|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
   |
Posted - 2011.04.01 21:46:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: CCP Zymurgist
Just so you know patch notes are now available! Read and Enjoy!
Regarding this:- All NPCs that use jamming have been streamlined in functionality and you can now fit your ship to counteract them.
àwhen that "change" was presented, many of us asked what it was you actually changed, but we never received an answer.
NPC jamming can already be counteracted in the normal way ù it's been possible for years. Yes, I know that conventional wisdom (and some very old CCP quote) states that it's based on a static chance, but actual testing has proven this claim to be false. ECCM and high sensor strength is already a factor in determining NPC's chances to jam ships. Hell, we've even been able to suss out the jamming strengths against different sensor types.
So what has actually changed here? Anything?
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.01 22:30:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Mortiis Goro
Reduce the price of PLEX like it was when it came out
Now, you do know that they're not setting the prices, right?
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 02:00:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Leon Razor
Quote:
It is no longer possible to assign shortcuts to keys already used by the default schema, for example you can no longer assign F1 to "Open Calculator".
Does this mean for example that I can't set "a" to "mid slot 1" because it is "align" in the default schema? If so, this is a major step backwards. What's the point of a customizable shortcut system if half of the keys are arbitrarily non-re-assignable?
Or, more specificallyà
What the hell is the "default schema"? Tell us what it is we can no longer assign or patch note is worthless and will be subject to numerous bug reports until your QA department has been asked about every possible key combination available.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 04:05:00 -
[4]
àpersonally, I'd appreciate it if CCP told us what it is they're changing. 
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 04:33:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tippia on 02/04/2011 04:34:07
Originally by: Terminal Entry
Originally by: Tippia
àpersonally, I'd appreciate it if CCP told us what it is they're changing.
Patch notes this a way -->
Yes, but the problem is this: they don't tell us what they have changed on a couple of occasions.
For one, the change to NPC jamming: what has actually changed? It already works the way they say they've changed it to workà so what the difference before and after the patch?
For another, the restrictions on key binds mentioned above: what has changed? What keys can we no longer bind? What is the "default schema" they refer to? (And that's not even touching the really interesting question of why on earth they're removing functionality for no adequately explained reason).
Originally by: Terminal Entry
Originally by: 1.4 Patch Notes
All NPCs that use jamming have been streamlined in functionality and you can now fit your ship to counteract them.
What does this mean for the Marauder class battleships? Their sensor strengths were pre-nerfed to the level of a cruiser. One of the justifications was that when up against NPCs it wouldn't matter. Now it does!
It already matters because NPC jamming already works that way and you can already fit ECCM to counteract it. No answer has been given by CCP as to what has actually changed here. If I were to (maliciously) guess, nothing has changed ù they're just finally officially acknowledging a mechanic that has been in the game for several years.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.02 13:58:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Tippia on 02/04/2011 14:02:30
Originally by: Jelek Coro
Stop talking crap. ECM from NPCs has always been random chance - what you fit can not counteract it.
ECCM does not and has not worked - now it will.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
Wrong on every point.
So until a dev comes in here and explains what they've actually changed, the only conclusion is that they're finally saying that "yes, this is how it works", not that they've recoded anything.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.03 13:46:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Terminal Entry
Didn't see any Dev posts in that thread confirming they had done a stealth nerf/buff.
No, but the fact remains: tests have shown that high sensor strength already works just fine against NPC jamming ù in fact, it works exactly as you'd expect if they were using the same jamming rules as players.
Quote:
But we do have the patch notes saying "...you can now fit your ship to counteract them" which seems to suggest that you couldn't before.
When it comes to things like this I tend to believe CCP (naively?) as opposed to a non-CCP person, who looks more and more like a troll.
As did everyone else. Long before that thread came out, there was plenty anecdotal evidence that jamming didn't work the way CCP said it did, but it was almost always squashed by the very same quote you provided.
However, with that bit of thorough testing that sturmwolke did, it's now pretty much proven that CCP are wrong. If it was just a flat chance, the same NPC ships would not get any more or any less failed jam attempts if you change your ship's sensor strength, but they did. If it was a flat chance, the same NPCs would have the same success ratio regardless of what race ship you were in, that didn't happen.
Just the fact that there was any variance at all show that CCP were wrong ù the fact that the variance adhered exactly to the success rate you'd expect from standard jamming makes them wrong:er and the fact that it was possible to infer the different jamming strengths against different sensor types makes them wrong:iestà Maybe it did work like they said back before Trinity, but it no longer does, and they would have to provide a pretty excellent explanation for the why the tests came out the way they did if they want to keep claiming that.
Until they do, the only way for the patch notes to be consistent with empirically proven mechanics is if they're simply finally and officially confirming mechanics that have actually worked that way for a very long timeà
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.04.05 17:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: ShadowsMirror
New corps / alliances looking for a foothold into 0.0, even if its a crap sec level, are lured in by sov benefits, having their own system with belts, ded plexes, pvp, jump bridge networks etc.
The problem is that they won't have any of that since they won't be able to afford it because the crap sec level means their space is only a waste of ISK.
They'll get the same things with much less hassle by simply living in high/low-sec and doing 0.0-raidsà
àwhich is pretty much 100% contrary to what CCP's stated objective with the patch.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
|
|
| |
|