|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 13 post(s) |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
944
   |
Posted - 2012.05.14 14:52:00 -
[1] - Quote
If the module is a T1 meta-zero item, it should have a BPO - full stop.
Otherwise it should be introduced as Meta 1-4.
|
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
947
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:00:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:
You can't join an alliance if you're an aggressor in a war.
Good change. It prevents one of the possible exploits.
I'm not sure that the '7-day' lock out for corp member changes is completely good. It's probably too draconian when 3-day limits would have sufficed just as well.
But it doesn't solve the problem of:
- declare war
- scout out a target in a neutral alt
- join wardec, blow up target
- repeat with another neutral alt
And if you wardec the target from multiple shell corps, your neutral alts can:
- hop into corp #1, blow up target, leave corp #1
- find another target, hop into corp #2, blow up target, leavel corp #2
- repeat until your 7-day waiting period is up, rejoin corp #1
In fact, smart attackers will merely setup half a dozen different shell corps. Each shell corp will wardec a different target. All of the fighters stay in NPC corps until they have found a vulnerable enemy. They then insta-join the correct shell corporation which allows them to attack said enemy, then leave right away.
There needs to be a delay on joining an aggressor corporation - such as not being able to join the aggressor corporation until downtime. Which nips the "scout out target, insta-join, pop target" exploit in the bud. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
948
|
Posted - 2012.05.14 16:27:00 -
[3] - Quote
Mangala Solaris wrote:
What if, there are two corporations (A & B for example) in a mutual war and along comes some dumb 3rd party who decs one or both sides, does the 7 day rule then kick in for players in corps A & B?
I'm not sure that the 7-day rule should apply to the defenders. And that's a key reason why.
(Which might also be why the timer needs to be shortened to 3-days instead of 7-days.) |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
970
|
Posted - 2012.05.16 14:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Mechael wrote:Seriously, the BPC loot drops as being the only method of getting some of these new modules is a terrible, terrible idea. One of the selling points of EVE (arguably the biggest selling point,) is that everything in the game is manufactured by the players and prices are hashed out on an open, free market. Artificially limiting production by not implementing BPOs is not just a fly in the face of this whole concept, and not only is the entire concept of a BPC (read: limited run blueprint) totally ridiculous, but perhaps most importantly it also removes things from the control of the players.
For new modules, where CCP isn't quite sure whether they're a good idea, introducing them as Meta-1 BPC drops is a reasonable precaution as it:
- Allows them to control the flow
- Puts production of them into the hands of the player
As long all meta-zero T1 items have BPOs, which CCP has agreed to do, we're all on the same page. They're just being cautious with some of the new modules and will apparently introduce them as Meta-1 variants. |
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
973
|
Posted - 2012.05.17 16:38:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dread Nanana wrote:
2. Remove standing from local (as per Captain Thunk's posts few days/weeks ago)
Do you understand why standings were added to local?
Because players were already distributing custom "packs" of pilot's avatar pictures, done up with manual standings markers on them and installing them into their cache folders. Needless to say, this gave an unfair advantage to those who were willing to do this and risk CCP's wrath.
So, no, standings are not likely to be removed from local. Not unless CCP majorly changes how pilot portraits are stored in the client or doesn't rely on caching the pilot images. (Which would cause them to be downloaded from the server again for every new play session.) |
|
|
| |
|