Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Mr Bignose
Horde Vanguard. Pandemic Horde
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:49:35 -
[211] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:You can't get jammed in siege, cupcake. Just leave 1 Mercoxit roid alive in belt, Rorqual has 200km lock range base without the lock range skill even trained, with ECM immunity and 80% damp defence.
So, I mean, we're already sitting in our anoms with 12 rorqs not boosting because mining foreman bursts inexplicably give combat timers that prevent refits and give rorq pilots no incentive to boost unless they need to address the mercoxit menace.
wait, we need to roll, well let me go high cap full tank and boost the subcaps for the last few 'roids.
oh look, a new cosmic signature!
www HALP
i did actually respect your suggested svipul nerfs because you were an avid field researcher in fade but i'm not sure if anyone involved with this ship redesign has actually used it. |
Panther X
High Flyers Northern Coalition.
110
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:49:54 -
[212] - Quote
Querns wrote:Panther X wrote: You want me to stop mining? Increase the Security Class of some of our systems. Kill the broken True Sec of Delve, and move it to Vale :)
Broken truesec doesn't affect ore anomalies. We only get 10% yield anoms in -0.85 or better, same as you.
You're right, but that's not what I was saying. I was referring to CCP's economic interest in getting us to stop mining. I will stop mining when ratting stops being ****. In Delve it's an Officer spawn every *over exaggerated cough* 35 seconds (yes I'm being overdramatic, but you know what I'm saying)
My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
|
Penance Toralen
Compass Fox
30
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:53:01 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Other misc mining changes:- Buffing the Mining Laser Field Enhancement foreman link from 30% to 40% base bonus.
- Increasing the optimal range of the ORE strip miners (to 18.75km) and ORE ice harvesters (to 12.5km).
These changes will be appearing on SISI for public testing over the next few days and we're very interested in hearing your feedback. Thanks!
CCP Fozzie, can you please increase the range of the "ORE Miner" - that would keep it in line the other Outer Ring offerings. |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2673
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:54:07 -
[214] - Quote
Grymwulf wrote:Querns wrote:[quote=Grymwulf][quote=Querns] https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=42890 Hit the attributes tab, scroll all the way to the bottom. ECMResistance 0%. (This value is inverted; 0% means "immune.") Edit: Saw your post above after I hit submit; more verification is always good! But this just demonstrates the ease of solving it by adding 1 database entry for this item - https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/info/?typeid=41411 "EW Capacitor Need Bonus9999900 %" So, the choice is allocation of developer time and resources. Write 1 line of SQL code to add an attribute to an itemID *OR* spend many developer man-hours custom programming a solution, additional QA man-hours testing the solution, and additional complexity to an already complex code base. I wonder which is easier?
Doesn't solve the problem.
I even posted about this earlier in the thread, but a fellow on GSF Jabber turned me around to the problem. (Thanks, The Slayer!)
Making the rorqual PANIC mode turn off ewar doesn't actually solve the Jump Hictor Problem, or any of the combat rorqual problems. The moderate hack presented here, while unwieldy, provides the best compromise between the reality of the game and the design intention for you to only be able to PANIC while mining or supporting other miners.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Cade Windstalker
882
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:54:08 -
[215] - Quote
Grymwulf wrote:Ok, the amount of salt being generated in this thread is amazing. Let's not go overboard though...
Agreed, the nerf to Rorqual yields does seem to be a bit overboard, combined with the other changes it's hard to predict the actual change in yield.
I believe the amount of nerfing suggested shows yet again how CCP has very little idea of how to adjust things in a smart and intelligent way. First off, make one change, see how it goes, don't do 3 different changes where the combination of them all can be hard to predict. Honestly, make the changes to one thing at a time, less chance of unintended consequences.
Has no one at CCP learned the lesson from the history of overly complicated POS code? This goes again to my earlier comment, don't make big sweeping changes when small steps are capable of addressing the issue.
Question #1 - Is there currently a coded mechanic to address overpowered ECM capabilities when a particular module is activated? Question #2 - Is it easier to adapt already existing code that has been through several passes of QA, or to code a truly unique and untested method that has glaringly obvious exploitable issues?
Coding an entirely new solution to a problem that has an easily adapted solution already in the code-base seems more about pride and hubris than anything else. Is this a certain developers attempt to demonstrate that their solution is better than one coded by someone else? Is this ego getting in the way of effective coding?
Couple of points against this interpretation of events:
First off, CCP's already nerfed the Rorqual once, and it apparently didn't fix the issues they were seeing with Rorqual use and the mineral market, so they have been taking things incrementally. Considering the first round of changes didn't do much I think it's a bit silly to be claiming that this second set of changes is too far...
Second, CCP can't perfectly predict how players are going to react to a change or the full impact of that change. What CCP are trying to do here is modulate player behavior in aggregate (aka, people are mining too much ore too quickly). If you can predict the impact of any change perfectly then I think CCP might want to offer you a job, at least if they can beat out the half dozen global spy agencies trying to 'recruit' you...
As for the code change, I'm assuming you're referring to the "is an asteroid locked" thing.
First off, that bears almost no resemblance in any way to the POS code. The problem with the POS code was that it was written in the very very early days of CCP, was fundamentally tied into a lot of different systems, and the entire core concept of the POS shield was creating issues, exploits, and bad edge cases. Unless you've found a way to spontaneously generate asteroids on-grid with you then none of this applies to this change.
What this change does do is mean that CCP don't have to go running around chasing abuse cases because they've essentially gone with a white-list approach rather than a black-list one. It's not even like it requires much if any new code, modules check what you have locked all the time when activating. |
Anya Aivora
Sister Margaret's School for Wayward Clones
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:59:10 -
[216] - Quote
At this point ccp, you really need a rerebalance for the rorq. Scrap the panic, scrap the siege and scrap these disgusting drones. A copy and pasta capital strip miner was a better idea than this garbage. |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2673
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:00:47 -
[217] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:Querns wrote:Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT.
I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals.
If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. What a load of bollocks. The Mexallon has been intended as a feature of the game several times by the devs. If you want more go wormhole diving. The mineral prices drop because null-sec has reduced dependence on exporting from high-sec. Less demand, same supply, lower price - economics 101. If you are so set on independence then we bring the 90% jump protection to the table of negotiation. There has been plenty of carrots given to null industry, it's now time for sticks. Perhaps high-sec can have direct access to small amounts Zyd and Mega - why not, you're holding out a hand.
Wormhole ore sites have bupkis for minerals. The fact that you even suggested that as a supplement to our mexallon intake shows you have no clue what you're talking about.
The problem isn't having ENOUGH minerals, it's the ratio. We can get all the minerals we need, even mexallon, with enough mining. The issue is that we end up oversupplied on pyerite and isogen. (Exporting pyerite is hideously cost inefficient, but isogen isn't, which is why it's nearly half the price of mexallon despite being in a higher "rarity tier.") Adjusting the ratio isn't about getting us more mexallon, it's about making our growing stores of pyerite and isogen actually worth something.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2673
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:01:42 -
[218] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Querns wrote: If the rorqual is in the belt, it's probably sieged.
The purpose of PANIC is to allow you time to exit siege, so you can catch remote reps from escalating Force Auxiliaries.
Unless it is moving between rocks due to the super slow drone flight speed. If this change to Panic was coming with a massive buff to Excavator speed to enable them to mine asteroids further away, it would be a lot more reasonable, but there are a lot of times where they will not be in siege for whatever reason at which point ECM will stop them using Panic. Simply put, it's a bad mechanic and should be addressed in some other way.
If you're moving between rocks, and you get dropped, siege immediately and wait up to 20 seconds?
Are you saying you can't survive for 20 seconds? If you're worried, fit a Capital Emergency Hull Energizer in addition to your PANIC, which will GUARANTEE that you live long enough to survive.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Abdullah 3li
Angry Rock Killers Inc. Serrice Council.
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:06:09 -
[219] - Quote
Dear CCP, First of all I hope your doing well. I am amused by your brilliant ideas on the topic of Nerfing Capital Industrial ship's. Since the beginning when you started changing all the bonuses on these ships without having the Vision on future repercussions on the game economy e.t.c. Ore and mineral prices. As one of the Industrial players my self, I fnd these changes very annoying and tbh dumb.
1) Excavator Drone, when they where introduced into the game they where very effect at mining, then you realized that they are more powerful then you intended them to be. from the start they where over priced and their effectiveness went something like this (Release 5 drones can mine as 7 Hulks) then a balanced Nerf ( Now 5 Drones can mine as 5 Hulks) and finally ( inc changes 5 Drones = 2 Halks) don't you think such a huge Nerf would effect the price of those drones? Are you going to Compensate every player that payed a huge sum of ISK back. Maybe I should pickle them in hanger till you fix them.
2) PANIC Module, this module was **** since it was introduced , it gives the bonuses to the PVPer we did not benefit from it.
People who want to use the Excavator Drones should be on the Grid. people who safe boosting should be able to boost from POS. This plays more into Risk and Reward then the current stuff your doing.
Maybe in the future start serving players about such dramatic changes in the game play and Ruining our experience and making the game less fun. We are paying real money for subscriptions and alot of time that now feels likes its been wasted. it feels like these changes was meant for some selected players and cooperation /alliances i think many player know what do i mean.
I would like to say more but I know none at CCP will give a **** about my post.
Best Regards Abdul o7 CCP |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
1581
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:10:06 -
[220] - Quote
Porthos Jacobs wrote:So if I bring Ewar to get a rorqual it cannot panic now. bonus
Good luck with jamming out a rorqual there, boyo |
|
Yonneh
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:21:44 -
[221] - Quote
Considering that you are effectively removing the ship, with the significant yield nerf; will you be refunding all SP spent on rorquals? There are no other ships that use the Capital Industrial Ships, Invulnerability Core Operations, or Mining Drone Specialization skills.
Larger Asteroids will result in a 5-10% yield reduction Direct 50% Yield Nerf Increased ore anomaly sizes mean significantly more drone travel time. 33% decrease in cycle time is effectively an 11% decrease; as only 1/3 of the drones time is spent mining.
V/r, Yonneh |
Archeos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
9
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:25:52 -
[222] - Quote
You have to understand that nerfing the rorqual won't affect the prices that much. People who have fleets of 5-10 rorqual alts will still make huge ammounts of money from them, the only people who will get the sharp end of the stick will be the small guys with one rorqual and casual players who like to mine. You have to find another way to fix the market and keep away the nerf bat from rorqual yields. |
Shkiki
MastersCraft
3
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:26:24 -
[223] - Quote
This is all about bringing back the 12 account macro miners. I was very happy mining solo without the need to sport $120 a month on various miner accounts. Stop being Petty CCP. |
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
3063
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:27:36 -
[224] - Quote
Querns wrote:Bronson Hughes wrote: Attackers bring EWAR to the belt? No PANIC.
Wrong. The Industrial Core provides full EWAR immunity. Fair point, although as discussed above not all mining/support Rorqs have a core running.
There's got to be a cleaner way to flag a Rorq as "engaged in mining operations" or, at least, "not acting as uber-tackle" than simply whether or not they have an asteroid locked. Weapons timer is out due to the timer generated by command bursts. Adding a separate flag just for this is just as clumsy as the current solution.
Maybe simply disallow modules requiring Propulsion Jamming from being used on the Rorqual at all? This seems like a cleaner solution that's more in-line with the Rorqual's role, would still let it PANIC in non-combat and non-mining situations, but would limit its use as an offensive unit.
Relatively Notorious By Association
My Many Misadventures
I predicted FAUXs
|
Exia Lennelluc
Unholy Knights of Cthulhu Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:30:49 -
[225] - Quote
I'm trying to find where the reward will be after this patch sense the risk is still a 12b ship. Probably going to go back to mutliboxing exhumers sense thats much easier and i dont have to worry about my mining drones being destroyed by npc |
Harrigan Raen
19
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:35:27 -
[226] - Quote
A second nerf to the excavator drone, can you at least bring down the construction cost too? |
ultimatefox02
Core Industry. Blades of Grass
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:36:25 -
[227] - Quote
Excavator Drones: We're planning another reduction in Excavator drone yield to help keep the mineral economy healthy. I know it never feels good when things get nerfed but we're very confident that the Rorqual will continue to be an extremely powerful mining ship after these changes (not to mention the value provided by its other functions such as foreman links and defenses). We plan on continuing to make changes in this area as necessary over the coming months with the goal of keeping the mineral market healthy and ensuring that a wide variety of mining ships are viable. Speed up the cycle time of 'Excavator' ore mining drones to 60 seconds, and reduce the yield per cycle to 110 m3 base. This will reduce the idealized yield per minute, increase the number of trips required to and from the asteroid, but also reduce the amount of wasted cycle at the end of an asteroid's life. Add killmails on the destruction of all 'Excavator' drones. In March we are also planning on some UI/UX improvements for drones as a whole and mining drones in particular. These include a new keyboard shortcut for launching drones and enabling the "engage target" keyboard shortcut to work with mining drones. Discussion of these UI changes is best directed to this thread.
Ce changement est complètement stupide, j'investis 12 ou 13B sur un Rorqual , qui en passant étais supposé être une bête de minage (= a 5 barge environ) et peut après il ce fait nerf et vaut maintenant 3/4 barges , et la il va être environ 2/3 barges, la vous me casser mon game play, ont investis beaucoup de ISK sur c'est rorqual et la vous casser notre rendement , pour une fois que les mineur avait un boost, vous l'avez augmenter pour mieux la nerf après , et que vous la nerfé une fois ok,mais 2 fois et de cette façon la , je vous prédit la fermeture de plusieurs de mes comptes sinon tous , si vous continuer a casser mon EVE. |
Falcon Starwalker
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:36:30 -
[228] - Quote
I am sure that having reduced the "excavator" drones by nearly half now, this also comes with a reduction in build cost by nearly half as well.
Currently we are paying nearly 1.1B in build cost for a drone that has crap for HP, slow as the year is long, and now has the mining yield of a poorly skilled mining barge with no upgrades or links.
While I realize price doesn't equal reward, it damn well should pay for itself in a decent amount of time, and with this nerf you are reducing its value while offering nothing in return. The cost was already hitting a point where risk vs reward was next to equal, now the balance is heavily sided on more risk than reward.
In exchange for these massively painful nerfs, there should be a healthy HP buff, PANIC can effect them or the cost dropped in half. The build cost was based on these being "powerful" boosts to mining, but if that is not going to be the case, then balance needs to be on both sides of the equation. |
Grognard Commissar
Splinter Cell Operations inPanic
18
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:37:24 -
[229] - Quote
Penance Toralen wrote:Querns wrote:Whole lotta folks not twigging to the fact that sieging the rorqual gives you ECM immunity ITT.
I won't comment directly on the nerf, but I do offer this: If the goal here is to help buttress mineral prices, consider taking a look at the mineral basket. (Ask Aryth if you don't understand what this means. Few do.) Decreasing the amount of pyerite and isogen in nullsec anomalies, while increasing mexallon (and to a lesser degree, nocx and mega) will do a lot to help correct the downward trend in minerals.
If you'd like an idea on how mineral prices react in a high-usage market, check the keepstar in 1DQ1-A. What a load of bollocks. The Mexallon has been intended as a feature of the game several times by the devs. If you want more go wormhole diving. The mineral prices drop because null-sec has reduced dependence on exporting from high-sec. Less demand, same supply, lower price - economics 101. If you are so set on independence then we bring the 90% jump protection to the table of negotiation. There has been plenty of carrots given to null industry, it's now time for sticks. Perhaps high-sec can have direct access to small amounts Zyd and Mega - why not, you're holding out a hand. no. wormholes don't give enough ore. minerals need to be balanced. it's driving down the price of all the other minerals. that is what is screwing the mineral market. fine, you want to throw sticks at us Indy players? how do you like not having any morphite? |
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3471
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:43:08 -
[230] - Quote
Interesting proposal, looks a bit artificial to me ... but the only question I have is, will it lead to more Rorquals used and die or not?
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
|
Paul Ares
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
5
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:49:13 -
[231] - Quote
"Foozie makes a bunch of stupid pointless changes (don't ever remove this from the OP, because it is always true)"
Anyone who thinks being a "good loser" is a virtue is probably a f***ing loser.
|
Minerva Arbosa
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
26
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:54:32 -
[232] - Quote
CCP Fozzie [u wrote:PANIC Module:[/u] We have been keeping a close eye on potential issues related to the PANIC module for a while, and although we are overall quite happy with the module we are interested in reducing the power of a few uses, primarily use for fleet tackle and cyno lighting, as well as an escape method for entosis operations. To reduce the power of the PANIC module in these situations while also preserving all of its power for defending mining Rorquals and their fleets we are currently planning the following change: - Initial activation of the PANIC module would require the Rorqual to have an active target lock on an asteroid.
Why not have just make e-war have the same penalty as carriers? Like hey you are in PANIC mode, you can't use that freaking that e-war module as you don't have a large enough capacitor pool. Problem solved without all of the other nerfs that you are proposing.
|
Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion
24
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:54:56 -
[233] - Quote
I'm against the Rorqual changes and basically I'd love to see Fozzie resign because he has wrecked this game enough over the years. Lets hire some people who do this weird thing like listen to people who aren't PL.
Oh and even cooler awesomer idea would be don't implement features which cost 37.5 Billion isk to train, then turn around after you've spent the money on potentially multiple accounts and completely bork it. I'm lucky because I assumed CCP are totally incompetent from the beginning and limited my exposure to only 4/10 of my mining accounts. So only 150 billion isk pissed away because CCP decided to change their mind after using the live server to test market effects of overly poweful rorquals. Now it's a million times more feasible to use hulks x 10 than rorqual x 5. and hulks x 10 = 2b + 80b in injected skills = 82b vs rorquals x 5 = 62.5b + 175b in injected skills = 237.5b. Oh and your killboard doesn't get raped. CCP borked it completely. Business as normal in Iceland it seems.
You want to change a tristan, knock yourself out. It takes 5 mins to train something else. You want to change cap mechanics (and rorquals are caps last I checked), you are talking 6 months of retraining,
But that's CCP's business model isn't it? You can't get new subscribers obviously, since you were desperate enough to go free to play, so instead, the new business model is completely bork characters so they are forced to RIP skills and REINJECT those skills elsewhere at a loss, both financially, and in lost SP.
Next, lets nerf super carriers and make dreads the new go to ratting isk faucet. And once everyone switches, or injects to dreads, lets change it to Titans, then once that's working well for people, lets change it back to rorqual. Then implement a new T2 bullshit ship that requires all new skills.
Adapt and overcome my ass. Just assume incompetence and go play something else. That's my game plan. |
Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion
26
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:56:42 -
[234] - Quote
Finally, lets be honest and stop bullshitting with the rhetoric "proposed changes"
These aren't proposed changes. that's a crock of ****. These are final.
After 13 years, can we just call it as it is?
"Here's the changes we are going to do whether it's totally borked or not"
Edit: CCP making changes in Eve: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjkkjH0GnfY |
Malthuras
The Scope Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:59:30 -
[235] - Quote
You want to make the rorqual mine less? Fine
Then do something about the price of excavators so that the initial cost of the rorqual isn't so dumb.
Then I can get behind these changes.
Also, panic without asteroid? So all someone has to do is wait until a belt is cleared and boom, dead rorq. |
Jo Kiyoko
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:08:35 -
[236] - Quote
I know you're trying to bring vulnerability to rorqs to cyno ganks; any plans to make the cyno module a destroyer and size up only module? |
eeyan spork
The Foundation for Law and Government. Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:13:26 -
[237] - Quote
And with one f $%#ings post you just devalued the SP I extracted to inject 3 rorq pilots.
I want my f#%$ing SP back in my hulk miners.
This is stupid. My 60 billion is now worth 30 billion.
Thanks a lot a!@#%!. |
Hamasaki Cross
Scumbag Logistics INC PTY LTD The Bastion
27
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:17:45 -
[238] - Quote
eeyan spork wrote:And with one f $%#ings post you just devalued the SP I extracted to inject 3 rorq pilots.
I want my f#%$ing SP back in my hulk miners.
This is stupid. My 60 billion is now worth 30 billion.
Thanks a lot a!@#%!.
Don't you realize that's the new CCP business model? It's the only viable way to make meaningful income these days by screwing over the customer base. |
arkarsk
Tritanium Industries and Technology Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:28:03 -
[239] - Quote
I don't usually post on such matters as game changes are game changes; you adapt.
Whether you agree with the changes or not; BTW I don't. The way in which CCP have gone about the rorqual changes is irresponsible (from business perspective) and hap hazard. Apart from the fact they will alienate a HUGE player base now.
In the first instance the initial changes were sweeping and profound. As a consequence the rorqual drones were nerfed, we accepted that and moved on. Now at this late stage in the changes we have a huge number of pilots that have respecceded and invested huge sums of isk into a new gameplay. This has involved mass skill injecting, liquidation of stocks , plex etc. We all know people that have p[oughed their years of assets into rorqual mining. Lets not forget the huge cost of fielding a rorqual, in part due to the rediculous cost of excavator drones. Now CCP nerfs the ship to the ground (read: in relation to cost) negating all the sweeping changes people have made to their pilots skills and isk investment.
Honestly, CCP can do what they want but it will see people leaving the game after such heavy investment in both time, risk and skill points.
All i can say is the initial rorqual changes have been great, and i don't mean from isk perspective, i mean from a gameplay perspective. Its introduced more organised home defence systems which bring content for all. Its brought kill mails throughout. Its introduced an entirely new gameplay of drone stealing. Overall i believe it was great for the game. Change this and people won't field them anymore. SIMPLE.
You want to change ore and mineral prices, then change the mexallon bottleneck ffs! Then perhaps you won't have so much tritanium or isogen on the market. Concurrently change the anom spawning rate. You want to stop Jump HICS then stop the ability to tackle with panic mode. Not this half baked 'rock' targeting method.
Im disappointed in CCPs lack of understanding and/or care of the player bases investment in time /isk and sp.
tldr: poorly conceived changes that don't address the real problems. Welcome to reduced subscriptions. Well at least from me.
|
AOSA
Atreidun Order
7
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:28:17 -
[240] - Quote
I don't understand the reason you chose that "solution" for the PANIC module... Rest sounds legit. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 31 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |