Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Red Deck
Stupid Stunts
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:16:00 -
[211] - Quote
Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. I am afraid I have to very much agree with this post.
I have been plaing EVE for less than two years, so I am not a newbie anymore, but I suppose I can't be called a 'bittervet' yet either...
Some of the changes proposed just make me shake my head in disbelief. The naming scheme, as stated in dozens of earlier posts, is so bland and uninspired it's painful. The idea of merging e.g. Malkuth and Arbalest LMLs (one of them currently selling for like ten times more than the other) into a single mod illustrates how detached the dev(s) engineering this change are from the game.
The whole idea of having just one "Easier to Fit" version of any given mod is just unbelievable... what on Earth is wrong with having several versions of a mod, each being progressively more rare / expensive, but easier to fit? Why do you want to cram everything into a single uniform scheme? Having quirks and exceptions and irregularities is what makes EVE so interesting and unique... that's what makes me toy with fits for hours.
I am all for dropping rubbish meta mods (and there is a ton of them) - either by removing them from the rat drops or by changing their stats to make them actually useful. I am all for renaming some of the currently confusingly named mods. But the proposed changes seem to be largely just for the sake of a change to me, taking away both flavour and gameplay options.
There are several ideas in this thread that I believe are very much worth considering (I liked the cryptic suffixes hinting at the changed stat of a meta mod akin to the current implant naming convention - and I would like to keep 'Malkuth'/'Arbalest'/'Limos' names if for nothing else then just for flavour reasons).
Alas, as with almost all recent changes, it's too late to have any meaningful discussion now... all we can do now is rant. |
Ekaterina 'Ghetto' Thurn
Department 10
186
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:21:00 -
[212] - Quote
I also don't like the current regime of renaming items and processes to make them simpler to understand. We are not idiots and in addition the current names of items are just better pure & simple. Some of the recent changes such as renaming refining & calling it reprocessing was just plain illogical. |
Nalha Saldana
Contractors Ltd.
822
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:25:00 -
[213] - Quote
This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner |
AssandTits
University of Caille Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:28:00 -
[214] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner
Unfortunately that naming convention will confuse all those spoon fed WoW kiddies CCP seems to think will actually have the attention span to play EVE.
Stop pandering to might be's, pay attention to just barley have.
|
Spugg Galdon
APOCALYPSE LEGION The Obsidian Front
485
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 14:33:00 -
[215] - Quote
Copper Khai wrote:thanks for all that you do. one small criticism. Some named modules are not EVE-like. they sound like magic items. Maybe you are doing it for beginners or cross over MMO players. But it stuck out to my ears. Ample? Enduring? not very scientific...
- Upgraded- ok
- Compact- ok (nanu, spun, )
- Enduring- no (efficient, stable, streamlined, normalized, eco, rewired, )
- Ample- no (flushed, distended, augmented) or Expanded / Extended
- Scoped- ok
- Restrained- (insulated, confined)
Although I've been looking forward to this (and I've also posted in the features and ideas forum pretty much these exact changes!) the naming of the modules is very dull.
I have to go with Copper Khai on this and her suggestions are so much better. As an engineer by trade, the names I've highlighted in the quote above make so much more sense to me. |
Drone 16
Law Dogz
242
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:01:00 -
[216] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner
Love this idea
It puts the peanutbutter on itself or it leaves the bonus round... - E1's greatest Hits |
June Blindbird
Flying Blacksmiths
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:08:00 -
[217] - Quote
The module Tiericide on its "make better stats and add usefulness for everything" part is a very good news, however it seems that you also decided like for Afterburners & co to rename and put generic and spirit-less prefixes on the names.
I understand that the purpose is to help people (in particular newbies) because the prefix will tell immediately the purpose of the variant, but as a player which thinks that immersion is important in any game, the impact is sensible to me. Eve online may become easier to learn but that also drives it away from a deep game, with a lore, a spirit and history. If possible I'd really appreciate if you could find at least qualifiers which sounds more Eve-ish, like the ones proposed further posts above. |
Arcos Vandymion
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
30
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:17:00 -
[218] - Quote
Just gonna go ahead and point out that even after that, noone in their right mind will use anything but T2 turrets/launchers if they can. Certainly not while you gain up to 10% to their performance via skill making them better than any meta above 5 even when you use the same ammo.
That's not considering T2 ammo because there is literally no reason to spend 50m a pop on True Sansha Mega Pulse Lasers if you can't burninate them bad guys to crisp with a Scorch crystal with them. A T2 Mega Pulse can and only costs a fraction for better performance. |
Madeleine Lemmont
Divide et Impera DE
7
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:26:00 -
[219] - Quote
1st I think, this could be a step into the right direction. Of curse some guys will hate it, due to have additional work to redesign their fittings. But these players are visible always. So far...
In association to the new ship database solution you should try to create a more dynamic item database. As long as you have each item with an own database entry including all item properties, this won't work, due to a lag of individualization possibilities.
If this would happen, we have a chance to realize "module research" or "module engineering". This for instance would result in a larger amount of "corpnamed" modules with corp-colors.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
795
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 15:52:00 -
[220] - Quote
Daimus Daranius wrote:Hey CCP, I was hoping to see Shield Flux Coils fixed as part of module rebalance, since they are currently the most useless modules in EVE (I can't think of a single application where they would be useful). My suggestion - replace the shield recharge bonus with a reduction to either duration or cap use of shield boosters.
Cap Power Relays already reduce shield boost amount. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
|
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
840
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:12:00 -
[221] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap this naming system is 100% terrible
however I am heartened by that there are only a small group of people talking loudly at each other here: the angry about names brigade is even smaller than I had thought |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
904
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:14:00 -
[222] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? Maybe because of skill requirements and cost? As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model.
the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 ..
The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it??
bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Medalyn Isis
Rosewood Productions Stain Confederation
316
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:44:00 -
[223] - Quote
The real issue is the uselessness of the T1 modules. That is something which manufacturers have been complaining about for aeons.
Is the drop rate going to be substantially reduced for the meta items so that their price doesn't simply drop below the inferior T1 meta 0 modules as is the current case?
Having nice names is great, and the names suggested now are pretty bad. But this is small fry compared to the actual gameplay issue of meta 0 being useless still and probably more expensive than the meta 1-4 stuff.
As I've seen suggested, at least give meta 0 items one saving grace, and one reason why to choose them over the massive amount of rat spew which everyone has piles of as a consequence of missions and ratting. |
profundus fossura
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:57:00 -
[224] - Quote
Gosti Kahanid wrote:Onslaughtor wrote:So with the missiles. It would make sense to add a third meta type for ROF like at 13.2 with a 21 to 23 cpu requirement and a 36 to 40 missile bay. The upgraded lml would be a nice damage focused meta mod that would be good for adding more complex but logical fitting decisions.
That, I think, would be a bad Idea. Everyone would then fit for more damage. Why should I use a module with more ammocapacity when I can get more DPS out of it? With Turrets there will probably be more options for application (hopefully nothing which provides more DPS than another), but missile launchers don-¦t have anything which would provide better application, for this they could offer different missiles, but for the launchers this is enough
Could vary other stats for missile launchers like explosion radius which would impact damage and give a more interesting fitting choice. |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
188
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:58:00 -
[225] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? Maybe because of skill requirements and cost? As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model. the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 .. The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it?? bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ...
Given that this thread is not in the Idea's and Features section and how all of this will become reality early next week. It appears that CCP is not interested in what we think. Even if we think different things. *shrugs*. |
Callic Veratar
633
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:00:00 -
[226] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, it's like 7:30pm and I'm about to go be on TV with CCP Guard and co so I can't do a lot right now, but it's safe to say there's some weirdness with the flux coils.
We may switch the restrained so it's actually LESS drawback rather than more, even though both potentially have applications. The way the attributes are titled and communicated in the dev blog is also kind of strange and I'll try to get that cleaned up tomorrow so it's a bit more clear.
All said and done, there's nothing broken going into the game so bear with me for a day while I get the post cleaned up and maybe the restrained attributes adjusted.
A flux coil with a greater drawback and more recharge is definitely useful. How about another Overclocked Capacitor Flux Coil (where overclocked is a greater drawback for even more effect). |
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1211
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:04:00 -
[227] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:As I've seen suggested, at least give meta 0 items one saving grace, and one reason why to choose them over the massive amount of rat spew which everyone has piles of as a consequence of missions and ratting.
This.
I can live with Vast Tracts of Launchers if this is fixed. The only reason to use any T1 item less than Meta 4 is a) cost, when that actually matters; b) availability, if you happen to not be near a trade hub, or c) really, really tight fits. I've used a non-Rolled Tungsten T1 plate exactly once because it was the only way to shoehorn a plate onto that particular ship.
And the fallback if Meta 4 isn't available is always the next lowest. There should be a reason to prefer meta 0 beside the mostly irrelevant fact that they're dirt cheap instead of merely cheap.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
profundus fossura
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:05:00 -
[228] - Quote
Vesan Terakol wrote:OK, now that I've slept over that matter, have some thought about it...
Lets talk names! I see why some modules bear such ridiculous names.
For instance, "limited" adaptive invulnerability field. Through my 3 years of playing EVE, that name has always puzzled me, as it...
MADE NO SENSE!
What is limited about that module? Even as i looked into the statistics, over and over again, i never came to associate "limited" with the actual difference in the module. Neither "limited" and "upgraded" helps me differentiate the MWD and afterburner variations. You know what does? Estimated price!
Now, I figured it! You tried to pull this same maneuver! And you know what? It didn't quite work, because such module name prefixes ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH! They make your team look like bloody illiterates and your management as completely ignorant of your doings, as, FFS, even a kid for whom English is not the native language will at least try and pull out words that give a bad-ass vibe to what he is naming.
Those proposed name prefixes are LAME (in any meaning you can put to this word, slang and literal), and I don't say that in blind rage, i say it in the shades of mournful regret that will overcome me if you are to push that nonsense out. It will achieve nothing.
On page 5 i believe there is a post by Moraguth that suggested some synonyms of your proposed name changes. Please, do take a careful look at this post. THAT is how you should name modules if you want clarity.
Long story short:
- DO NOT use Google translate, please! - DO NOT embarrass the entire team by making the entire player base look upon you as ignorant illiterates! - DO use this opportunity to fix old mistakes in naming!
P.S. I also believe that you owe the player community an official apology about even considering your list of name prefixes.
Lets talk statistics!
I do like the general direction of what you're doing. The statistics make more sense. Yet, you shouldn't have delayed releasing that information that much. You did this with the RLML rework last year to a major outcry from the public and yet you do it again!
There are changes that need to be pushed regardless of whether the community likes them, as they are healthy for the game. This one kind of is, yet you should have posted your draft in the F&I forums long time ago, as it needs a lot of polish. It can be done a lot better!
Mentioned above i saw a lot of really good ideas about the modules you could use and it will be for the better of the game. I, personally, see a lot of other possible numbers you can play with when it comes to variation.
What about "charges used per cycle" ? Can we have variations that would use/shoot twice as much per cycle but twice as slower? (I don't dare to think how you would name one of those... i better start digging a hole in which to hide).
Long story short:
- DO allow players more time to think about changes and provide feedback instead of pushing them without warning! It helps no one!
Always wondered how Duel and Quad guns only use one charge at a time : )
|
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor Monkeys with Guns.
87
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:24:00 -
[229] - Quote
In other news, major car manufacturer such as Volkswagon, Ford and Renault are to rename their Golf, Focus and Clio to a unified " Hatchback I "... this in order to "help" confuzed consumers... |
Wilhelm Ormand
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
15
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:36:00 -
[230] - Quote
I think it's great that module tiericide is finally happening and I would like to provide some feedback upon the proposed changes.
- Some of the names seem badly chosen:
Compact. Reduced fitting cost doesn't make a module more compact, why not just Reduced? Enduring should definitely be called Efficient as this refers to an improvement of dynamic resources. Ample should definitely be called Expanded as this is already in game for probe launchers and very descriptive. Scoped seems unfitting. Extended would semantically be the best choice but sounds a lot like Expanded.
- How far can it be called tiericide when the new named mudules have improvements other then the main specification? This means that choosing a named module is still always a better choice then meta 0 and T2 is only not preferred when fitting is tight. What about bringing meta 0 modules a little closer to T2 and having the named modules only improve on the named specification? The current proposition seems to just create new tiers instead of the un-tiering that is being promised and preached about.
- I think single quotation marks serve no purpose in names and should be done away with completely. If Khanid Navy Co-Processor is fine, why not Deuce Co-Processor (instead of 'Deuce' Co-Processor)?
Also, what is up with the different writings of "Basic"? One with and one without single quotation marks: Basic Co-Processor vs. GÇÿBasicGÇÖ Capacitor Flux Coil.
To end this feedback I would like to say: keep up the good work and don't take all the (sometimes badly worded) critique the wrong way. |
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
904
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:37:00 -
[231] - Quote
Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote:Harvey James wrote:i find the T2 mods just being plain better at everything a little at odds with role based mods...
T2 lml is better at everything ... surely allowing the use of T2 ammo is enough of a buff in itself?? why use the ample version when T2 is better at it?? Maybe because of skill requirements and cost? As for the new names, I am with a lot of other folks.. ditch them and keep some of the old ones. The new ones are a bit corny and over the top. Save the adjectives for the descriptions of the module not the name of them. You don't see GM selling the "Ample SUV" as a make and model. the skill requirements are the only thing stopping people ignoring the metas entirely and just skipping too T2 .. The purpose of the T2 is too allow specialization .. in this case T2 ammo ... but if its better at everything then its not really specializing is it?? bottom line is people will use only the compact and T2 .. lower fittings for tight fits and also whilst training skills up and then they will jump too the T2 cos its better and can use T2 ammo ... somehow i don't think this is what CCP had in mind here ... Given that this thread is not in the Idea's and Features section and how all of this will become reality early next week. It appears that CCP is not interested in what we think. Even if we think different things. *shrugs*.
i am surprised they didn't ask for our help on this important project... they take 1 step forward .... Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
James Zimmer
House of Pain Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:47:00 -
[232] - Quote
As a fairly new player, I can easily see that a lot of this is focused on helping out us newbs, so I'd like to give my opinion:
1. Simpling naming conventions is generally a good thing. It's annoying to have to go to the compare tool every time I want to buy a module to figure out which one is best for my purposes. For example "Arbalest" doesn't tell me anything, and I would much prefer if I at least had a clue as to what distinguished the module by the name. That being said, if EVERYTHING in the game gets standardized, I think it will feel extremely dull. Maybe a better way to standardize it would be by module class. For example, long range artillery and autocannons could be called "extended barrel" modules while long range rockets and missiles could be called "long-burn" modules. You could also add a more stylized name to distinguish between T1 and T2 for each module class, as that would be easy to remember and make it feel a little less dull. For example you could have your long range T2 light missile launcher named something like this "Arbalest (tier) Long-Burn (specialty) Light Missile Launcher (module type)"
2. I like the idea of making modules specialized into different focus areas. It will give more variety to fits and allow players to specialize to what they want to do. It essentially allows you to enhance a trait without a stacking penalty. However, I think there are some weaknesses to how it is being implemented. The differences between the two Meta 1 missile launchers for example, is minuscule. I have to worry about it on the fitting screen, but after that, the first time it makes a difference is when the "Compact Light Missile Launcher" reloads, 9 minutes into the fight (assuming 0 skills and no overheat). My purchasing decision will be very simple: If I need the extra powergrid and CPU, I will go with the "Compact" version. If not, I will go with the cheapest available, because it really doesn't matter. More meaningful differences would be long-range with lower rate of fire vs. shorter range and higher rate of fire and maybe higher fitting requirements. I'm not talking about duplicating rockets, but I think it would be interesting to have to make the decision of whether you want a 20-25 km rapid fire light missile destroyer, or a 40+ km slow fire light missile destroyer (this may also require a buff to rocket launchers, so they remain a viable option).
3. I think it would be interesting to have these options continue into tier 2 modules rather than the single tier 2 module that's simply better at everything. |
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
188
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 18:36:00 -
[233] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:Krell Kroenen wrote: Given that this thread is not in the Idea's and Features section and how all of this will become reality early next week. It appears that CCP is not interested in what we think. Even if we think different things. *shrugs*.
i am surprised they didn't ask for our help on this important project... they take 1 step forward ....
The 6wk cycles does not grant much if any wiggle room for changes I suppose. I partly think they let us post on the forums to watch us get on our soap boxes and attack each other as we fight for our own ideas of how we think things should be. While they snicker and chuckle behind the scenes and carry out their plans as they see fit.
Which if that is the case then so be it. In theory they have more information than we do, especially about their long term plans that might make my point of view mute. While I feel there is no harm in stating our point of views, I am going to try to not bend myself out of shape defending it when it seems rather clear that the feature in question is rather set in stone.
Besides, Eve is just a game and if they change it to the point that I no longer find it worth my time and money I can always leave. Lame module names and less than idea stats for some mods in my opinion while disappointing, is not game breaking for me. |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:34:00 -
[234] - Quote
AssandTits wrote:Althalus Stenory wrote:I stopped reading here: Lelira Cirim wrote:/starts singing Paul Simon's "Please don't take my Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron away...." we'll need to make a petition and get as much people as we can to only our PWNAGE ! :'( Well I really like the fact module tiericide finally begins ! My only though now is that Capacitor Flux Coil, as it's going to be, will probably weaken active shield tanking as such fits usually use these modules (bigger drawback, but bigger regen). But... as I don't have EFT to check it, we'll see :] No That has been done before and fail basically because CCP are so arrogant they think they have a unique product in the market and can do whatever the hell they want. The fact it is a Dev Blog and not an F+I post basically means CCP are saying "**** you players, this is what will happen." The CSM once more shows its complete uselessness at defending the Game from interference from Devs who are basically the #%$@ that is left at the bottom of the bowl after those who have the capability and drive to succeed left. This is just the tip of the iceberg people, unless the message is sent loud and clear that persistent dumbfuckication of the game has to stop. Burn Jita, burn it to the ground. Your so True ...
My next Games will be Elite and Star Citizen, i personally have enough from this ******** Game Downgrade Changes/Patches whatever
|
Thror Ginkar
Flying Blacksmiths
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:44:00 -
[235] - Quote
Would it be possible to at least keep some of the "names" for the different "named" modules ? Some examples:
- Enduring 'Regard' Remote capacitor booster - Scoped 'Scout' 250mm artillery canon - Compact 'F-S9' Medium shield extender - Restrained 'Type-D' Capacitor flux coil
I really think that removing all these technical names, sometimes even funny names (Phased Weapon Navigation Array Generation Extron ) gives some deepness to the game. It looks like something real where reasearcher comes up with a name for its discovery, and you will be taking away this realism. I totally understand that naming conventions are helpful for the NPE. But I don't see any obstacle in combining both conventional and fantasy namings.
Give us a Scoped 'Pwnage' Target painter, bring back the old Catalyzed cold gas 'Arcjet' thrusters in the form of an Enduring 'Arcjet' 1mn Afterburner, and revive the good old 'V-M15' Braced Multispectral Shield Matrix...
EVE has an history, don't sacrifice everything on the altar of simplification when there is a possibility to mix the past and the future. I know it's now "EVE - The Second Decade", but please don't remove everything of the first decade, those were great times too . |
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:57:00 -
[236] - Quote
Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. +Like, +Like, +Like
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:58:00 -
[237] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Gray's Anatomist wrote:I have two issues with the impending doom^W tiericide:
- Current tiers had several useful properties for tight fits. For example, some modules used less CPU for less effect, which came in 4 steps (not 1, not 2, 4 steps), some modules increased in value linearly, but their price was prohibitively high for throwaway fits (meta 4 damage controls anyone?). Overall this provided for interesting jigsaw puzzle solving while fitting, and even created a mini-profession of fitting specialist. This "update" not only removes this fun part of the game, but also invalidates real, working fits across the game. And if, by chance or luck, the ships will still fly - they'll lose their value against less craftily fit opponents. Is this what you want? "My ship is AMPLER than yours?"
- The names, indeed, are part of EVE lore. Why won't you call Titans "Ample Very Big Ships"? Why Sansha, Guristas, Serpentis and Blood, when you can call them "blaster terrorists", "laser terrorists", "missile terrorists" and "ewar terrorists"? Rename "Shadow Serpentis" into "scoped blaster terrorists" and see how much fun the players have.
Bottom line is: this change devalues player skills and experience. This might initially make for a lower learning curve for new players, but it won't help retain the older players, quite the opposite. Blah-blah, it's 3 days before the update, too late to change anything. That's all not of interest anymore to a game developer desperate to appeal to Angry Bird players. Your Wrong, they all Play World of Whoolooloo
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 20:06:00 -
[238] - Quote
Nalha Saldana wrote:This is what a NPC corp based naming system could look like and would be 100x better than that crap
Amarrian modules Upgraded/Ample - Amarr Constructions Scoped - Imperial Armaments Compact - Zoar and Sons Enduring - Carthum Restrained - Viziam
Caldarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Caldari Constructions Scoped - Caldari Steel Restrained - Perkone Enduring - Rapid Assembly Compact - Top Down
Gallentean modules Upgraded/Ample - Allotek Compact - Chemal Restrained - CreoDron Enduring - Duvolle Scoped - Roden
Minmatarian modules Upgraded/Ample - Core Complexion Enduring - Freedom Extension Compact - Boundless Creation Restrained - Eifyr Scoped - Six Kin
The modules would get a name based on what race it belongs to (same as invention interfaces)
As example here are the devblog items: Allotek Co-Processor Zoar and Sons Reactor Control Unit Zoar and Sons Micro Auxiliary Power Core Top Down Light Missile Launcher Caldari Constructions Light Missile Launcher Freedom Extension Cargo Scanner Six Kin Cargo Scanner Best Example so far ...
+Like
|
Red Bluesteel
State War Academy Caldari State
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 20:17:00 -
[239] - Quote
I have the Ultimate solution for the fastest ending of this Tiericidde whatever...
Simple: Change the name Meta into something else, Point and Finish.
And Please STOP this Downgrades... |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5898
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 22:00:00 -
[240] - Quote
Translation: Change is scary. Hold me. If you like EVE Online and War Thunder content stop by my YouTube channel.-á
Ranger 1 Presents https://www.youtube.com/user/Ranger1Presents |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |