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) |
Grideris
Fleet Coordination Commission Fleet Coordination Coalition
230
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:12:00 -
[241] - Quote
I think many people in this thread need to remember this: http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=28840 http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com - the blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:12:00 -
[242] - Quote
After running some tests on SISI, results are:
Armor adaptive hardener is great for PvE, if you encounter a faction which only doe 2 types of damage.
setup (Domi):
a)
Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II
77,1 % Armor Resi (kin, therm)
b) Armor Adaptive Hardener I Armor Thermic Hardener II Armor Kinetic Hardener II
80% Armor Resi (kin, therm)
Nice, but the rate of change of the AAH is to slow. If this should be a PvP module it should raise the resists way faster. It also should adapt as soon as the shield is hit.
Atm it adapts when your armor is being pierced. This is strange, because it would be so much cooler to have the shield as some kind of adjustment buffer to configure the AAH. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:13:00 -
[243] - Quote
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:27:00 -
[244] - Quote
The initial thread was divided, because 90% of the posts were about FW . |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:39:00 -
[245] - Quote
Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.
There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago. CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:42:00 -
[246] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.
It was more a reply to Paradox then to you. O great Punkturis Assumptions are all we have at this point. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 14:55:00 -
[247] - Quote
Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:
Should get:
30 CPU req.
10% ROF 12% Dmg
Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods. |
Camios
Minmatar Bread Corporation
100
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:11:00 -
[248] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Camios wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soonGäó Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible. no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too.. Sooner feedback is better feedback you're all going to be arguing about it anyways
And don't you love when we argue? I wonder why you don't show this formula and end it. It's pretty crucial for all empire corporations.
To be blunt, you don't want to tell us something because it will make us angry. For that reason we should be angry already.
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:22:00 -
[249] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:
Should get:
30 CPU req.
10% ROF 12% Dmg
Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods.
I'm looking into upping this module in power. I mostly have the CPU and damage to work with, because of the way the technical backend is, I can't affect the RoF of drones. But we should be able to adjust the rest of the stats to make up for that somewhat. The goal is definitely to make this module be on par with the other damage amplifier mods.
|
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:30:00 -
[250] - Quote
Guys and Girls,
the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at.
60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand.
I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB?
If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel.
At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use.
UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments
o/
yeah I know -->
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=related
mimimimi... |
|
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:40:00 -
[251] - Quote
Tenga Halaris wrote:Guys and Girls, the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at. 60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand. I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB? If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel. At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use. UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments o/ yeah I know --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=relatedmimimimi...
I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).
|
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:42:00 -
[252] - Quote
I take it the sec status system is intentionally broken on SiSi atm? Just podded one of my own neutral alts but received no sec hit and was able to jump into highsec immediately afterwards and fly around without getting CONCORDed. . |
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
71
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 15:45:00 -
[253] - Quote
Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.
To be fair, they have had a few back and forth discussions with CCP and players over this on the original Dev blog about the possible changes.
Sadly though all those discussions have shown a complete lack of understanding on why people think these are bad, and a CCP mindset that larger alliances must have greater protection financially form War Decs than smaller corps encoded into the mechanic.
I really hope I'm wrong! But my guess is that the Dev blog will roll out the new formula that is pretty much the same philosophy as the old one (but slightly tweeked numbers) where it will cost more for a 100 man corp to War Dec a major alliance than a 5 man corp. And that's what they are going to go with no matter what. |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
124
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:03:00 -
[254] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.
Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice?
As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken. |
|
CCP Punkturis
C C P C C P Alliance
1962
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:04:00 -
[255] - Quote
Shandir wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago. Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice? As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken.
you'll see a dev blog next week CCP Punkturis | EVE UI Programmer | @CCP_Punkturis |
|
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:08:00 -
[256] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Tenga Halaris wrote:Guys and Girls, the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at. 60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand. I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB? If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel. At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use. UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments o/ yeah I know --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=relatedmimimimi... I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).
thanks for answering,
but if you don't change the amount of charges it can hold, we're back to square one. Charges should last 2-3 minutes, if you want to make it effective.
Active tanks are, in most cases used with alt boosted, blue pilled, solo ships, which have a bonus to shield boost amount (Cyclone, Maelstrom), or in PvE scenarios.
If the modules purpose is to improve, or incourage that kind of combat, it needs to have a significant advantage to a capbooster fit. |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
124
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:09:00 -
[257] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:you'll see a dev blog next week
I'm going to take hope that you're hinting CCP's got plans for some more wide reaching changes than proposed at fanfest - that would be great. I'll wait and see what's on the horizon then.
While you're about, how soon are CCP looking at fixing bounty hunting? Any chance we could get some feedback on the proposals out just now?
|
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
452
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:16:00 -
[258] - Quote
Lady Vorax wrote:Quote:Fueled Shield booster (Small/Medium/Large Ancillary Shield Booster), using Cap Boosters as charges And farewell to armour tanking, that new mod doesnt even come close to compensating for a instant boost...... What is CCP thinking here? Feels like to want to go after sony..
Go try it out. 60 seconds is a hell of a long time to destroy someone who doesn't have a tanking module.
gfldex wrote:I had a look at the new shield booster. Got me a navy domi with one of those, 2x shield boost amps, 3x hardeners, 3x shield resi rigs -- all T2. On top of that a large crystal set and a strong blue pill. I was not able to tank a single geddon.
What exactly is this module for? Here's a tip, not that.
As a side note; Blue pills are currently bugged and do not affect the new shield boosters. It's a known issue.
@SoniClover Doubling the boost level.. okay.
Doubling the cap usage, terrible idea since it puts you far worse off than standard tanking. - You'd have to run larger charges = WAY less time tanking - You'd have raped your ships cap LONG before the 60 reload timer is up, nevermind being neuted.
Unless you meant, doubling it's cap capacity, then sure, lets see how that goes. -áwww.promsrage.com |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:37:00 -
[259] - Quote
Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.
Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. But IMO it needs to be that way because doubling the shield boosting effect makes it so much better stat wise to normal shield boosters and the intention is absolutely not to obsolete them in any way. I'm sure more tweaking is needed, but let's see how this plays out. From the testing I've done on the internal servers it looks promising, but as always the real test is when it's on Sisi and in the hands of you players, you with your uncanny abilities to break everything good and decent *runs away crying*
|
|
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
90
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:54:00 -
[260] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn. |
|
Zarnak Wulf
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
331
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:59:00 -
[261] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn.
Except as soon as you turn off TE shield booster it will start it's reload cycle.
Honestly - increase the capacity so we can get 6-8 cycles off of the cap charges an I would buy it. |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
252
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 16:59:00 -
[262] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.
Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. But IMO it needs to be that way because doubling the shield boosting effect makes it so much better stat wise to normal shield boosters and the intention is absolutely not to obsolete them in any way. I'm sure more tweaking is needed, but let's see how this plays out. From the testing I've done on the internal servers it looks promising, but as always the real test is when it's on Sisi and in the hands of you players, you with your uncanny abilities to break everything good and decent *runs away crying*
What do you concider artifical incentives?
A pre war dec decision of what are we going to put at risk to fight this war to keep Concord off our backs adds depth that the current wardec system lacks.
The attacking corp wants to destroy a pos. The War deck price includes the price of setting up a pos that the attacking corp has to defend for example.
Examples of other objectives. Access to ore/station/or system or amount of ships value destroyed. Which Concord says okay to but if who you are attacking does the same to you the war deck ends early to those deced if you do the same to your attackers you can end the war early.
Then there is real risk and reward for going to war. |
Shandir
Indigo Archive
124
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:10:00 -
[263] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.
Ah, got my hopes up for nothing. Does CCP even acknowledge that the current war dec mechanics are deeply flawed, and do not enable the kind of play that they are designed to create?
I'm getting a real head-in-the-sand vibe here, and I got the same vibe from the Fanfest talk. The players know that this is barely going to make a difference, and noone seems to be willing to try to solve or even acknowledge the actual problem.
Until CCP actually looks at the real problem - that the only effective defence in a wardec is to bore your attacker into submission - then they will not make wardecs a compelling part of the game.
There should be, and I keep saying this in the hopes that CCP might hear it, four key ways to handle a wardec.
Fight and Win Fight and Lose Hide Surrender
And for reasons that have been explained at length before, Fight and Win is not possible, and Surrender is not even slightly effective. Not even after your changes.
All you have done is change how much it costs to initiate the game of "who gets bored first". |
Ampoliros
Aperture Harmonics K162
47
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:14:00 -
[264] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:Tsubutai wrote:CCP SoniClover wrote:Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn. Except as soon as you turn off TE shield booster it will start it's reload cycle. Honestly - increase the capacity so we can get 6-8 cycles off of the cap charges an I would buy it.
rclick->autoreload off.
i'm somewhat concerned about what Tsubutai said as well, doubling all around is a bit too strong. I might suggest increasing the shield boost/cap use by 25% or so over the base values on Sisi now, increase the capacity by 100% as planned, and then add an extra 75-100% shield boost while it's loaded with cap chargers (if you can do that). It'll be an incredibly strong booster for 30-40 seconds while you can inject it, but go crazy inefficient once you run out (at which point you better gtfo) |
Prometheus Exenthal
mnemonic.
453
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:37:00 -
[265] - Quote
@SoniClover Okay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer.
Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster. I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility.
Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU -áwww.promsrage.com |
|
CCP SoniClover
C C P C C P Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 17:52:00 -
[266] - Quote
Prometheus Exenthal wrote:@SoniCloverOkay, if you doubled all the stats I'll give you the benefit of the doubt up until Monday when it goes up Did you adjust the DURATION as well? Because I think that should stay put if not be a second longer. Also, I highly recommend restricting ships to one ancillary booster. I know they aren't the easiest things to fit, but with such mechanics tanking quite hard with multiple boosters is a real possibility. Also get that Tengu some reduced CPU
I didn't edit the duration, I was thinking of upping the duration of the small version to 3, or even make all them 4 like the large and x-l are now, but decided to wait on that.
It's possible to make it one per ship, but cap boosters actually take quite a room in your cargo hold, so I think that's going to be the limiting factor to how easily you can sustain multiple modules. |
|
Rivqua
Omega Wing The Veyr Collective
2
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 18:23:00 -
[267] - Quote
@SoniClover
I think one of the issues is that using the cap charges at the start of the fight is not benificial to the use of the fueled booster. Usually, damage goes up. Is it possible to make you choose at what point you are going to start using cap charges ?
In a scenario like that, I can see the booster being far more useful, for oshit moments.
Also, there are reports of Blue Pills not applying to the booster, bug ? Are we getting a bit variety in the mods, not just the t1 module that really is not very useful for alot of people. |
Tenga Halaris
Exit Strategies Mordus Angels
25
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:07:00 -
[268] - Quote
What are you planning to achieve, implementing the "fueled shield booster"?
Is it a PvP module?
Is it an option for low skill PvE Players?
Does it embrace the "Lone Wolf" solo PvP guy to fit it, instead of a Pith C-Type XL Shield Booster (160mil)
Can someone save a medslot using this mod?
|
Ohh Yeah
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
59
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 19:38:00 -
[269] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote: I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).
No, I'm totally OK with this.
That turns these modules into a shield buffer support module.
In other words, you end up with a hybrid between buffer tanking (ie dual LSE vagabond, etc) and active tanking. Now, if you really wanted to, you could fit one LSE and an ancillary booster on the Vagabond. You rely on having buffer (and your speed tank), but also the ability to claw some shields back, whereas your standard Vaga has a large buffer but is forced off the field once it gets low.
I've already made a fit that takes advantage of the Manticore's extra mid slot to fit a medium ancillary booster. With the changes you've proposed, I can fit an MSE, and still be able to refresh my tank about ~60% every minute. In order to do this, I'm sacrificing an ewar utility mod like a target painter or even a tracking disruptor, but it still plays out very nicely. |
Silly Slot
Phoenix Evolved Part Duo
18
|
Posted - 2012.05.04 20:10:00 -
[270] - Quote
CCP Punkturis wrote:Shandir wrote:CCP Punkturis wrote:Salpun wrote:I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.
The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.
People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?
Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic. There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago. Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice? As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken. you'll see a dev blog next week
wait do you mean a devblog to give reasons for wars... like something to actually "risk" when u go to war, that the defending side could steal if there better than you expect and kick your A$$.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |