Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
368
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:14:00 -
[331] - Quote
CCP Orion wrote:Lexmana wrote:Alexander the Great wrote: Currently when I need to launch 1 probe I launch one probe. What you offer is "launch 8 probes then select 7 of them in the window, press right mouse button and recover them". Or I need to limit somehow the number of probes in the launcher, but of course there is no option "load X probes to the launcher". How does it make sense to you?
This one should be easy. Just unload the probes from your launcher and jettison all but one probe. Then reload the launcher and launch the single probe. And don't forget to loot the loot the can ... or you could shift drag one on the launcher... might be less wasteful.
The problem with this is that you need to decloak to load/unload the launcher... |
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
99
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:27:00 -
[332] - Quote
CCP Orion wrote: or you could shift drag one on the launcher... might be less wasteful.
i think we are looking for a programmatic solution, not a current implementation workaround..
how about adding a right click (on the mod) option with a choice to launch 1? or ctrl+mod click launches 1? something like that... |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 13:33:00 -
[333] - Quote
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:Quote:Actually it won't, because the placement at sun is exactly the same as if you'd dragged them there yourself: they don't actually warp there until you hit the scan button. When you launch the probes, they're still right by your ship. Sounds an awfully lot like a bug that they couldn't fix and decided to leave in =P Nah, sounds much more like catering to the Hisec guys who enter a system, drop a DSP, move it to the sun to scan, and warp off to the next system when they find nothing. Those guys have almost nothing in their daily experience that resembles the life of the WH dweller aside from dropping a probe and pushing scan.
[ Dear CCP, I whole heartedly recommend, even beg, that you have a couple of your guys look through the killboards, or your own stats, to find a few of the top PvP wormhole corps, the ones who lead the game in numbers of kills in wormhole space. Apply to and join those corps with unknown characters, and spend some time walking in our shoes. If you like hunting and stalking your prey, I think we would blow your minds. ]
If they really want to go through with the Probes-at-sun default placement, they should make a toggle. This is really trying to please two completely different sets of people, which is when you should introduce these kind of selectable options.
By default, let the toggle be "initial probe formation at sun" if you like. Let us then change that to "initial probe formation at ship". This should be a brain-dead easy option to implement, and will make a lot of people happy.
|
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
213
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:02:00 -
[334] - Quote
Fromil wrote:Our corporation lives in a WH. We have several casual players who prefer to mine roids than partake in the more lucrative aspects of WH life. That has always been fine with us, as we're more a social entity rather than a hardcore corp - so we take all comers who fit into our eclectic culture. This change to grav sites to regular anoms is going to make WH mining untenable as we do not have local to alert people mining to a possible threat - cloaky t3s (the mainstay of WH exploration) will be able to warp in and gank our miners without any realistic chance of detection. We will lose members and any chance of the industrial benefits they bring.
Yes, we can focus more on our WH specific operations, but losing the members we have counted amongst our friends is not something I can let pass without comment. It seems to me that in an effort to hurt mining botters you are also hurting the most hardcore, risk-taking miners in the game - this is a nerf to the high-end caliber miners and needs to be reconsidered.
Please reconsider making WH grav sites into anoms. Taking this further, I would suggest/request that all non-Hisec Grav sites remain as cosmic signatures, and that only the Hisec Grav sites become cosmic anomalies. Even in Hisec, I still think Grav signatures would be useful for the rarer varieties: occasionally it is possible to find a lowsec-ore Grav site in Hisec. These should remain as cosmic signatures and be more difficult to locate.
I would even further suggest/request that more ice anomalies be added, but make all of them spawn in random systems, instead of restricting them to certain locations. A statement saying that this is the ultimate goal would suffice as well. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3026
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:12:00 -
[335] - Quote
According to the test server thread, the reason for probe formations being initially placed at the sun is to prevent on-grid combat probing from becoming too fast.
Which is a case of poor design leading to workaround solutions.
I really wonder if the consequences of launching all probes immediately were considered. It reduces the exposure time of covert ops probers, making them even harder to detect or catch.
If the problem with probe launching was the need for repeated keypresses, why not simply make the module behave like every other module, and have a setting for auto-repeat? One keypress would then cycle until the launcher is empty, but without any side effects, and everyone would have the choice to launch individual probes.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Kitanga
Lowsec Border Marshals
99
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:29:00 -
[336] - Quote
Roime wrote:According to the test server thread, the reason for probe formations being initially placed at the sun is to prevent on-grid combat probing from becoming too fast.
Which is a case of poor design leading to workaround solutions.
I really wonder if the consequences of launching all probes immediately were considered. It reduces the exposure time of covert ops probers, making them even harder to detect or catch.
If the problem with probe launching was the need for repeated keypresses, why not simply make the module behave like every other module, and have a setting for auto-repeat? One keypress would then cycle until the launcher is empty, but without any side effects, and everyone would have the choice to launch individual probes.
the approach to drop 8 probes at once should not have been coded, if it is deemed as game breaking due to the increased speed at launching probes in a combat situation (the cloaky ship isn't decloaked long enough).
so your workaround to the problem is to default to the sun. the problem is that this is not a decent/acceptable workaround.
as an alternative why not allow the launcher to still launch one at a time(as it is on TQ), but launch each probe in a defined direction leading to the formation of a chosen pattern, so that the end result is the same, you have your pattern, but the time to launch is unchanged from what is on TQ today..
|
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun
Imperial Dreams Curatores Veritatis Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:48:00 -
[337] - Quote
Roime wrote:According to the test server thread, the reason for probe formations being initially placed at the sun is to prevent on-grid combat probing from becoming too fast.
Current time to launch 5 probes needed to scan on-grid ship: 10 seconds + another 5 sec to position probes on grid + another 5 sec to scan (w/ level 5 acquisition) ~ =20 seconds
Odysey time to launch 5 probes: 0 seconds + another ~5 to move probes to grid + another 5 sec to scan (or less if you equipt the new med slot module) ~ <10 seconds
gg ccp |
Maxwell Albritten
Prime Numbers
15
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 15:43:00 -
[338] - Quote
Probes need to expire. Pilots need to be responsible for their stuff. I was on board with the changes until this step towards "Eve is Very Easy".
Nope. |
Vince Snetterton
282
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 16:00:00 -
[339] - Quote
Fromil wrote:Our corporation lives in a WH. We have several casual players who prefer to mine roids than partake in the more lucrative aspects of WH life. That has always been fine with us, as we're more a social entity rather than a hardcore corp - so we take all comers who fit into our eclectic culture. This change to grav sites to regular anoms is going to make WH mining untenable as we do not have local to alert people mining to a possible threat - cloaky t3s (the mainstay of WH exploration) will be able to warp in and gank our miners without any realistic chance of detection. We will lose members and any chance of the industrial benefits they bring.
Yes, we can focus more on our WH specific operations, but losing the members we have counted amongst our friends is not something I can let pass without comment. It seems to me that in an effort to hurt mining botters you are also hurting the most hardcore, risk-taking miners in the game - this is a nerf to the high-end caliber miners and needs to be reconsidered.
Please reconsider making WH grav sites into anoms.
I don't think you have read or followed many of the actions of CCP in the past. They hate the fact that players set up shop in wh's, and care not one whit about any changes that affect wh players.
CCP's attitude is "Eve is a sandbox, you can play this game anyway you like, as long as it is null sec inside a large alliance." |
None ofthe Above
620
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 16:38:00 -
[340] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:
Edit: also, is anyone else worried that the reintroduction of faction towers means that the POS revamp is going to be delayed even further?
It was delayed indefinitely before the last CSM summit. How much more delayed can it be?
But you are right in a way, the more they do with the current POS the less likely they will actually be in a hurry to bear down and do the hard work of the POS revamp.
But given the trameframes talked about I don't know what else they can do. They need to find a way to make this work, develop it in tandem with maintain the current system.
IMHO, we need to keep up the feedback letting them know this revamped modular POS is something we want, and not fight the short term fixes for the existing POSes. Don't make me hand you a wizard hat. |
|
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
217
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:27:00 -
[341] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Rek Seven wrote:
Edit: also, is anyone else worried that the reintroduction of faction towers means that the POS revamp is going to be delayed even further?
It was delayed indefinitely before the last CSM summit. How much more delayed can it be? But you are right in a way, the more they do with the current POS the less likely they will actually be in a hurry to bear down and do the hard work of the POS revamp. But given the trameframes talked about I don't know what else they can do. They need to find a way to make this work, develop it in tandem with maintain the current system. IMHO, we need to keep up the feedback letting them know this revamped modular POS is something we want, and not fight the short term fixes for the existing POSes. Also realize that they can begin laying the foundation for the new-POS while implementing the short-term extras. The objects in space are superficial; it doesn't matter what is there. Getting the code for personal storage, anywhere-access, real access controls, etc. is all vital, can be done in small pieces, and can be done using individual modules that might otherwise appear to be added hack-jobs. And it all builds on top of everything else. For example, when they get the personal storage stuff right, that enables the possibility for a market hub module that can be anchored at the system's primary tower, adding a market window and related interactions to that system.
Probably most of everything needed can be implemented now, and then a grand announcement of an update that looks like it ties together what was already tied together can be unveiled with the newly redesigned in-space object.
Personally, I would rather they delay the POS revamp to do it right and get the individual pieces working first, so we don't have another Unified Inventory or (now) Scanning frustration that takes months to get settled. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
520
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 17:32:00 -
[342] - Quote
E'lyna Mis Dimaloun wrote:Roime wrote:According to the test server thread, the reason for probe formations being initially placed at the sun is to prevent on-grid combat probing from becoming too fast. Current time to launch 5 probes needed to scan on-grid ship: 10 seconds + another 5 sec to position probes on grid + another 5 sec to scan (w/ level 5 acquisition) ~ =20 seconds Odysey time to launch 5 probes: 0 seconds + another ~5 to move probes to grid + another 5 sec to scan (or less if you equipt the new med slot module) ~ <10 seconds gg ccp
I think they meant "too fast given the other changes we're making." So placing probes ready to warp to the sun means that on-grid probing takes 10 seconds instead of 5.
I suppose it was easier than recoding the auto-repeat to add a configurable "repeat n times" option, but it's still a hack. With an auto-repeat-n-times approach, there would still be a tradeoff between the number of probes you launch and the amount of time that you're uncloaked.
Then allow us to split probes into separate groups, the way we can with drones (but please please please not with the same interface) and you have something that's nearly ideal. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Komen
Capital Enrichment Services Existential Anxiety
201
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 20:48:00 -
[343] - Quote
CCP Orion wrote:Lexmana wrote:Alexander the Great wrote: Currently when I need to launch 1 probe I launch one probe. What you offer is "launch 8 probes then select 7 of them in the window, press right mouse button and recover them". Or I need to limit somehow the number of probes in the launcher, but of course there is no option "load X probes to the launcher". How does it make sense to you?
This one should be easy. Just unload the probes from your launcher and jettison all but one probe. Then reload the launcher and launch the single probe. And don't forget to loot the loot the can ... or you could shift drag one on the launcher... might be less wasteful.
Or you guys could program a proper UI that asks how many probes we want to launch. Have a row of buttons labeled 1 through 8, and above it have a prompt like 'Select number of probes for deployment', and each button launches that many probes. Have this work with probes already in space, so if I drop one, and want to add 6, I can do that. And THEN have the total number of probes be able to snap into a formation, even though they're at different points in space.
****, I am a probe UI god. Hire me, jerks. |
Zapa Cheenie
Ab Initio Ad Astra
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 22:31:00 -
[344] - Quote
Well there goes any chance of mining Gravmetric sites in secrecy.... Being a miner just got hella more dangerous. |
Andre Coeurl
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 01:51:00 -
[345] - Quote
As a Wh space dweller, I see some interesting changes (the preset formations, better scan result interface, more sensible names for sites and modules), some wrong mechanics (for example as some pointed out already the default positioning of probes around the sun is a no-go in combat scanning, plus making ore sites anomalies is just sadistic) but most of all lots of plainly exaggerated DUMBING down of scanning and scouting.
There are two reasons why this is wrong: - there are players who invested skilling time (the secondary scanning skills which are going to be nerfed are long to train) and real ingame playtime (even more valuable time) to become good scouts and explorers, going through frustration and losses and deep-space agoraphobia, and the proposed changes will level down their painfully acquired abilities - making exploration too easy and nearly without risk makes it into a very dumb profession, not on the same level with the rest of the game, and this is a very bad omen to the direction CCP may want to take. WoW in space will never get as many players as WoW anyway (there's too much abstraction involved in a spaceship game for the average casual MMO player), but could very well alienate the existing playerbase.
Anyway making it so easy to scout and explore will render covops even less vulnerable, leading to swarms of them getting into WH space so hopefully some unprepared combat pilots will follow them and die horribly |
Anti-social Tendencies
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 02:56:00 -
[346] - Quote
Meytal wrote: Taking this further, I would suggest/request that all non-Hisec Grav sites remain as cosmic signatures, and that only the Hisec Grav sites become cosmic anomalies. Even in Hisec, I still think Grav signatures would be useful for the rarer varieties: occasionally it is possible to find a lowsec-ore Grav site in Hisec. These should remain as cosmic signatures and be more difficult to locate.
Just leave all grav sites as sigs. Hisec mining certainly doesn't need any help and with the Easy Button being applied to scanning, the grav sites will be easy enough to find for the miners that want to bother.
Now , if CCP's ultimate goal is to get rid of all the static asteroid belts, it would be nice for them to let us know now before we devote more training time and resources into deadend endeavors.
|
Anti-social Tendencies
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 03:00:00 -
[347] - Quote
Maxwell Albritten wrote:Probes need to expire. Pilots need to be responsible for their stuff. I was on board with the changes until this step towards "Eve is Very Easy".
Nope.
I agree. I hate it when I forget and let probes expire. However it does mean that I have to be responsible for my equipment and pay attention. There should be consequences for when I fail.
|
AutumnWind1983
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
53
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 03:21:00 -
[348] - Quote
CCP Orion wrote:Lexmana wrote:Alexander the Great wrote: Currently when I need to launch 1 probe I launch one probe. What you offer is "launch 8 probes then select 7 of them in the window, press right mouse button and recover them". Or I need to limit somehow the number of probes in the launcher, but of course there is no option "load X probes to the launcher". How does it make sense to you?
This one should be easy. Just unload the probes from your launcher and jettison all but one probe. Then reload the launcher and launch the single probe. And don't forget to loot the loot the can ... or you could shift drag one on the launcher... might be less wasteful.
Or you could just give us the ability to select how many probes we launch. . . James Arget for CSM 8! http://csm.fcftw.org |
Cup1dStunt
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 04:24:00 -
[349] - Quote
Acks wrote:... Oh and before the CCP fanboys cry "Only angry people respond", There have been times where CCP does stuff we actually want and like that is well thought out. Those threads are almost exclusively positive. ...
Compare this thread to the one for the UI changes: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=241613
|
Maul555
Nuts and Vindictive Remix Technologies
373
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 04:34:00 -
[350] - Quote
Cup1dStunt wrote:Acks wrote:... Oh and before the CCP fanboys cry "Only angry people respond", There have been times where CCP does stuff we actually want and like that is well thought out. Those threads are almost exclusively positive. ... Compare this thread to the one for the UI changes: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=241613
Yuuup.... I have been off and on the boards for the last 10 years, and this has not changed much... I can only go from my own personal experience, but I suspect CCP will backtrack many of these changes, just like they have before, after being warned over and over again, just like now. |
|
Jed Clampett
The Order Of Viision Brothers of Apocrypha.
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 05:48:00 -
[351] - Quote
Deep Space Probes are fairly expensive.
I hope that at least means each one is being converted into say 50 regular Combat Probes. Or for probes loaded in ship, a Sisters Combat Probe or a regular Combat Probe and the difference in average value as ISK.
A straight conversion of Deep Space probes to standard Combat Probe would suck as an ISK value asset loss. |
Jed Clampett
The Order Of Viision Brothers of Apocrypha.
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 05:52:00 -
[352] - Quote
Anti-social Tendencies wrote:Maxwell Albritten wrote:Probes need to expire. Pilots need to be responsible for their stuff. I was on board with the changes until this step towards "Eve is Very Easy".
Nope. I agree. I hate it when I forget and let probes expire. However it does mean that I have to be responsible for my equipment and pay attention. There should be consequences for when I fail.
IDK
Might not be as big a "give me" as it sounds. After all CCP gave the same "give me" to drones. Now how often does that actually work - and how often are your drones still left behind? |
Jed Clampett
The Order Of Viision Brothers of Apocrypha.
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 06:13:00 -
[353] - Quote
Anti-social Tendencies wrote:Meytal wrote: Taking this further, I would suggest/request that all non-Hisec Grav sites remain as cosmic signatures, and that only the Hisec Grav sites become cosmic anomalies. Even in Hisec, I still think Grav signatures would be useful for the rarer varieties: occasionally it is possible to find a lowsec-ore Grav site in Hisec. These should remain as cosmic signatures and be more difficult to locate.
Just leave all grav sites as sigs. Hisec mining certainly doesn't need any help and with the Easy Button being applied to scanning, the grav sites will be easy enough to find for the miners that want to bother. Now , if CCP's ultimate goal is to get rid of all the static asteroid belts, it would be nice for them to let us know now before we devote more training time and resources into deadend endeavors.
I think the move with ice belts finally gets things to where CCP should have started. A little harder to bot farm (though that seems like mostly urban legend to me -- vast multibox sure). Distributed throughout day so big mining fleets can't hog it all before 80% of EVE users even logon.
So I would support standard belts to anomalies.
But it seems that probed grav sites with rare ore or larger roids should still exist. Or perhaps be fused with probed combat sites.
Yeah combat sites are both anomalies (more frequent) and probed sites (better prize possibilities)...why not all types of sites including ore/grav sites? And yes drop the regular belts.
Plus in high sec some anomalies ought to be gated for noobs and smaller mining ships. Or maybe taxed fee according to ship mining/hauling potential at gate to represent the idea that NPC megacorps have hi sec sewn up/in their pocket. Thus you can learn in hi sec and even make some ISK...but lo sec, null orwh being preferable ASAP. |
Telur Curie
Dominion of Inter-Celestial Kings Tribal Band
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 06:21:00 -
[354] - Quote
some neat changes don't know if this has been answered but ore sites under the other new changes are going to be scan able with out probes so does this mean there are still going to be ore sites that need to be probed and if so whats the difference between them |
Jed Clampett
The Order Of Viision Brothers of Apocrypha.
9
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 06:29:00 -
[355] - Quote
Telur Curie wrote:some neat changes don't know if this has been answered but ore sites under the other new changes are going to be scan able with out probes so does this mean there are still going to be ore sites that need to be probed and if so whats the difference between them
all the radar (data), ladar (gas), magnetic (archeology) and combat sites we have now...but updated and revised.
Note the mineable gas is still probe site. Not very consistent CCP. Why not make at least some lesser gas into anomalies to "get folk into it" by making it more accessible? |
Zorok
The Guardian Knights
30
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 08:03:00 -
[356] - Quote
I thought I would post the following comment here from another thread because I noticed that the devs were not responding to the question on this thread regarding the grav sites being moved to anomalies.
CCP Fozzie wrote:We'd rather have the challenge provided by other players than by us.
Here is a link to the comment : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3024501#post3024501
So my question in all of this is "What kind of challenge will the mining ship provide to the PvPer?" and here's a second very good question..."Why shouldn't I abandon mining and just run missions like my other pals who already make more isk per hour than I do and for less risk?" When I saw this flippant response, I become quite livid.... I'm cancelling my subscription for now since this is the attitude that you have toward miners. Luckily for you my sub doesn't run out for a year but after that, if you haven't provided us miners some kind of balance in the game, you can consider me gone for good. |
Hulasikali Walla
Never Mind the Bollocks
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 09:18:00 -
[357] - Quote
New extension ODYSSEY
Quote:...Odyssey, offers new tools for exploring the stars...challenges you to breach the unknown...A re-imagined scanning system, intuitive navigation ... "Exploration and probing" by CCP One click and jump what a magnificent chalenge Keep on the good work |
Roan Pico
I- T I E -I 24eme Legion Etrangere
2
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 11:52:00 -
[358] - Quote
Quote:As part of the work Team Five-0 is doing, Ore sites (aka Gravimetric sites) are being made Cosmic Anomalies instead of Cosmic Signatures, meaning you no longer need probes to find them.
Gratz, you just killed lowsec mining.
For the rest of this Blog -> \O/ |
Mulani Askiras
State War Academy Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 11:52:00 -
[359] - Quote
CCP - taking 1 step forward, and 12 steps back since release. |
Adaahh Gee
Rock jockeyz
68
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:01:00 -
[360] - Quote
This is all seems very familiar to the Unified Inventory fracas, 1. Feedback on test server is ignored, 2. Released to TQ, 3. CCP spends 2 weeks patching and fixing, 4. Changes are made that should have been done earlier using the test server feedback.
Result: Angry users, Stressed developers and tension built between the two. (plus some bad press too)
Either play the game yourselves (so you realise how it is actually played) OR Value the input and advice of the people who play 12 hours a day, every day (in case you are wondering, that'd be us, the players)
CCP, when will you learn?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 .. 16 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |