Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 106 post(s) |
|
CCP Explorer
C C P C C P Alliance
477
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:12:00 -
[421] - Quote
BeanBagKing wrote:St Mio wrote:I don't care if they're male, female, a transexual midget, or an asexual amoeba, anyone (or thing) that works on improving EVE's UI gets my gratitude and appreciation! QFT Also, I wanted to point out that I agree with Exploerers statement too. Punkturis spends a lot of time talking to the players on the forums. Players appreciate that from -any- dev. I also get the feeling (I could be wrong) that Punkturis puts in a lot of extra time after hours to get these features working for us. That is, not just communicating with us, but doing "actual work" in her off time. Indeed she does. Now, without downplaying anyone's contribution (and in particular not CCP Punkturis' contribution) then CCP karkur probably spends the most after-hours on actual coding of extra projects. Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson | Software Director | EVE Online, CCP Games | Follow on: Twitter / Google+ |
|
Renan Ruivo
Hipernova Vera Cruz Alliance
760
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:22:00 -
[422] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:Silly Slot wrote:Tess La'Coil wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:heh it's unfortunately not a thing for me to sneak in, since that's not a UI change I hope logi pilots will keep loving me despite that! Since we're talking about Logis.. would it have a point to add a positive effects too like we have EWAR? So you can see incoming reps/transfers? Just brainstorming.. like the idea, hate the idea of misclicking the icon to lock and shooting my own logi lol, especially since the icons sorta move as new effects add on, they'd have to be different, perhaps a smaller bar of icons above the negative effects icons but with green instead of red, or blue perhaps might be better looking Well, honestly friendlies should be targetable from the watch list and if done that way show up in a completely different area of the screen to cut down on accidental friendly fire. In other words only boosting modules of the various types (including remote repair) can activate when those "target" icons are highlighted. This would also open up some interesting possbilities elsewhere. what's wrong with shooting blues???
Only blues that i'm OK with shooting are the ones witl blue label on their faces.
EDIT:
By the way, this one @CCP SoniClover
The drone damage amplifier module, will they have stack penalty with the Sentry Damage rig?! The world is a community of idiots doing a series of things until it explodes and we all die. |
Azura Solus
Canibus Liberum
7
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 19:59:00 -
[423] - Quote
Sry this may be a little off topic but in the past few TQ patches have yall uploaded any prep code for the war deccing changes I have had a Bug with the wardeccing system on the live server that has cost me a very expensive ship I have submited a bug report petition and made a post on the forums about what happened here.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=109044&find=unread |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 22:32:00 -
[424] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Thomas Gallant wrote:Was there any change in the cost of war decing? I heard about basing the cost on the number of members in the target corp/alliance and the removal of limits on number of concurrent wars in I think a dev diary, are those changes here? Yeah it's been changed, it'll be described better in a dev blog soon, I'm not sure the latest version is in this sisi update though
I really don't like it though. Like I said, if the only way to find out how much a wardec costs is by wardeccing, it's wrong. Have the devs ever considered doing it with sum of size-class pricetags as I described here? It achieves everything SonicClover tries to achieve with his logarithmic method, only not so messy. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
mine mi
FW Scuad E C L I P S E
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 22:56:00 -
[425] - Quote
Can anyone tell me the idea behind the target breaker ?, which can only be used in T1 ships and leaves a cruise with the scan resolution of a titan |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 23:27:00 -
[426] - Quote
mine mi wrote:Can anyone tell me the idea behind the target breaker ?, which can only be used in T1 ships and leaves a cruise with the scan resolution of a titan
It's meant to counter blob fights in battleships, alpha striking primaries. Another attempt of CCP trying to alleviate symptoms while ignoring the deeper underlying causes of blobbing like the negligible cost of jump and bridge mechanics.
It's not unlike the result that the early railroads had on the wars end 19th and beginning 20th century. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
411
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 00:36:00 -
[427] - Quote
Armor Adaptive Hardener I - Low slot. Armor Hardener that adjusts its resistance based on the damage received. Only one can be fitted. Just the tech I version now, but others will follow if this turns out well.
- Good
Extrinsic Damage Amplifier I & II - Low slot. A damage amplifier module for drones.
- Show some actual guts CCP! Don't balance weapons by making them all just the same. Just make drone damage mods unique in high-slots. Have the art guys come up with a little dish-model. In low slots these likely won't be anything special. (drone boats prefer to tank here, or shield-tank with turret weapon mods preferred over drone mods. Again: DO NOT BALANCE BY MAKING EVERYTHING THE SAME
Small/Medium/Large/X-Large Ancillary Shield Booster I. Mid slot. A shield booster that gives a good boost, but has a very high capacitor need. Can use Cap Boosters as charge to negate the severe capacitor need. Only tech I version for now.
- Cool idea. But I can't wait for the next wave of shield vs. armor flames on the forums.
MagSheath Target Breaker I - Mid slot. A module that has a chance of breaking the lock of ships targeting you, the chance increases the more ships target you at one time. Also breaks your locks. Reduces scan resolution significantly as a downside. Only one can be fitted at a time and the can not be fitted to capital ships.
- Meh. Sounds a bit like the Warp Core Stabilizer. A fun module allowing inventive tactics, but CCP caving in to angry one-dimensionally 'tank&spank' players. Pre-nerfing into uselessness.
Small/Medium/Large Overclocking Processor Unit I & II - A rig that increases the CPU output of your ship, at a cost of reduced shield recharge rate.
- Good
Light & Medium Web Drones - Light and medium versions of stasis webifying drones.
- Need to be more effective to be a valid choice. A problem shared with most other EW-drones. Ask CCP Diagoras for some stats about usage and balance accordingly, using a few iterations in the following months
Capacitor Battery edits - All capacitor batteries now also provide a defense against Energy Vampires (Nos) and Energy Neutralizer (Neut) effects. A portion of the effect is reflected back on the aggressor.
- Reflect back? Does that simply mean the effect of NOS and neuts are reduced? Or does it really mean the effect is occasionally refersed, because that seems not only a bit arbitrary, but downright silly. I'd much rather see Cap batteries shielding off an amount of cap off from the NOS and neuts (enough to keep low-cap stuff like hardeners running). Harder to implement, but gameplay-wise a better move. Don't forget: chance based effects are BAD. Don't use them if not necessary. Players don't like them and for a good reason. Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
snake pies
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 02:29:00 -
[428] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:It's an active module with a 10 sec cycle, every cycle it checks the damage received in the cycle and adjust the resistance bonus the module gives based on that..
Won't this add additional lag? For something that isn't really needed...
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
412
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 02:38:00 -
[429] - Quote
Quote:We also wanted to update the Tracking Disruptors to affect missiles too, but the version we implemented was too limited (it only worked if you were flying certain ships and/or the enemy was using certain missiles). We havenGÇÖt found a good universal solution yet, so weGÇÖll have to wait on this one.
I REALLY think the Tracking Disruptors also affecting missiles is a VERY BAD IDEA. I can't stress this enough.
- Missiles already have problems hitting fast, small ships for meaningful damage and most missile ships they need all their rigs just to be competitive. Heavy Missiles are pretty much the only missile viable in PvP, that should be proof enough. Turrets have tracking mods for both high and low slots, can be remote boosted further AND can easily overcome transversal by kiting&sniping small ships at enough range. While I don't mind the differences between weapons, the huge lack of options for missiles should for now, veto ANY additional nerf to them.
- There is a very good reason why any effective ECM is divided over racials, because the second a module can be used to counter most of the enemies (turrets+missiles=huge majority of ships, drones are almost always a secondary weapon), it simply becomes a 'mandatory choice' and a blanket protection, opening the door to min-maxing, and unbalancing everything. If TD will also influence missiles almost every ship with 4 or more med-slots will equip them by default, and a lot of the 3-ones will use them as well.
- If tracking disruptors are currently underused, simply boost their effectiveness a bit. This, in contrary to making it apply to more weapon systems, would at least keep missiles for players as a counter against them.
- If missiles ever become boosted to the point where they could use a counter (like making them more alpha-type weapons, or only redbox on hit), it would be much, MUCH better to add a new mod that is the individual counter for missiles. Maybe even a high-slot type, sacrificing dps for missile protection, with a missile, hybrid, projectile and laser variety (benefiting from ship bonuses).
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Ashera Yune
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
9
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 03:55:00 -
[430] - Quote
To CCP about Weapon disruption:
I personally think that giving tracking or weapon disruptors the ability to affect missiles, without giving anything for missiles to use to counter that effect (like turrets can with tracking computers and enhancers) would be a bad idea. Missiles can only be boosted by rigs and implants. While turrets have modules that increase their tracking and range on top of rigs and implants.
And before you can argue that a target painter is for missiles, it is also for Turrets as well, so that doesn't count.
I believe a simple and fair way is to give tracking computers and enhancers the ability to boost missile velocity and/or explosion radius. |
|
Tobiaz
Spacerats
412
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 04:02:00 -
[431] - Quote
ToysGÇÖRGÇÖDrop
- CCP getting maintaining control over the distribution of blueprints through off-market distribution of BPC: excellent. Even better would be retro-actively taking control back over the current blueprints in game. Replace them with a year worth of BPC and it will eventually sort itself out.
- EDAs, webdrones and rigs getting on the market anyway: spineless. Makes the above-mentioned just an half-assed attempt.
- BPCs drop as loot in profession sites in normal space and as commander & officer loot: almost worse for prices then the T2 lottery if it's officer-drop only. I hope this should be translated as 'can be found in salvage&archeology mag sites' (these are in need for some love anyway).
- The original idea was to have this very varied, with one module being available only through LP store and another only through Invention. In the end, we decided to lump them together into a single seeding method, so as not cause too much discrepancy in their availability. NO NO NO NO!!! Diverse EVE = Better EVE. Also the best way to balance out possible problems and bottlenecks is to have always at least two means to obtain something. Here an idea on how to better use the LP stores as a secondary source for BPC.
- Seeding through loot drops gives better control over where and when and how much to seed: Localized loot drops are currently the most effective way of making the players actually spread out over empire and low-sec. A very powerful tool that might even bring life back to low-sec if used correctly.
- This thread here is a good place to post your ideas: Thanks! I hadn't seen that one yet. It will be WRITTEN DOWN (see signature).
- The next step is crafting an overall vision and roadmap of what purpose new module work serves in the bigger picture: I hope that involves the CSM from the early stages on.
Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Vera Coen
Electric Society
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 07:53:00 -
[432] - Quote
I'd like to recommend a change to the new war dec mechanics:
1st week of war is 25%% of the listed price 2nd week of war is 50% of listed price 3rd+ week is 100%
The reason for the suggestion is my thought that a week or two of war shouldn't make or break a corporation/alliance but being able to keep someone perma-decced should cost the attacker quite a bit.
As it stands right now on a large corp/alliance target it would be more efficient for me to just AWOX them if I just want a few days or quick and easy kills. I don't think that is a good thing.
My apologies if a suggestion like this has already been mentioned.
|
Roime
Shiva Furnace Dead On Arrival Alliance
707
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 09:24:00 -
[433] - Quote
I just realized that instead of being a buff to drone boats, webber scout drones just makes kiting even more OP as tactic.
Drone boats should receive bonuses to all drone effects.
Combined with the failure that is the new drone dmg module, I feel like drone pilots are treated like second class citizens.
In the beginning high security space was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 14:19:00 -
[434] - Quote
Dmg modifier has just been upped to 19%.
Very nice one. Try an Ishtar or Rattler, dps increase is significant.
Thank you devs @CCP. |
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
345
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 15:52:00 -
[435] - Quote
There is alot of confusion with the cap batteries. Their description and attributes on SISSI indicate they're just Nuet/Nos resistant. People testing them indicate that the effect is partially cast back the aggressor. This was indicated in the dev blog as well. |
Tobiaz
Spacerats
424
|
Posted - 2012.05.15 20:50:00 -
[436] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There is alot of confusion with the cap batteries. Their description and attributes on SISSI indicate they're just Nuet/Nos resistant. People testing them indicate that the effect is partially cast back the aggressor. This was indicated in the dev blog as well.
Who at CCP ever came up with that mechanic? Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!-á Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors! |
Haakyra Fly
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 12:38:00 -
[437] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:There is alot of confusion with the cap batteries. Their description and attributes on SISSI indicate they're just Nuet/Nos resistant. People testing them indicate that the effect is partially cast back the aggressor. This was indicated in the dev blog as well.
Yes how exactly they work? U cannot switch off capacitor of a ship that uses these batteries? Or simply ifnu neut one of these ship a % of neuting is turned back to u?
For example if i should neut 100 of your cap... I neut 80 and 20 is drained from my cap?
H. |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 12:45:00 -
[438] - Quote
Renan Ruivo wrote:
By the way, this one @CCP SoniClover
The drone damage amplifier module, will they have stack penalty with the Sentry Damage rig?!
No |
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 13:48:00 -
[439] - Quote
It looks like they are mutually stacking penalized on sisi, when do you plan to have build where they are not?
Also, could you answer question from old thread?
Kadesh Priestess wrote:Fueled shield boosters & shield booster bonuses. Do you plan to apply bonuses which work on plain SBs onto new FSBs? Because currently it looks like a mess.
Bonuses with skill requirement filter by Shield Operation work (because FSB has this skill requirement) - e.g. Hawk shield boost amount bonus. Bonuses with group filter by Shield Booster do not work (because new SBs have Fueled Shield Booster group) - e.g. Golem
Do you plan to rectify this situation? Towards which variant?
|
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
83
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 13:57:00 -
[440] - Quote
Has anyone seen what will happen to wars that are currently active on the day of the patch? Do they all get reset? Stay as they are, or will the new war reports just get tacked on to existing wars? |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 15:18:00 -
[441] - Quote
Kadesh Priestess wrote:It looks like they are mutually stacking penalized on sisi, when do you plan to have build where they are not? Also, could you answer question from old thread? Kadesh Priestess wrote:Fueled shield boosters & shield booster bonuses. Do you plan to apply bonuses which work on plain SBs onto new FSBs? Because currently it looks like a mess.
Bonuses with skill requirement filter by Shield Operation work (because FSB has this skill requirement) - e.g. Hawk shield boost amount bonus. Bonuses with group filter by Shield Booster do not work (because new SBs have Fueled Shield Booster group) - e.g. Golem
Do you plan to rectify this situation? Towards which variant?
We would like to fix this, but we don't have an ETA on it
Edit: Also, I'll look into the stacking penalties, they shouldn't apply so if they are I have to figure out why. |
|
Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
189
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 15:31:00 -
[442] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Edit: Also, I'll look into the stacking penalties, they shouldn't apply so if they are I have to figure out why. Because both damage mods and rigs are not from stacking penalty immune categories and apply their bonus using PostPercent operation i guess. You could switch rigs to use PreMul / PostMul (and their bonus attribs from 10, 15 to 1.1, 1.15) to put them into separate stacking penalty chain. |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 16:33:00 -
[443] - Quote
MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
107
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 16:44:00 -
[444] - Quote
Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module).
The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday. |
|
Pattern Clarc
Aperture Harmonics
386
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 16:51:00 -
[445] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday. Better.
Any news on cap batteries? Either reduce there fittings or MASSIVELY increase (100%-150% cap neut reflection, barr usage on capitals) the counter measure effect. Ex CSM member & Designer of the Tornado. Gallente - Pilot satisfaction |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 17:16:00 -
[446] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday.
I'm still curious about the BS-only restriction, and what role you envision the module playing. When I first saw the module described, I thought it would be perfect for non-FC command ships. No BS class ships can fit links, however, so there goes that idea.
Something that I haven't tested yet on SiSI: If you have two ship equipped with cap batteries, and one uses a neut on the other, is there a chance for the reflected effect to be reflected in turn by the originator? |
Daniel Darkside
OMER Science Technology Hegemonous Pandorum
0
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 20:26:00 -
[447] - Quote
I noticed that inventing the Drone Damage Amplifier II requires Caldari Encryption Methods. Since this is a drone module, should it require Gallente Encryption Methods? |
mine mi
FW Scuad E C L I P S E
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 22:39:00 -
[448] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Helothane wrote:MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module). The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday.
-50% itGÇÖs like auto sensor dampersned, why not try using other modules, like passive targeting as counter module. |
Helothane
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
21
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 23:03:00 -
[449] - Quote
The small, medium and large versions of the Processor Overclocking Unit blueprints are inconsistent. The small requires charred micro circuits, damaged artificial neural networks and fried interface circuits. The medium requires conductive polymer, damaged artificial neural networks and tripped power circuits. The large requires charred micro circuits, conductive polymer and damaged artificial neural networks. No other rigs change what goes into making them as the size of the rig changes, just how much of each. Is this intentional?
Also, the finished product itself: t1 has a -5% to shield recharge rate, t2 has a -10% to shield recharge rate. First, no other Electronics (or Energy Grid) rigs have a drawback, which is good, as there is no associated skill that can be trained to reduce the drawback. Second, no t2 version of a rig has a worse drawback than the t1 version.
These are breaking patterns that have existed for quite some time. Are these changes to be seen as a new precedent?
|
Ris Dnalor
Black Rebel Rifter Club
300
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 02:02:00 -
[450] - Quote
If Tracking disruptors are going to increase opponents missile explosion radius...
Will tracking enhancers and tracking computers reduce missile explosion radius as a counter? ... |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |