it is normally on r/e rather than their own forums. Trolling for Dev reddit posts is always a good way to find out what may be on the Eve forums in a few days.
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Azahar Ortenegro
Astromechanica Maxima Astromechanica Federatis
86
|
Posted - 2016.05.03 12:46:51 -
[182] - Quote
Ads are still there, and no options to disable them. Add it fast please.
And get back the old tactical overlay when using the old camera. The new one is as useless as the new camera. |
Belgarian
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 00:10:16 -
[183] - Quote
Sorry if the answer to this is obvious - I have looked/searched but there are so many blogs etc on Citadels....
What sort of POS array is needed to build citadels in a wormhole?
Thanks in advance! |
Alhira Katserna
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2230
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 04:46:36 -
[184] - Quote
When will we be able to turn off the videos in the hangars? It is just plain annoying if you have multiple monitors and doing something on one and always having the constant movement in the corner of the eye on the other screen. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
54336
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 05:25:46 -
[185] - Quote
General Feedback thread ............................... OK.
You've lost sight of what Eve Online was founded on, lately you've been dictating how the game should be played by steadily removing the games core principles, most notably - freedom of choice.
All of the recent game changes are not attracting and retaining players. Basically you're punishing the casual players by making it so tough to play the game that they'll just quit.
You Dev's should actually try playing the game as a solo player for a few weeks first before pushing your half baked ideas into it, maybe then you'll see the folly of your ways and start adding content that will attract new players as well as retain existing players.
At least I can say I was there ............................. when Eve died.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Miss Peregrine
Miss Peregrine Corporation
30
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 13:18:19 -
[186] - Quote
Still waiting for a fix to the watch list guys.
seems to me you could return it during one of these patch's. |
Zajian
Fearless Unicorns inPanic
8
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 13:35:09 -
[187] - Quote
http://prntscr.com/b05iku
Cant undock from Station, cant change my ship, and i can zoom very far out.
FIX PLEASE! |
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
430
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 13:57:42 -
[188] - Quote
Based on the feedback from people using these citadels, it seems like mediums are underwhelming compared to a large POS (which is in my understanding the correct pos to compare it to from a design standpoint).
Are there any plans to look at how these work? If 4-5 ships can break these in WH space this is going to be a problem. And again, its not tthat larges are impossible... but a dullstars ehp even with no defense is a significant deterent in comparison.
They seem very cool, I hope that based on the lack of security in wh space you will consider giving more of an advantage maybe to only wh residents? We've evicted, been evicted and as it stands... this feels lackluster for the price and function. |
wickednomad Ronuken
NitroMan
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 14:23:27 -
[189] - Quote
Zajian wrote:http://prntscr.com/b05iku
Cant undock from Station, cant change my ship, and i can zoom very far out.
FIX PLEASE!
Clear your cache in settings
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. The Bastion
156
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 14:32:45 -
[190] - Quote
Alhira Katserna wrote:When will we be able to turn off the videos in the hangars? It is just plain annoying if you have multiple monitors and doing something on one and always having the constant movement in the corner of the eye on the other screen.
Having forced players to endure the station environment by removing option to turn off all the garbage in there, really bad move guys, Your left with only one option, rotate the camera vertically downwards, result no really annoying silly flashing screens, Having said that the Dev concerned will probably now put them on the hangar floor as well, Seagull please take that persons crayons away..... |
|
Thorvade
Imperium Technologies I N F A M O U S
14
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 15:01:25 -
[191] - Quote
Big thing I have noticed is the rate that rats eat the fighters. I have gone through 25 fighters so far and that has pushed my gains from ratting so far down that majority of what I make I spend to restock them. Also dread spawn has tracking so insane that it can pop them instantly...really its a cap ship, only thing about it targeting your fighters is that your carrier can actually survive long enough to call for help. Because otherwise your carrier has no chance of surviving solo. |
Sgt Ocker
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
940
|
Posted - 2016.05.04 21:58:23 -
[192] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote:Rumbless wrote:Please revert the change to right click menu .. My muscle memory is going apeshit currently. Specifically warp to and approach .. Kasarch wrote:CCP please move menu entry 'approach location' that appearing on top of context menu when I'm in warp point grid to some other place, on this place should be 'warp within 0'. And we already have 'align to' option in this menu. New menu entry breaking game expirience achived for years that i'm played in this game. :( The latest Singularity build (as of about 10 minutes before this post) has an update to the right-click menus, where the "Warp to..." entries should now always be at the top, above any Approach entries. Please give it a test and see if it does what you need. Once it is successfully tested, we'll include this change in the next TQ patch. FYI we didn't change any ordering of the menu entries. Previously there where no times where Warp To and Approach would appear together. WarpTo would only appear at ranges >150km and Approach would only appear at ranges <150km. To support the new larger grids and new fighter mechanics, the maximum range at which Approach can be used has been increased to 10,000km. So now there is a range (between 150km and 10,000km) where both WarpTo and Approach can appear together. In this case, Approach would get inserted first, and so would appear at the top. So a dumb question - Why would anyone "approach" something that is 10,000Km away? Wouldn't the old 'align" serve better and remove an unneeded option?
I do understand Eve isn't meant to be easy but clogging up simple often used things with unneeded options? That just seems pretty stupid. Simple <150km approach, >150Km align.
Citadels - Why can I only approach, orbit or dock in one. Yet warp to, approach, keep at range, orbit, or dock in another. First one is 2900K second is 4955K... (both keepstars, both would be hostile to me by standings - I can't actually dock in either)
And seriously - Orbit, keep at range - Increments out to 30Km OR current, which can be up to 9999km? Same for warp at range, 10,000Km grid but the best option for warping at range is increments up 100Km max?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Syri Taneka
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
137
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 03:14:44 -
[193] - Quote
I'm a little annoyed that you apparently need POS management roles in order to anchor a Citadel. I was all set and ready to drop one - bought a little Astrahus for myself, along with a set of mods and rigs - and now I find I've got ~3B in fancy bricks I can't do anything with. I understand that Citadels are being deployed in order to replace POSes, but they have nothing at all to do with the things. I really shouldn't have a bloody role obstacle to putting down what amounts to a big, immobile carrier (the pre-patch sort that also did useful logistics). (It's worth noting that I was never happy with needing roles to manage YOUR OWN tower, either. If you're putting it down as Yours, not Your Corp's, you should have full control of it without regards to Corp Roles.) |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2487
|
Posted - 2016.05.05 07:37:53 -
[194] - Quote
Thanks for moving the Approach option below the Warp options on warpable objects. Much appreciated.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Primary This Rifter
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
1178
|
Posted - 2016.05.06 10:09:40 -
[195] - Quote
**** poor job on capital rebalance, CCP.
There's an obvious hierarchy as to which dreadnoughts are better. You merely shuffled up the power imbalances between them rather than fixing them. Same goes for the carriers.
But more importantly, what's the reason to use a carrier now if one can afford a super? Supers can dock in Citadels now. Carriers can no longer triage or use subcapital drones. Carriers have no abilities now that supers don't have. The only thing they have is a support fighter effect range bonus, which is just about the most laughably pointless bonus that I can think of.
Let's also not forget that you gave us a ton of new capital mods to contend with and didn't seem to give any consideration as to how big they should be. Not only have you nerfed combat refitting, you've made supers and titans that much more potent in this area because only they have the room to accommodate all those extra capital mods. I can understand you wanting to make capital turrets and launchers that large, but what's the reason for the propulsion, buffer, and flex hardener mods (to name probably the most likely of these to be refit) to be so large? |
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
41
|
Posted - 2016.05.07 19:48:33 -
[196] - Quote
So, a question on the citadel vulnerability timers: My current understanding is that I could drop a citadel in space somewhere and choose to make my vulnerability hours all happen in the same day ... so ... does this mean that if I should choose to simply not defend my onlined/fitted citadel, then the citadel cannot ever be destroyed since the next day would not be within the normal vulnerability period and, thus, the shield would fully repair so as to restore the citadel to 100% hit points? Is there a secondary vulnerability period immediately after the shield/armor timers expire?
Can some dev please clarify this and edit/update the blog posts to cover this in more detail? Further, why the 24-minute minimum period to push a citadel into reinforcement? I know there's a 20% blanket resistance to consider for dps purposes, but we were originally promised 30-minutes as a minimum assault period for each layer of shields/armor/structure.
Remove T2 BPO's or make them inventable at extreme cost.
|
Abushiro
Iron Tiger T3 Industries
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.07 20:12:48 -
[197] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:General Feedback thread ............................... OK.
You've lost sight of what Eve Online was founded on, lately you've been dictating how the game should be played by steadily removing the games core principles, most notably - freedom of choice.
All of the recent game changes are not attracting and retaining players. Basically you're punishing the casual players by making it so tough to play the game that they'll just quit.
You Dev's should actually try playing the game as a solo player for a few weeks first before pushing your half baked ideas into it, maybe then you'll see the folly of your ways and start adding content that will attract new players as well as retain existing players.
At least I can say I was there ............................. when Eve died.
DMC
Its a shame really. I have been playing five accounts for over 6 years. None of my tunes are part of a big alliance. No desire. Like to play the game on my own terms in a small Corp with a few friends making our way in the universe on our own. But, over the past several expansions, it has felt more and more like CCP is balancing down.... balancing to the same,,, taking away without adding value. And now they have removed one of the most treasured accomplishments a solo player has.... the ability to react to a changing situation with a Bastioned Maurader and a mobile depot. I take that back... CCP did add the home depots to great value. But, now have taken the value away. Its a real loss of value to many small Corps and solo players. The ability to refit on the fly meant the ability to survive an unexpected large volume Ganker attack. It was something I invested heavily in, both time and money (RLM). And because CCP didn't like flexibility but rather wanted players to "commit". It removes a big part of the game for me. I don't mind committing to the mission or situation I can plan for. But, there is no way to plan for a roving gang of gankers and with the loss of immediate combat refit for subcaps.... no way to fit to survive it either. CCP just made the game no longer worth the investment. Like I said... its a shame. |
James Astraeus
Indecent Holdings Indecent-Exposure
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.09 06:43:37 -
[198] - Quote
I have a question, so with Asset Safety, if a Citadel is destroyed the assets go to the nearest NPC station, or if I understand correctly, another owned Citadel if within the same system, correct?
If this is so, does this same mechanic also apply in wormholes? If there are two citadels in a wormhole and one gets popped, would the assets go to the other one, or would they still be dropped in space? |
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony The Wraithguard.
288
|
Posted - 2016.05.09 07:06:37 -
[199] - Quote
General observation - not a real bug, but does anybody else have "choppy" gameplay? As if the framerate ebbs and recoveres constantly, despite already running in potato mode (where I used to run on medium shaders) and even on refresh interval 1 (where I used to run "immediate") ?
It's constantly going back and forth between laggy and smooth; when rotating the camera, in the warptunnel, when inside a bubble...?
Did graphics requirements go up or is the game client doing new "stuff" in the background? Yes it started displaying this behaviour with the Citadels patch - no I didn't report it earlier because there were bigger fish to fry.
Sauce anyone? |
George Gouillot
Black Fox Marauders
107
|
Posted - 2016.05.09 16:46:50 -
[200] - Quote
zipperstopperking wrote:CCP could you please tell me why that you charge us an exorbitant price for BPOs in this new release. And you say that these citadels are to be player made. Yet even with one of my Toons that has maxed out building skills .I cannot manufacture under 3.5 days. Yet the citadels appeared at 1.8 days after release.
So please tell me CCP why citadels are appearing only after 1.8 days at a far less reduced price them erotic cost to manufacture them.
3.5 days is at station w/o implant. You obviously missed the fact that citadels can be build in POS. In order to be the very first, people have used rapid equipment assembly arrays assuming the double material cost would not matter. 1.8 days is not true though. I was carefully monitoring the market and the 1 st Astrahus was listed app. 54 hrs after patch day dt.
|
|
Areen Sassel
99
|
Posted - 2016.05.09 20:37:50 -
[201] - Quote
This seems as good a place to mention this as any, given the changes to broker fees in this expansion. Presently the broker fee is charged if the order duration is non-immediate, whether or not the order can in fact be filled immediately (even if, in fact, the order price was autofilled by the game from market data).
This strikes me as an entirely unnecessary UI gotcha; I'd like to make the (blindingly obvious suggestion) that instead the broker fee should be charged if the order was not filled immediately (or on the proportion of the order that was not filled immediately), which would save us all a bit of needless clicking.
(Of course, it's always been like this - but it bites a lot harder now.) |
Gohstii
Jabberwocky Traders Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2016.05.09 23:30:46 -
[202] - Quote
From a Marketeers and Market PvP'ers perspective, will we still be able to buy and sell items remotely if they are in a hostile/neutral Citadel instead of a station? If the Citadel owner is able to limit the market use to blues only with the Access list, then this will greatly hinder ones ability to kill or crash an enemies market. To me this could potentially kill off a very fun and interesting way of hurting the enemy in a time of war. |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
65
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 07:58:50 -
[203] - Quote
citadel prices won't be as advertised and the term ballpark seems incorrectly used. Unless you play baseball using both a stadium in boston and in NYC at the same time. "But it was in in the second sadium :(" I'll wait 3 months to see what prices do. |
Drammie Askold
Saints Of Havoc I N G L O R I O U S
37
|
Posted - 2016.05.11 10:03:29 -
[204] - Quote
I'd like to give kudos to the art team for the details in the Astrahaus. The sounds of work in the hanger and the 'vehicle' lights changing from a point to a fan on the surface as they go round a corner show it to be a labour of love.
(Yes, I'm one of those boring sods who pan and zoom through the 3d models to see what's there.)
Will no one think of the Velociraptors?
|
Decarthado Aurgnet
Imperial Combat Engineers Empire of Arcadia
41
|
Posted - 2016.05.13 22:56:24 -
[205] - Quote
Citadel bug report: The base refinement value for compressed ice was marked at 50% in my citadel even though I've fitted a rig to bump that value up. I initially thought it was a bug with considering compressed ice as not valid for the full reprocessing bonus, but then I assumed control of the citadel to double-check that I didn't have an idiot moment where I would've forgotten to put the rig in. Sure enough, the rig is in place, and, on checking refinement value a second time, the bonuses were applied correctly on the second look.
I haven't attempted to reproduce this bug, but it happened after I'd logged in while docked to the citadel in question and made no other movements or changes aside from looking into reprocessing the compressed ice.
Remove T2 BPO's or make them inventable at extreme cost.
|
Numidio Chthonus
Ex Coelis The Bantam Menace
3
|
Posted - 2016.05.15 11:56:30 -
[206] - Quote
Decarthado Aurgnet wrote:Citadel bug report: The base refinement value for compressed ice was marked at 50% in my citadel even though I've fitted a rig to bump that value up. I initially thought it was a bug with considering compressed ice as not valid for the full reprocessing bonus, but then I assumed control of the citadel to double-check that I didn't have an idiot moment where I would've forgotten to put the rig in. Sure enough, the rig is in place, and, on checking refinement value a second time, the bonuses were applied correctly on the second look.
I haven't attempted to reproduce this bug, but it happened after I'd logged in while docked to the citadel in question and made no other movements or changes aside from looking into reprocessing the compressed ice.
This bug happens to our citadel as well at *every* down time. It is starting to get annoying. Only by taking control of the citadel briefly do the rigs kick in. |
Kblocks Biggums
Quantum Singularities Half Massed
1
|
Posted - 2016.05.16 13:05:35 -
[207] - Quote
item hangar contents disappear. citadel gnomes |
Tahrl Cabot
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2016.05.17 18:36:55 -
[208] - Quote
First, the broker fees: Increasing the fee from .5% to 2.5% is a 500% increase. A 500% increase in any other area of the game would break it. This is not incremental - this is HUGE. Profit margins on trading and hauling are slim - sometimes just 2% or 3% in highsec; those trades are now wiped out by fees. (*I'm not favoring highsec, but most stuff gets built and traded in highsec, before it moves to lowsec and nullsec, so this has a big impact on the economy as a whole.)
Your "solution" is to push people into citadels - which are currently indefensible: Astrhus = A Straw House, that offers NO security.
Most die before they are even fit - imagine that statistic applying to any other $1B isk ship in the game? A-straw-hus have been killed by destroyer fleets. I imagine all-frigate fleets and all-noob-ship fleets will be next. A-straw-hus can easily be killed by less than a dozen ad hoc ships with no-logi Even fully fit A-straw-hus can only kill destroyers, frigates and pods. They can't be saved by warping off. (even a single frigate can help save a $1B freighter by webbing it so it can warp to safety - no such mechanic with a citadel). They can't be repped (because that would make it not fun for attackers) The defender assumes ALL the risk; the attackers risk nothing.
Given that they are stationary - they should have built in bastion mode. Keeping any fleet on grid with a citadel should require several well-tanked battlecruisers or larger and it should require logi support. Cruisers and below should be volleyed of the field.
Taking down a citadel should be a challenge, and it should pose a risk to the fleet involved. Even if you show up with a massive fleet, due to the DPS cap, you should know you will at least loose some ships before you can kill it.
As it stands, fleet comp is based solely on bringing more than 500dps and less than 5000dps, and the only reason to bring more than 500 is to avoid boredom.
Raise the minimum damage to 4999dps, so you actually have to bring a serious fleet. Keep the damage cap at 5000dps. Raise the citadel missile volley damage high enough to one-shot T1 cruisers and below (omni damage, so you can't stack resists). The challenge for the attacker should be keeping 5000dps on the field without losing so many ships as to make it "unprofitable" to kill a citadel.
I'm not saying make it a fair fight, but at least make it interesting. Make it require team work and coordination, and not just a lolz fleet: show up in whatever and watch the GIANT fireworks.
To be honest, due to the obvious lack of security, most will stay in NPC stations and the fee increase will just be passed on to the customer and cause inflation.
As it stands, you spend $2.24B isk and get nothing but a tears in return - CCP has created the best ganker scam ever!!! |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
54862
|
Posted - 2016.05.19 03:36:34 -
[209] - Quote
Tahrl Cabot, very well said and straight to the point. Good job.
Obviously as usual there's an immense lack of Dev response to these and various other issues currently plaguing Eve Online. And as usual the amount of players logging into the game keeps dropping month after month.
It was said in the past that Goons would kill Eve but the truth of the fact is that CCP will kill Eve.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
490
|
Posted - 2016.05.19 08:40:24 -
[210] - Quote
The ideas previously thrown around about small-scale markets were cool. While I appreciate you might not want every Astrahus to be filling up the market screen with crap, a corp/alliance-only market module that can fit on smaller structures would be a huge boon to a variety of playstyles.
Travelling at the speed of love.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |