Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 21 post(s) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3181
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 01:43:00 -
[181] - Quote
waypoint marker wrote: I also note that
all industry slots are removed, Mobile Laboratory and Advanced Mobile Laboratory are overlapping in ME research ,copying and invention you only need 1 mobile lab to do all the things Ytterbium state that "we like the individual capabilities of each" , it seem quite reasonable that one lab only can do one thing( research ME,TE / copying and invention)
can Ytterbium confirm is it right or not?
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4557185#post4557185
Yup. They're limiting what each type can do, because they're no longer differentiated by slot counts. Woo! CSM 9! http://fuzzwork.enterprises/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Khan'nikki
Justified Chaos
4
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 03:49:00 -
[182] - Quote
Dear CCP Ytterbium,
Welcome to Barter Town
Can we have some form of trade take place at POS/Planets please?
In Example: (item for item) Fuel for Charters Gas for Boosters Liquids for Water
At least simple item transactions. But what about POS tower shooting and locking and stuff.. Maybe anchoring a Trade module just means you can't shoot some ppl first. Can't be that bad.
Would be a plus for people that like running planets and not gatecamps. Allows for more specialization, more reasons to go out into low, null and WH space.
So please say hello to my little friend: Master Blaster.
Thanks!
|
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3425
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:09:00 -
[183] - Quote
Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train.
But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired!
Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. |
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1044
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:22:00 -
[184] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. Alright, who are you and what have you done with OUR CCP devs!
A most extraordinary thread. Thanks :) Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Danny Centauri
Silver Octopus Infernal Octopus
87
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:30:00 -
[185] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
Currently you're on my favourite people list for this change, here have a cookie. Do you have twitter? Sure this change will get many a favourite over at #tweetfleet EVE Manufacturing Guide - Simple guides to manufacturing in EVE for both beginners and more experienced players. |
Rodent Jr
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:53:00 -
[186] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
Yaaay.
Can we get some goodies for those of us who already have SDM trained... such as pos guns that can kill ships? :) |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3436
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:57:00 -
[187] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today? Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Banko Mato
Republic University Minmatar Republic
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 12:57:00 -
[188] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote: Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
Noooooooooo, about 2 weeks ago i finally finished all my manufacturing accounts to have one POS gunner each, couldn't you have gotten that flash of genius a bit earlier?
Besides that, what are the official reactions to the array capacity and lab feedback on the last few pages?? |
Sir Werner
Evoke. Ev0ke
7
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:02:00 -
[189] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. Can we get the skills point back for Anchoring 5? |
Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
122
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:02:00 -
[190] - Quote
mynnna wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today?
I think that is more than one number. |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3436
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:10:00 -
[191] - Quote
Kethry Avenger wrote:mynnna wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today? I think that is more than one number.
But it's still only numbers. And he can make Fozzie do it. Fozzie loves numbers. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:16:00 -
[192] - Quote
Banko Mato wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote: Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
Noooooooooo, about 2 weeks ago i finally finished all my manufacturing accounts to have one POS gunner each, couldn't you have gotten that flash of genius a bit earlier? Besides that, what are the official reactions to the array capacity and lab feedback on the last few pages?? Go put bubbles on random null gates Laugh as you then cloak up and they freak |
Circumstantial Evidence
114
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:18:00 -
[193] - Quote
Lowering the skill requirements for pos gunnery, is itself an increase in POS damage, when averaged across the player base. More corps will be able to field gunners with this change. |
Grarr Dexx
Snuff Box
406
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:44:00 -
[194] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:Lowering the skill requirements for pos gunnery, is itself an increase in POS damage, when averaged across the player base. More corps will be able to field gunners with this change.
that's the idea |
Capqu
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
500
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:48:00 -
[195] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
fire ze missiles https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNpMiT5qpyI |
Ravcharas
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
319
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:53:00 -
[196] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. vive la france
|
Red Teufel
Mafia Redux
378
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 13:54:00 -
[197] - Quote
I like the changes except now let us drop dreads in highsec to RF these towers pls. |
Ransu Asanari
Powder and Ball Alchemists Union The Predictables
112
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:00:00 -
[198] - Quote
I was actually just watching the Industry Devblog post where the suggestion to lower the Anchoring requirement for Starbase Defense Management to 4 was discussed, to large applause. I'll go along with that :)
The Powder and Ball Alchemists Union - "Turning Lead into Gold since 2006" |
Erasmus Phoenix
Balls to the Walls No Response
98
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:07:00 -
[199] - Quote
Capqu wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. fire ze missiles
Please don't tell me you've put missiles on your POS :D |
|
CCP Ytterbium
C C P C C P Alliance
3437
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:15:00 -
[200] - Quote
mynnna wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today? e: This goes especially for scan res. In context of such a change I'd propose massive increases to scan res, on the order of tenfold, but perhaps a corresponding increase in the automatic lock delay as well. That way an unmanned POS still takes its sweet time doing anything, but a manned POS is able to swiftly react to a changing combat landscape. You've got that huge tower there, why are its targeting arrays so bad?
That's going to take quite some time indeed, but that's why we keep CCP Fozzie chained in the basement. I'll promise him some raw meat if he looks at it at some point, that should cheer him up.
We'll discuss that point for sure, but we are not certain this will make it at the same time than the main bulk of Industry changes though. |
|
|
Gothikia
Regeneration
278
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:18:00 -
[201] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
About god damn time! :P <3 Gothie |
remco1
Vengance Inc. Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:20:00 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:mynnna wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now. Wanna change some more numbers and do a balancing pass on POS guns and buff their stats a bit, since they haven't been touched since an era when a dreadnaught had less EHP than a cruiser can get today? e: This goes especially for scan res. In context of such a change I'd propose massive increases to scan res, on the order of tenfold, but perhaps a corresponding increase in the automatic lock delay as well. That way an unmanned POS still takes its sweet time doing anything, but a manned POS is able to swiftly react to a changing combat landscape. You've got that huge tower there, why are its targeting arrays so bad? That's going to take quite some time indeed, but that's why we keep CCP Fozzie chained in the basement. I'll promise him some raw meat if he looks at it at some point, that should cheer him up. We'll discuss that point for sure, but we are not certain this will make it at the same time than the main bulk of Industry changes though.
guess people who trained anchoring 5 for posguns get skillpoints back then ?? |
Erasmus Phoenix
Balls to the Walls No Response
98
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:21:00 -
[203] - Quote
You still get to use large T2 bubbles |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1166
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:35:00 -
[204] - Quote
remco1 wrote:
guess people who trained anchoring 5 for posguns get skillpoints back then ??
Of course, CCP always reimburses skills when they change things, have you not been getting a ton of SP every patch? |
Iosue
Black Sky Hipsters
284
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:52:00 -
[205] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Seraphina Amaranth wrote:So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more? that you're using them as storage :v:
along that line, can we get a new CHA size? i mean its kinda silly to keep using assembly arrays in place of CHA's as a work around. having another Large CHA that matches the size and fitting requirements of the large ship assembly array would be great. |
Batelle
Tymast Industries 150th
2584
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:52:00 -
[206] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Batelle wrote:Looks good.
Like I said at the panel, change the requirements of pos gunnery to only be anchoring 4. Quick little change.
Poses are going to proliferate quite a bit, and hopefully more people will be fighting at them. And people with less means to defend them will have need to use them where before they didn't. They are going to be less of a specialized thing and more of a necessity fo industrialists. The barrier for pos gunnery could take a look at. Its a really miserable train. But it's so much work to change one number and I am so le tired! Fine, done. Starbase Defense Management only requires Anchoring 4 instead of 5 now.
\o/ "CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Erasmus Phoenix
Balls to the Walls No Response
98
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 14:55:00 -
[207] - Quote
Iosue wrote:Weaselior wrote:Seraphina Amaranth wrote:So is there any incentive to run more than one of each type of lab/array any more? that you're using them as storage :v: along that line, can we get a new CHA size? i mean its kinda silly to keep using assembly arrays in place of CHA's as a work around. having another Large CHA that matches the size and fitting requirements of the large ship assembly array would be great.
I believe they said CHAs are getting more than twice the capacity |
Spectre Wraith
Darwin Inc.
139
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:02:00 -
[208] - Quote
Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill? Dear lord, please help me deal with the insufferable.... |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
664
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:04:00 -
[209] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill?
Yes. You can expect to still be able to do everything that you could before. Nothing is changing that will effect you. Now stop complaining.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥
-Grath Telkin, 2014. |
NEONOVUS
Diabolically Sexy Eureka-Secret Science R Us
839
|
Posted - 2014.05.07 15:04:00 -
[210] - Quote
Spectre Wraith wrote:Can those of us who trained Anchoring V (twice, ugh) expect something for our time investment in that skill? No Go build an outpost |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .. 17 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |