CCP Greyscale
C C P
C C P Alliance
1463
   |
Posted - 2012.08.02 22:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
Karl Planck wrote:woa woa woa, what the F*CK is this Quote:CCP Greyscale moves on to explain his work on sentry guns. Sentry guns will now shoot anyone with a criminal flag, suspect or otherwise. Sentry guns will also start with smaller amounts of damage, and ramp up with time. Ideal tuning will be to where triage carriers will die at around 4 1/2 minutes. This way, if you want to use triage carriers in lowsec on gates you can, but you must commit to the cycle for a length of time before starting your reps, if you want to deactivate triage before the sentry guns kill you and jump out. CCP Greyscale also points out that another goal is to make it so that the first couple of hits won't kill an interceptor immediately, enabling a quick tackle, and then a warp out. I AM PLEADING with you, don't do this. This will absolutely murder lowsec. Not liking LOWSEC gate camps is one thing (nullsec is apparently fine to camp) , but enabling fast tackle on any gate in lowsec is going to put a absolute stop to the traffic that exists there now. And this wont even stop camps (as i assume this is the intention of the change). All it will promote is the time honored tradition of bouncing. How does this work with cycling between targets?
Tsubutai wrote:
I'd like to strongly echo these concerns, albeit for slightly different reasons. To drop a triage carrier in under 5 minutes, you're looking at 3-4k+ dps. If that's applied in the same way that current sentry damage is (i.e. perfect tracking, full damage anywhere within 150 km of the gate), it basically makes it impossible to have any kind of extended small-scale gang engagement on a lowsec gate outside of FW since such fights generally require one side or the other to take GCC, and that's far too much extra dps to cope with on that scale when you can't mitigate it through range/tracking. As Karl notes, it would have basically no effect on gatecampers since they'll just chill at off-grid safes between ganks, but it'd cripple small-scale roaming pvp.
I don't want to derail this thread into CW discussion, but we're planning on talking about all this stuff in the nearish future. Nothing's final yet, hold onto your hats :)
Klarion Sythis wrote:On POS changes, I wish that were a much higher priority for CCP, but the transcript allowed me to see that the CSM agreed and voiced that opinion. The POS changes sound very exciting overall, but still several concerns to sort such as small POSes being used to create fortess systems with 2 week timers in W-Space. That would make invasions excruciatingly boring and time consuming. Docking in POSes would represent a significant loss in intel for W-Space if there weren't still some way to count pilots or ships. Cloaking POSes would be...interesting.
If the minutes are somehow giving you the impression that starbases aren't a high priority, then there's some miscommunication going on. They're a big damn job to do and they need a lot of runway to get them right, but we're working on it as fast as we can.
Vera Algaert wrote:At the same time I find it impossible to believe the "no more Jesus features" commitment when I read discussion such as the one on the revamped POSes - I can tell you today that 2/3 of the "awesome" ideas discussed in that session will never make it into actual planning while the remaining third will be postponed for future iterations and then forgotten because some more pressing issue comes along.
The thing is, starbases are a crufty old system that lots of people use and lots of people dislike using, and we've got to tackle them at some point. If you're classifying "jesus features" purely on size, then ruling them out means we'll never redo the corp management interface, or lowsec, or s&i, or sov warfare, or any of the other "big" projects that everyone wants dealt with.
As to stuff from the minutes being cut - yes, definitely. Whatever ships will probably look *nothing like* what's described in the minutes. That's what the big-ass disclaimer at the top of that session is trying to communicate :)
Dierdra Vaal wrote:Question 2 while I wait on the answer to my question 1 (page 3 of this thread):
Pages 93-95 Crimewatch
Was there no discussion about the change in sec status hits that was discussed at fanfest (essentially meaning lowsec piracy would no longer lock a pirate out of high sec)? I would love to know if that idea (a great idea!) was scrapped or if it's still going to happen - and if so, when?
See previous point, but with the additional rider that mainly we discussed things the CSM had issues with and things that had changed since fanfest. If it wasn't mentioned it's probably still planned to work as described originally.
Tanaka Aiko wrote:concerning the POS ideas : I do like a lot what was said, but as also said, removing forcefield will be a big issue for fleet on 0.0.
You'll hopefully be happy to hear that we were discussing this exact issue this afternoon, with the goal of ensuring that we're still giving players the tools to safely stage their fleets.
|