EVE Search - [Rubicon] Ships dropping from SMAs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

[Rubicon] Ships dropping from SMAs

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1138	Posted - 2013.11.04 17:12:00 - [61] - Quote excellent change for anyone doing exploration in expensive T3s

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 8105	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:31:00 - [62] - Quote Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to unanchor CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.

Mara Tessidar Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 949	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:35:00 - [63] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute. Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place?

CCP Fozzie C C P C C P Alliance 8105	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:36:00 - [64] - Quote Mara Tessidar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute. Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place? It doesn't, I mistyped. Meant unanchor.

Mara Tessidar Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 949	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:42:00 - [65] - Quote Ah.
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1078	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:43:00 - [66] - Quote Yes!!
Winthorp Sky Fighters 222	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:43:00 - [67] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to unanchor CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute. Thanks for listening and acting.
Phoenix Jones Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 212	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:52:00 - [68] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to unanchor CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute. Next your going to remove the ability for a rookie ship to light a cyno.... That is insane... And then you are going to force titans to bridge with the fleet... Ludicrous... CCP Fozzie, joo be crazy!!!!
Phoenix Jones Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 212	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:54:00 - [69] - Quote CCP Masterplan wrote: One less thing the for CSM to keep asking us for! (But seriously, they've been very insistent on keeping up the pressure to make this change happen, so well done to them) And Fozzie needs to stop hogging all these Likes for himself - share the love! So CCP Fozzie demanded people begin "censored.. bad word", likes on you or he'll cause nerfs to rookie ships, unanchoring alts, forcing titans to bridge with fleets, ... Here's no like for You CCP Masterplan.
Phoenix Jones Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 212	Posted - 2013.11.04 19:55:00 - [70] - Quote To think I thought unanchoring a XLARGE Hanger with stuff inside was a bug.....

GizzyBoy Aperture Harmonics No Holes Barred 78	Posted - 2013.11.04 22:21:00 - [71] - Quote CCP Fozzie wrote: Mara Tessidar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute. Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place? It doesn't, I mistyped. Meant unanchor. its my understanding you cant unanchor a sma with stuff in it, so a timer is not necessary, at least thats how other hangers work.
unimatrix0030 Viperfleet Inc. Disavowed. 50	Posted - 2013.11.05 18:41:00 - [72] - Quote Praise bob, CCP and the CSM for such a change! Good work!
Panhead4411 Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services The Possum Lodge 344	Posted - 2013.11.06 14:47:00 - [73] - Quote Again i ask....does this mean you plan to apply this 'fix' to all the other POS arrays that got hit with the no-loot-drop nerf when you applied it to SMA's?
Winthorp Sky Fighters 226	Posted - 2013.11.06 19:12:00 - [74] - Quote When will we get no self destructing within a force field?
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 27	Posted - 2013.11.07 02:34:00 - [75] - Quote Winthorp wrote: Loki Paden wrote: Will take some of us 20-26 days to train the necessary skills to help protect WH POS -- something that was not needed BEFORE by most of us.....announcement made by DEV first week of Nov...Like the idea but that is not enough time to train......BOO CCP! Yeah your WH POS was perfectly safe before this... Indeed. Besides, who puts all their eggs into one basket? Good change. If the cargo is present, it should always have the opportunity to drop.
Mandelbrot Fracture Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 9	Posted - 2013.11.08 02:44:00 - [76] - Quote The universe is against us!
Phoenix Jones Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking 247	Posted - 2013.11.08 20:54:00 - [77] - Quote GizzyBoy wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Mara Tessidar wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute. Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place? It doesn't, I mistyped. Meant unanchor. its my understanding you cant unanchor a sma with stuff in it, so a timer is not necessary, at least thats how other hangers work. Can you unanchor a sma with crap in it, I don't believe so. Can you unanchor a corporate hanger with stuff in it? No I've tried Can you unanchor a xlarge ship assembly array?? Yes, yes you can. It doesn't matter what's in it, or where it is. You'll get a warning box saying "you sure", you click yes, everything's gone. Was a ez way of getting rid of billions in 3 seconds
Mabrjjcj Rojo 0ne Percent. 5	Posted - 2013.11.09 21:09:00 - [78] - Quote YES!!! POS bashing in WH's is officially BACK!!
SalubriousSky Rinah Cryptic Spear The Amalgamation Initiative 7	Posted - 2013.11.10 10:32:00 - [79] - Quote LOL, you guys are thanking Fozzie, when you should really be thanking the GSF and their partisan CSM...
Darxar Gardallion Amalgamation Limited The Amalgamation Initiative 1	Posted - 2013.11.10 12:35:00 - [80] - Quote Winthorp wrote: Loki Paden wrote: Will take some of us 20-26 days to train the necessary skills to help protect WH POS -- something that was not needed BEFORE by most of us.....announcement made by DEV first week of Nov...Like the idea but that is not enough time to train......BOO CCP! Yeah your WH POS was perfectly safe before this... Loki knows that it is not perfectly safe and everyone who lives in a wormhole system realizes that if someone really wants your system or wants to pop your POS, they can and will make it happen. Wormhole space is not safe nor is it easy (and it can be quite the pain in the arse for many reasons that have been posted in numerous other forums). However, instead of making the griefers and ganksters happier by giving them more loot and more killmail; why not fix all the problems with POS permissions that affects everyone (not just those who live in a wormhole systems) and other things instead of making griefers and ganksters happier and making wormhole system even more lucrative to "visit" than they already are? NOTE: I have not been playing this game as long as many of you have been; but, the one common theme I keep seeing is that the game is becoming less and less PVE/indie friendly and more PVP/gankster friendly, not withstanding the nicer tutorials and such implemented prior to my start, etc. I do a little of both, though I am admittedly not very good at or as interested in the PVP. But, the more PVP/gankster friendly you make this game and the more you make "hisec equal to losec and losec equal to null" and wormholes harder to live in than they already are, you might as well just kick all of the carebears and indies and lesser PVP types who love this game and who are not in one of those big sovs or pirate corps out of the game (or maybe that is your intention?). Anyways.....I think if you are going to make the PVP griefers and ganksters happier with a huge change in their favor such as the SMA pi+¦ata, there needs to be a balance on the other side of that to counter it and, as Loki stated, you should have provided more lead time so those who felt secure enough to not immediately spend nearly a month to train up for a skill that is only useful for POS defense so as to allow those people the time to fit said training in prior to implementation.

Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd CAStabouts 1078	Posted - 2013.11.10 12:55:00 - [81] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: CCP Fozzie wrote: Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now. Next announcement is: To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to unanchor CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute. Next your going to remove the ability for a rookie ship to light a cyno.... That is insane... And then you are going to force titans to bridge with the fleet... Ludicrous... CCP Fozzie, joo be crazy!!!! I don't pretend to know everything about the force projection issues that plague EVE and reduce New Eden to the size of a Large pepperoni pizza, but I fail to see how forcing a titan to bridge with the fleet could possibly be a bad thing.
Udonor Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 43	Posted - 2013.11.15 03:50:00 - [82] - Quote Informing people which problems you are actually currently working on and with how much priority DOES NOT require you to reveal any details or to set dead lines. Been part of billion dollar software programs where ends users were told which of their ranked problems where being worked on & a little of why certain projects weren't taken in strict order. Its pretty easy to say - these lower ranked items are thought to be related to the same code as a higher priority. Sometimes the reason was simply because we think we can quickly and easily solve this problem. Sometimes it was this item was chosen as the most difficult item this less experienced team can handle or this is suitable as train material for brand new people. Occasionally VIP users said "we would rather have nothing lower delivered if less competent people can speed higher priorities by 5 minutes as coffee gophers" -- but not very often. Not infrequently work on an existing high priority project was suspended with the explanation that the solution was a lot more difficult than initially thought or even impossible under current hardware, time or budget constraints. Occasionally the user voted to sacrifice other projects to supply missing labor or budget. But again users did not often go against the recommendation of what the software thought was the best delivery schedule. The point being CCP does not need to secretive about what issue-problems they are working upon -- only about specific solutions in the planning stages and deadlines. Even changing priorities will be accepted as long as the general reason is NOT self-generated changes in priorities (CCP got bored or saw something more exciting that had little user backing). Telling people priority #3 is turning out to take 2-3 the expected time and labor -- and so CCP is considering suspending that to deliver #4, #5 and #6 items instead for the next release is acceptable. But CSM or not, you probably need to say how you plan to deal with priority item #3 -- i.e. work at lower intensity of priority #20 for the next year or more until the size of remaining work fits in to a single release package. Currently the perception is that CCP tends to just shelve oversized projects until some accident of technology advancement, other project code changes, or coder epiphany presents a serendipidious solution (which as a gaming company with next to no RL consequences is probably true and not that unreasonable if the player base is loyal enough).


Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.