Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7792
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:32:00 -
[421] - Quote
My communication record speaks for itself. I have openly committed to seeing the communication between the CSM and the players improved, but my conception of that is improving the frequency and quality of that communication rather than to any specific media. This isn't an issue I'm prepared to change my mind on.
To my way of thinking, requiring players to subscribe to Malcanis' Twitter or Malcanis' blog or whatever, is to make myself more important than the message being communicated. I prefer to make the communication as one of the demos, in the relevant discussion about the issue.
I'll say this: if there was a more effective way to get the work done I hope to do on the CSM, then I wouldn't be running. I'm not interested in publicity or e-fame or popularity. I'm interested in seeing EVE improved to make it a better and more entertaining game for me to play, not in self-popularisation. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7792
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 23:01:00 -
[422] - Quote
The candidate speaks Winter twitter is quiet Postcount increases Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 02:10:00 -
[423] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players. He's got twenty pages here - more than any other candidate so far, although he was one of the first to post - of him replying to questions. You could try not being disingenuous or making sweeping and absurd assertions every once in awhile, you know. Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd.
I honestly cannot figure out whether you are trolling or not. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Lord Zim
2295
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:55:00 -
[424] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Twitter is an easy way to get a hold of someone. Twitter also sucks and promotes SMSish. **** twitter. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
405
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 05:40:00 -
[425] - Quote
I don't tell a candidate whether or not they have my vote.
What I will say is that I think this post and all the linked posts are extremely well thought out. You have a very clear view of the EVE economy as a whole and are more than capable of seeing the real problems as well as what things EVE really needs. I think you would make an excellent CSM member and I hope you win a seat.
P.S. I don't understand Twitter and I don't need it, therefore I don't use it. People who can't live without it usually don't have much to say to me anyway. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 15:20:00 -
[426] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players. He's got twenty pages here - more than any other candidate so far, although he was one of the first to post - of him replying to questions. You could try not being disingenuous or making sweeping and absurd assertions every once in awhile, you know. Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd. I honestly cannot figure out whether you are trolling or not.
I'm hoping for troll and hoping Malcanis doesn't give in to any urges to use twitter |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7847
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:43:00 -
[427] - Quote
First I would have to experience those urges. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 11:10:00 -
[428] - Quote
Ruskarn Andedare wrote:mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players. He's got twenty pages here - more than any other candidate so far, although he was one of the first to post - of him replying to questions. You could try not being disingenuous or making sweeping and absurd assertions every once in awhile, you know. Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd. I honestly cannot figure out whether you are trolling or not. I'm hoping for troll and hoping Malcanis doesn't give in to any urges to use twitter
I don't think I'm alone in the opinion that avoiding Twitter goes in Malcanis favour. Where better to communicate with Eve players than the Eve forums?
Don't Panic.
|
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
453
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 19:32:00 -
[429] - Quote
Chiming in to support the idea that the EVE forums are more than adequate as a communication platform. I'd rather not have to go looking all over the internet for CSM information when there are two perfectly good forums right here, clearly labeled "Council of Stellar Management." Malcanis, Ripard Teg, and Trebor Daehdoow for CSM 8
(I have three accounts, so why not?) |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1252
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 19:51:00 -
[430] - Quote
I'll also chime in and say I think the forums are the place to have communication with the players. Some people need to write 8000 word blogs about the game they're not playing because they're writing blogs, but most do not. If you can't convey an opinion to elicit a response in under 6000 characters, you don't have an opinion worth responding to in the first place.
I still believe that Assembly Hall should be locked threads moved from the CSM private forum. When an issue is resolved with CCP, the CSM thread should be moved so that the players know how the CSM actually responded to the issue, if they responded at all. CCP can redact any NDA content, then move the threads. We wouldn't have to take their word for their positions with CCP, we'd be able to read it ourselves. That is actual transparency, which the current CSM has said they were in favor of promoting.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
|
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
168
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 21:30:00 -
[431] - Quote
So Malcanis, you might be one of my transferable votes in the new STV system...
What do you think of James? "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1187
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 00:11:00 -
[432] - Quote
No. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |
Endeavour Starfleet
842
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 07:15:00 -
[433] - Quote
Hello there!
I would like to name several situations that I feel are detrimental to the game. Give a solution and ask you for your stance on both. I do need answers to all the situations for my vote(s)
POS those three letters bring nightmares to just about anyone having the misfortune of having to operate one. The solution in the long term is obviously modular POS. Yet CCP seems to be backpedaling on implementing this despite the MANY benefits. What is your stance on the possibility of a near term bandage of a form of player POS that is only designed to be the equilivant of a Secure Container for ships until modular POS is ready?
Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)
Lack of Ring Mining. Again with the CCP backpedaling despite the many benefits for nullsec and other areas for the game. What is your stand on the crap that is moon mining?
The silly push by some in the community to end or delay "Local" or any effective means for those in a nullsec system to determine if a hostile or unknown is in system in them. This obviously needs no solution but I want your thoughts.
The horrible state of missions in hisec. The solution in my opinion is a complete rewrite to allow for a more incursion like approach that rewards those who want to train up logistic frigs and cruisers or be a specific role in a fleet. Also providing a way for newer players to experience group play in EVE.
Incursion suckage. With the nerfs to Incursions fleets have slowed to a trickle and it was sad to see CCP willing to spend more development time nerfing entire expansions instead of doing what was right being making other aspects of EVE better. Modular POS and Ring mining need dev time sooner so I will admit this ought to be looked at later however I wanted to get your views on them and have this to be some context to the next aspect of Logi.
Logi suckage. Logis do not have the tools to do their job. They need to be able to tell who is locked and taking damage and in large fleets the watchlist can't handle that leading to dependence on broadcasts that most of EVE seems to not know or refuse to use right. Look at any average HQ incursion fleet where people don't broadcast right stressing out logi or in fleet fights where following FCs orders makes it harder to broadcast properly. A solution is a logi only screen that is completely configurable to show who is taking the most DPS and who has the most locks in fleet.
Logi Suckage #2 Reps don't get you on mails? Wut? Solution obviously is to have repping those in fleet land you on killmails generated from fleet. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7881
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 08:23:00 -
[434] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:So Malcanis, you might be one of my transferable votes in the new STV system...
What do you think of James?
I share James' stated concerns about hi-sec, but I think that I have a rather more constructive and inclusive philosophy behind my proposal to change the situation. If you've read my manifesto (both older and much shorter than his) you'll see that similarity in concern and difference in approach.
He's absolutely correct when he states that attentive, skilled play should always outreward AFK styles, whatever the profession. The tl;dr is that I prefer to use the carrot more than the stick to persuade. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7881
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 08:23:00 -
[435] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:No.
I value this endorsement. Thank you for supporting my campaign so unequivocally. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Wey'oun
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
72
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:12:00 -
[436] - Quote
Hi there
So, What is your view on how Nullsec alliances interact with lowsec via force projection. Take asakai for example. Started as a brawl between My alliance and some Cal mil duders, escalated into a race from all over eve (literally) to get there. Furthest fleet came from southern impass (60 jumps ish?). and arrived after 30 mins (real time),( in eve time 30 mins was the lengh of the fight).
Also with moon mining, what is your opinion on why it cant be done in a 0.4 system. should it be allowed? same for assigning fighters ect.
Finally, As an alliance who likes to fight vs the blob and do stupid **** regularly (usually drunken), we use blapping moros regularly. now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics. So my final question is this, what is your opinion on how the Signature / tracking foruma interact. does it need changing? Why does everyone who fights as part of the blob complain about things that can beeat the blob!!!
EDIT: i was going to fix the terribad grammar in this post but then realised that despite being English all my life i cant spell or speak it and thus to lazy to fix it. so your final test for the vote is understanding the above riddle :P |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:24:00 -
[437] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Hello there!
I would like to name several situations that I feel are detrimental to the game. Give a solution and ask you for your stance on both. I do need answers to all the situations for my vote(s)
POS those three letters bring nightmares to just about anyone having the misfortune of having to operate one. The solution in the long term is obviously modular POS. Yet CCP seems to be backpedaling on implementing this despite the MANY benefits. What is your stance on the possibility of a near term bandage of a form of player POS that is only designed to be the equilivant of a Secure Container for ships until modular POS is ready?
As a very basic starting point, personal ship and item hangar divisions in the ship & item arrays would be great (and make the arrays capable of storing more stuff). Even with people you're able to trust, having to lump everything in together in common arrays is just horrible and time-consuming. The amount of bad feeling and disenchantment caused is unbelievable.
Long term, I'd like to see "POS" be modular and expandable to the point where an "outpost" is just a fully expanded POS.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:26:00 -
[438] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)
Cloaking is discussed at some length earlier in this thread. The tl;dr is that I'd support removing the ability to scan or probe whilst cloaked, and I don't think that ships using non-covops cloaks should recharge shield or cap, but I don't see any need for further nerfs after that.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:44:00 -
[439] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Lack of Ring Mining. Again with the CCP backpedaling despite the many benefits for nullsec and other areas for the game. What is your stand on the crap that is moon mining?
I haven't seen anything from CCP about what Ring Mining is supposed to be exactly, other than the name of it. I guess it sounds cool, but I'm not clear on what the benefits are supposed to be.
Moon mining is discussed in this thread starting around page 2. The tl;dr is "Alchemy band-aided it a bit but the situation is still DumbGäó"
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The silly push by some in the community to end or delay "Local" or any effective means for those in a nullsec system to determine if a hostile or unknown is in system in them. This obviously needs no solution but I want your thoughts..
This is a more complex issue than you make it "obviously" sound. Obviously, just making K-space 0.0 local delayed mode, and not changing anything else is a terrible idea. It's appropriate for W-space, but not for 0.0, because K-space and W-space are very different environments in other ways also.
However, I don't like local as an intel tool. It shows the wrong kind of intel (it shows who is in system but not what is in system), it shows it in a bad interface, it doesn't promote good gameplay or skill, it's not interactive, it makes EVE seem much smaller than it is.
If I could persuade CCP to devote the resources to it, I'd love to see the Directional Scanner hugely improved, realtime (automatically updated once per second, as local is now - DEATH TO CLICKING), configurable (eg: you can reduce the field of scan in order to increase the range and strength of the scan), allow modules to improve range and strength of scan, and the output should something that requires some attention and skill to get the best out of. Basically, the "free intel" should show you what is around you but not who is around you.
But the chances of that are not great, and until we can replace it with something better, local will have to stay as it is. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:56:00 -
[440] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Logi suckage. Logis do not have the tools to do their job. They need to be able to tell who is locked and taking damage and in large fleets the watchlist can't handle that leading to dependence on broadcasts that most of EVE seems to not know or refuse to use right. Look at any average HQ incursion fleet where people don't broadcast right stressing out logi or in fleet fights where following FCs orders makes it harder to broadcast properly. A solution is a logi only screen that is completely configurable to show who is taking the most DPS and who has the most locks in fleet.
Logi Suckage #2 Reps don't get you on mails? Wut? Solution obviously is to have repping those in fleet land you on killmails generated from fleet.
I spent most of 2010 and 2011 as a "logi bro"; my rule was to fly a logi every other fleet. I have plenty of experience in both shield and armour logi ships. I'm afraid I can't agree with your take on the issue. No doubt it would be easier if the logi pilot had a big "REP THIS GUY" pointer, just as it would make the FC's job easier if he could not only warp his fleet, but set their speed, alignment, and fire their weapons too.
Fleet members can learn to broadcast properly. Logistics pilots can learn to co-ordinate and anticipate better. Co-ordinating broadcasts and reps is one of the limiting factors that stops fleets with logis scaling indefinately, and it also allows differentiation by skill. I'd rather see people develop and employ gameplay skills than see the need for skill obviated.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:05:00 -
[441] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The horrible state of missions in hisec. The solution in my opinion is a complete rewrite to allow for a more incursion like approach that rewards those who want to train up logistic frigs and cruisers or be a specific role in a fleet. Also providing a way for newer players to experience group play in EVE...
Missions are bad, and their inclusion into EVE was really a failure of imagination; incorporating the lowest level of themepark gameplay into what should be the flagship sandbox MMO is just disappointing.
If we're asking for a "complete rewrite", I'm not sure whether it would be better to make missions more like incursions, or just make missions a part of an expanded incursion/plex system.
However I rate our chances of persuading CCP to do either of those things pretty low. PrismX has said (see earlier in this thread) that CCP aren't happy with the state EVE's dull, predictable, unchallenging PvE, and nor should they be. I just don't anticipate them devoting the required resources to make it genuinely good anytime soon. There are too many player-focused projects clamouring for attention first - POS, Sov, mining, ship balancing, lo-sec... that's a 3 year worklist right there.
Reworking PvE into something genuinely fun, dynamic and challenging would be a massive project, and providing gameplay (as opposed to tools for player interaction) has historically been something that CCP are dreadful at doing.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:30:00 -
[442] - Quote
Wey'oun wrote:Hi there
So, What is your view on how Nullsec alliances interact with lowsec via force projection. Take asakai for example. Started as a brawl between My alliance and some Cal mil duders, escalated into a race from all over eve (literally) to get there. Furthest fleet came from southern impass (60 jumps ish?). and arrived after 30 mins (real time),( in eve time 30 mins was the lengh of the fight).
Does it differ from the way that lo-sec entites interact with each other via force projection? I'm given to understand that lo-sec groups are no strangers to titan bridging and hotdrops. I certainly don't think there's a problem with lo-sec hosting massive fights, particularly when they only happen once a year or so. The chance that a fight may escalate unexpectedly is one of the defining characteristics of EVE PvP.
Wey'oun wrote:Also with moon mining, what is your opinion on why it cant be done in a 0.4 system. should it be allowed? same for assigning fighters ect.
0.4 systems are a pointless anomaly. If the fighter and moon mining restrictions were part of a revised sec system, one that had a smoother slope between 0.1 and 1.0, then I might be willing to accept them. In the current LO/HI binary system then they're just pointless, and I suspect that they're little more than an artefact of the rounding off the trusec value for the individual system to make sure that no hi-sec system accidentally has any lo-sec features.
Wey'oun wrote:Finally, As an alliance who likes to fight vs the blob and do stupid **** regularly (usually drunken), we use blapping moros regularly. now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics. So my final question is this, what is your opinion on how the Signature / tracking foruma interact. does it need changing? Why does everyone who fights as part of the blob complain about things that can beeat the blob!!!
I have no issue with "blap dreads". Dreads are explicity intended to blap things, and they accept some huge vulnerabilities to be able to do so.
As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it.
People complain about blobs because they've been conditioned by the gameing industry to expect to win most of the time. When people talk about "balance" or "fairness" what they mean is that they should win 75-80% of the time. I personally think that only scrubs complain about blobs, and I have done ever since 2007, when 1 of my corpies was attacked by two guys in a lo-sec system, and 3 of us warped in to help him and were called "blobbers" by the two guys who were attacking 1.
A "blob" in my experience is any fleet with 90% or more of the firepower of the one the complainer is in.
Wey'oun wrote:EDIT: i was going to fix the terribad grammar in this post but then realised that despite being English all my life i cant spell or speak it and thus to lazy to fix it. so your final test for the vote is understanding the above riddle :P
In that respect, you're probably in the middle rank of posters in this forum. There are much worse than you, my friend. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
416
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:34:00 -
[443] - Quote
Wey'oun wrote:now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics. Malcanis wrote:As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it. The key issue here is Vindi webs more than the tracking formula. If a dreadnought was unable to track a strategic cruiser that had 2 vindi webs on it, it would also have difficulty tracking drifting capital ships.
The bonus to web speed reduction is not mathematically sound. At skill 5, it increases the web amount by 50%. A tech 1 web (base 50%) slows targets 75% and a tech 2 web (base 60%) slows then 90%. Just as a percent or two can make a huge difference in EHP to a high resistance type, so too can an extra percent or two off the target's velocity go a long way to allow capital weapons to hit them, because they have only a few percents remaining. Thus, with a level 5 web bonus, the tech 2 web makes a world of difference over the tech 1. Two t2 webs then slow the target FOUR TIMES AS MUCH as two t1 webs with the same bonus.
A more reasonable and mathematically sound calculation would be to have the 50% "increase" in webbing be a reduction in the webbing that the module doesn't have, ie: the tech 1 50% webber lacks 50%, and the tech 2 60% webber lacks 40%. Thus a 50% increase would lead to the two webs having a slowing value of 75% (tech 1) and 80% (tech 2). Thus, two fully bonused tech 2 webs now would web a target 42.9% better than two fully bonused tech 1 webs. The two fully bonused tech 1 webs are unchanged but they weren't what pirate faction ships were using to make dreads able to blap small ships. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
416
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:42:00 -
[444] - Quote
The tracking formula itself is fine I think. A dreadnought has around 1/50th of the tracking of a battleship but still has no problem hitting capital ships. Capital ships aren't terribly slower than battleships, but they can shoot farther and more than anything have a far greater signature radius. This is key to how capital weapons work. The listed tracking amount on capital weapons is in the vicinity of 10% of battleship weapons, but due to having 5 times the signature resolution, they actually track the same targets much slower. What's actually happening here is that a dreadnought gets about a tenth of the tracking against a dreadnought/carrier/rorqual as a battleship/attack BC gets against a battleship. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7885
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:51:00 -
[445] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Wey'oun wrote:now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics. Malcanis wrote:As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it. The key issue here is Vindi webs more than the tracking formula. If a dreadnought was unable to track a strategic cruiser that had 2 vindi webs on it, it would also have difficulty tracking drifting capital ships. The bonus to web speed reduction is not mathematically sound. At skill 5, it increases the web amount by 50%. A tech 1 web (base 50%) slows targets 75% and a tech 2 web (base 60%) slows them 90%. Just as a percent or two can make a huge difference in EHP to a high resistance type, so too can an extra percent or two off the target's velocity go a long way to allow capital weapons to hit them, because they have only a few percents remaining. Thus, with a level 5 web bonus, the tech 2 web makes a world of difference over the tech 1. Two t2 webs then slow the target FOUR TIMES AS MUCH as two t1 webs with the same bonus. A more reasonable and mathematically sound calculation would be to have the 50% "increase" in webbing be a reduction in the webbing that the module doesn't have, ie: the tech 1 50% webber lacks 50%, and the tech 2 60% webber lacks 40%. Thus a 50% increase would lead to webs having a slowing value of 75% (tech 1) and 80% (tech 2). Thus, two fully bonused tech 2 webs now would web a target 42.9% better than two fully bonused tech 1 webs. The two fully bonused tech 1 webs are unchanged but they weren't what pirate faction ships were using to make dreads able to blap small ships.
What you say sounds reasonable on the face of it, although no doubt people who've bought Serpentis ships would disagree. I'm trying to remember how that bonus worked when T2 webs were 90%. Did Serp ships just get 95% webbing? (I'm almost certain the didn't get 140% webs :p ) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7885
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:53:00 -
[446] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The tracking formula itself is fine I think. A dreadnought has around 1/50th of the tracking of a battleship but still has no problem hitting capital ships. Capital ships aren't terribly slower than battleships, but they can shoot farther and more than anything have a far greater signature radius. This is key to how capital weapons work. The listed tracking amount on capital weapons is in the vicinity of 10% of battleship weapons, but due to having 5 times the signature resolution, they actually track the same targets much slower. What's actually happening here is that a dreadnought gets about a tenth of the tracking against a dreadnought/carrier/rorqual as a battleship/attack BC gets against a battleship, but if the dreadnought tries to shoot a battleship, it has much more difficulty tracking it due to the battleship's smaller signature radius.
I understand that much. By "technical chops" I mean my calculus skills are far too weak to be able to properly evaluate the current tracking formula vs alternative. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Lord Zim
2296
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:00:00 -
[447] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The tracking formula itself is fine I think. Except for the fact that when the transversal is low enough, the formula always yields a hit. It doesn't take distance (and by inference the relative sigradius, hitting a penny at 1 yard is "moderately" harder than hitting the same penny at 1000 yards, even if it doesn't move) into account when calculating whether or not you hit, only when calculating how much damage you should deal. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
416
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The tracking formula itself is fine I think. Except for the fact that when the transversal is low enough, the formula always yields a hit. It doesn't take distance (and by inference the relative sigradius, hitting a penny at 1 yard is "moderately" harder than hitting the same penny at 1000 yards, even if it doesn't move) into account when calculating whether or not you hit, only when calculating how much damage you should deal. You're absolutely correct, and this is something I've been aware of for quite some time. I guess I should have been more specific in that I think the tracking formula is fine when factoring in the ability for dreads to hit subcaps.
I have long been bothered that a battleship can blap a frigate that turns the wrong way (and loses too much radial velocity for a split second) even though it is very far away, while a battlecruiser orbiting the battleship at 500m with no prop on can't be touched even though you'd think it would be easy to hit with capital weapons simply by aiming them in front of its path and firing 3-4 volleys as it drifted slowly past.
Yes I feel that is an annoyance and possibly a problem. Solving it is easy, but I'm not convinced it needs solving. CCP and many PVPers seem to feel that the "getting under the guns" tactic is something that is good about EVE. P.S. the correct term is radial velocity, not transversal velocity. However, in a fixed system that more closely followed gunnery logic, transversal would be almost exactly the factor in tracking ability, rather than at current, in which radial is exactly the factor. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7887
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:19:00 -
[449] - Quote
New thread rule: all further discussion of the tracking formula must be conducted in haiku format.
Thank you. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
417
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:23:00 -
[450] - Quote
tracking ships is fine tracking ships with dreads is fine bugged webs not so much Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |