Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
917
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:19:40 -
[1] - Quote
With the new year we have a new chapter in EVE Online's history! Right off the bat on January 13th Proteus will hit Tranquility and bring with it a host of changes. CCP Seagull gives us a preview of the stuff coming, as well as commenting on the Sovereignty change plans.
Head on over here to read it.
CCP Gargant | EVE Universe esports Coordinator
|
|
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
328
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:20:49 -
[2] - Quote
nice. Recons.
Beta map needs capital navigation sphere ASAP. |
DaReaper
Net 7
1476
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:34:07 -
[3] - Quote
Hmm small release, makes sense with the holidays, I'm sure a lot of work is going on behind the scenes. However, I seem to remember someone mentioning at eve down under that the nestor would start receiving tweaks till it was used. Any idea on when those night start?
OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4548
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:35:37 -
[4] - Quote
The small mining anomaly's a nice update
We (the CSM) recognized a problem with mining for rookies, after spending time in the Rookie help channel, and seeing people asking far too often.
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
Murashj
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
14
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:42:47 -
[5] - Quote
Will Tech 3 ships get the PBR love in this patch?
http://redd.it/2p9c7h
|
Darvo Thellere
Lunar' Corporation
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:44:10 -
[6] - Quote
lol recon ships not longer on dscan. and so my corp leaves wspace. thanks. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate Naquatech Syndicate
1663
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:47:31 -
[7] - Quote
Will the Redesigned Exequror Hull have moving parts ?
Akrasjel Lanate
General Director(CEO) of Naquatech Conglomerate
Executor of Naquatech Syndicate
Citizen of Solitude
|
Code2200
Guardians Descendants
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:49:15 -
[8] - Quote
I was hoping for a bit more though with the holidays it makes sense that it would be a small release. |
SpaceSaft
Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club
134
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:54:37 -
[9] - Quote
Quote: ...preparing to present concrete designs to the CSM at the CSM Winter Summit on January 20-23rd.
You're in contact with them about those right? The summit being the thing where everything gets wrapped up? Because it'd be a shame if a month or so of work would have to be shot down...
The rest looks cool. I'll try the new german voice for sure when it's out.
The UI is still bad.
|
Alexis Nightwish
63
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:54:53 -
[10] - Quote
So you're 100% committed to making CRs immune to Dscan? No further discussion on this?
Power Projection: A Brighter Future
|
|
knobber Jobbler
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
496
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 16:55:26 -
[11] - Quote
This is all very nice but where is the Ishtar/Sentry nerf? The whole looking at Sov is great (unless you screw it up by not going the occupancy route) but Tiercide hasn't worked when it comes to fleet warfare. There are less viable fleet doctrines today than when you started. |
Marlona Sky
Burning Napalm Northern Coalition.
5747
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:23:01 -
[12] - Quote
Another great change!
The Paradox
|
Sarmatiko
1656
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:28:10 -
[13] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Will the Redesigned Exequror Hull have moving parts ? Yes. Those "alignable warp propulsion engines" move up when you warp.
ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness |
Tarpedo
Incursionista
1443
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:31:17 -
[14] - Quote
Very nice upgrade of Oneiros hull. Looking forward for other logi hulls (Oneiros is - or was - the least playable logi for me). |
Solhild
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1739
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:35:16 -
[15] - Quote
New Oneiros design looks great but still waiting for that new Domi to drop, was there second thoughts? |
Meiyang Lee
Game Instrument Applications
69
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:36:14 -
[16] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness
By the looks of it, it'll still be somewhat asymmetrical (the bridge is off-set to the right for one), just not as lopsided as it was previously. |
Bl1SkR1N
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
52
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:45:17 -
[17] - Quote
Nerf that bloody tengu and ishtar already. ... |
Lallante
Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic
561
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:45:30 -
[18] - Quote
CCP Seagull and the rest of the CCP teams have a wonderful Christmas and New Year - 2014 has been a fantastic year for Eve and am very excited for what you have in store for us in 2015. |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
13611
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:50:11 -
[19] - Quote
Dem roid belts!!
GÿàGÿàGÿà Secure 3rd party service GÿàGÿàGÿà
Visit my in-game channel 'Holy Veldspar'
Twitter @Chribba
|
|
l0rd carlos
Friends Of Harassment The Camel Empire
1125
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 17:53:37 -
[20] - Quote
Do you also want people who currently don't have anything to do with SOV to take the SOV survey?
German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com
|
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
109
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:11:06 -
[21] - Quote
The fact that you're using ressources on doing artwork for the mining belts, can only mean that you're currently not working on improving this aspect with things like ring mining and the likes... This saddens me abit.
All the other things are of course amazing! I can't wait to hear about the SOV changes that are to come... This could be a big thing, i hope you're working on revamps, and not just number redesigns. That would be very dissapointing.
Never the less, the game only gets better and better... Eve is amazing, and will only get more amazing!
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
506
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:14:40 -
[22] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:So you're 100% committed to making CRs immune to Dscan? No further discussion on this?
In the F&I thread, Rise stated pretty explicitly that it's happening and not up for discussion until after it hits TQ.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Dersen Lowery
Drinking in Station
1397
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:22:11 -
[23] - Quote
The new Exequruhroh is a total upgrade.
Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1062
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:25:49 -
[24] - Quote
when are the thorax ( that looks like its drags a green turd around underneath it) and the omen getting there touch ups? also please make ishkur based on the tristan hull.. and give us back the original incursus model minus the lance for the enyo..
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.
|
Drunken Fiend
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
19
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:26:21 -
[25] - Quote
The reason Eve and CCP continue to not worry too much over other upcoming space MMO's.
New Exec hull... huuungh... best christmas present so far |
Garr Earthbender
Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop
222
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:35:17 -
[26] - Quote
http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/66780/1/ExequrorHullRedesign.jpg
Is it just me hoping to have Remote Repair turrets, or am I just seeing weapons on the battle exeq?
-Scissors is overpowered, rock is fine. -Paper
|
Etrei Kordisin
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
18
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:57:49 -
[27] - Quote
Quote:alliance-based functionality such as bookmarks
That's the ticket. Good stuff. |
Vic Vorlon
Aideron Robotics
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 18:59:48 -
[28] - Quote
And....sold all my meta 4 Aoede mining laser upgrades. Phew! |
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:07:36 -
[29] - Quote
Vic Vorlon wrote:And....sold all my meta 4 Aoede mining laser upgrades. Phew!
Those are become faction modules with the same drop rate as before. Mining Laser Upgrades are not changing as much as some of the other module types when it comes to merging named modules. There will be more info out about the changes very soon.
|
|
Callic Veratar
652
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:07:40 -
[30] - Quote
Fonac wrote:The fact that you're using ressources on doing artwork for the mining belts, can only mean that you're currently not working on improving this aspect with things like ring mining and the likes... This saddens me abit.
Well, it can only mean that if you assume that the environmental artists are the ones developing ring mining game play. Or that ring mining has even been mentioned on the road map since Seagull took over.
Ring and comet mining were ideas that were floated in the past with no clear game play or reason behind then. We'd need a reason to include new resource harvesting that isn't present right now otherwise it's an alternate source of existing minerals, gas, or ice (or some combination there of) that doesn't really add anything new that's interesting. |
|
Callic Veratar
652
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:09:18 -
[31] - Quote
No mention of the Minmatar Tactical Destroyer? Or is it just not ready to be shown in a devblog? |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1295
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:23:28 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Vic Vorlon wrote:And....sold all my meta 4 Aoede mining laser upgrades. Phew! Those are become faction modules with the same drop rate as before. Mining Laser Upgrades are not changing as much as some of the other module types when it comes to merging named modules. There will be more info out about the changes very soon. Hahahahaha. Oh man, that poor guy.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Ned Thomas
Hellbound Turkeys Alliance of Abandoned Cybernetic Rejects
506
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:23:48 -
[33] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:No mention of the Minmatar Tactical Destroyer? Or is it just not ready to be shown in a devblog?
Theres a quick mention that the Minnie D3 is tentatively scheduled for the Febuary release.
Vote Sabriz!
|
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
109
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:37:59 -
[34] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Fonac wrote:The fact that you're using ressources on doing artwork for the mining belts, can only mean that you're currently not working on improving this aspect with things like ring mining and the likes... This saddens me abit. Well, it can only mean that if you assume that the environmental artists are the ones developing ring mining game play. Or that ring mining has even been mentioned on the road map since Seagull took over. Ring and comet mining were ideas that were floated in the past with no clear game play or reason behind then. We'd need a reason to include new resource harvesting that isn't present right now otherwise it's an alternate source of existing minerals, gas, or ice (or some combination there of) that doesn't really add anything new that's interesting.
I dont want to discuss this any further(and then derailing the thread) But this is my comment on your points
1. Art wouldn't use alot of ressources on redoing the graphical aspect on minining belts, if they knew it would be changed later on. My comment is based on the fact, that there is hopefully communication between the devs, on what is being changed etc...
2. Mining is in a dire _dire_ need of a revamp, everyone know this. (I know opinions can differ, but this is the general idea on it) Alot of people mine, but most people do it because it's relatively stressfree, and can be done half afk-ish. This is ofc perfectly fine.
But there are ALOT of oppurtunities for changes that could make mining something that would be fun to do.
Thanks. (sorry for the semi-derail ISD's) |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5617
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:40:02 -
[35] - Quote
Oh my gourd! Beccy, look at Oneiros It is so symmetrical It looks like one of those GǪ Star Citizen ships Who understands Star Citizen?
They only fly it because it looks so clich+¬, okay? I mean GǪ Oneiros is just so GǪ straight I can't believe it's just so symmetrical It's out there I mean GǪ *phah* GǪ gross!
It's just so-áGǪ-áboring.
(with apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot, and the art team)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:43:32 -
[36] - Quote
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future. |
|
Suzy RC Mudstone
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:44:50 -
[37] - Quote
l0rd carlos wrote:Do you also want people who currently don't have anything to do with SOV to take the SOV survey?
If you have an interest in sov... I can't see why not.
|
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
1294
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:54:10 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
I take it you have no plans to fix the Rorqual yet, eh? I mean, you guys screwed it over big time when you made the compression changes. Some people trained for a long time to get into the Rorqual just to compress ores, and you pretty much made them pointless when you changed compression. It's not like the capital industrial and other relevant skills like that can be used with other ships and so on. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland The 99 Percent
955
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:56:09 -
[39] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Vic Vorlon wrote:And....sold all my meta 4 Aoede mining laser upgrades. Phew! Those are become faction modules with the same drop rate as before. Mining Laser Upgrades are not changing as much as some of the other module types when it comes to merging named modules. There will be more info out about the changes very soon.
CCP: Module tiericide for mining upgrades inbound. Miner: Sold my meta 4s, whew! CCP: We're making those into faction modules. Miner: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!O!O!O!!11!
A-HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I am entertained. Thank you for the laugh.
On another note, as a multiple time former sov holder, in a corp that directly owned dozens of systems, stations, and POSes, I had a ton to say about the last question on the sov structure survey. Those little text boxes were so small... I think I may have ruined them.
The tl;dr is this: make the next sov system make sense. Too many timers, too few options. POS and corp roles suck ass.
http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
|
Kossaw
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
111
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 19:56:17 -
[40] - Quote
Fonac wrote:stuff about ring mining
Nobody ever anywhere spoke seriously about ring mining as anything other than a pipe dream. Forget it. It isnt ever going to happen
What IS happening is that a new manager has turned the production process of Eve Online completely upside down and actually started telling us what CCP are realy working on, why they are working on it and what they realistically expect to actualy deliver in 6 weeks, not 6 months.
Thanks CCP. This bittervet at least, has never enjoyed playing the game more that I have in the last few months. Looking forward to January now as well.
WTB : An image in my signature
|
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 20:03:50 -
[41] - Quote
I Love Boobies wrote:I take it you have no plans to fix the Rorqual yet, eh? I mean, you guys screwed it over big time when you made the compression changes. Some people trained for a long time to get into the Rorqual just to compress ores, and you pretty much made them pointless when you changed compression. It's not like the capital industrial and other relevant skills like that can be used with other ships and so on.
The Rorqual does not a major mining revamp to be changed. I don't know the current plans for changing the Rorqual if there are any. It would be something better answered by CCP Rise or CCP Fozzie as they are the experts, and I have yet to touch ship balancing since coming on board. |
|
Steijn
Quay Industries
633
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 20:27:39 -
[42] - Quote
Quote: New Visual Effects in Asteroid Belts
Originally scheduled for Rhea, new dust effects, light rays, and rock fragments will be added to asteroid belts in Proteus to create a more immersive experience.
Does that mean that Proteus comes with GFX card vouchers to be used when these dust effects melt loads of GFX cards? |
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27730
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 20:33:17 -
[43] - Quote
Hey.
This is important. The Exeq looks amazing, but now the pace of things has me worried you're going to touch the Caracal or Merlin. Or the Drake. However, please do touch the Ferox vigorously... it is very face-heavy and its hind quarters look like the result of malnutrition throughout childhood.
Can we agree the only issue with the Merlin is the thing that right-handed turrets do when they're mounted on the left? (something k8 and I noticed while discussing the visual updates on Sisi)
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Sol Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
494
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 20:48:17 -
[44] - Quote
Thank you for this devblog!
It keeps motivated!
The feature page of Proteus is epic! Animation! :D
I love it!
And it raises a question, too!
Why not have said animation in the launcher/background character selection ... ... and instead have the feature page sport ... the same? :O
That's assuming you can make more of these ... ... but CCP did that for over 10 years, so .......
:) |
Fonac
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
109
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:01:57 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
Thank you for th+ít update!
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
2362
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:23:29 -
[46] - Quote
Hmm,
I guess I am in the minority on the Exequor hull change. I actually love that some of the Gallente hulls are not symmetrical. Made them unique.
Honestly the new hulls looks like you took the basic Talos shape and rounded some parts to keep the older exequor feel. Seems far more generic. |
Qual
Infinity Engine Sleeping Dragons
61
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 21:31:28 -
[47] - Quote
What he wrote:
WALL OF TEXT
What I read:
Blah, blah, blah, Alliance Bookmarks!!!
\o/ |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
543
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 22:33:39 -
[48] - Quote
Re: Module Tiericide
I'm hoping that this round will remember to include T1 modules - addressing their relative uslessness (except as a component to build the T2 versions), due to (a) weaker stats across the board compared to metas, and (b) typically higher cost as compared to low, and sometimes even high, metas.
Metas for most modules are simply too plentiful, due to high NPC drop rates, and too cheap, since the lower bound on their value is usually determined by the reprocessing value (which dropped by 50% during the reprocessing changes and made things even worse). The build cost of T1 modules typically exceeds the reprocessing value of metas - thus the T1 price is usually higher, as a result.
Because of this, there is no reason to use, or build, most T1 modules.
Module Tieiricde is the right time and place to fix this problem, and make T1 modules and T1 module manufacturing (aka noob manufacturing) a part of the game again.
Note: MAPCs are a good example of how to do it right, although the T1 build cost could be lowered somewhat, relative to the T2 build cost. Metas should always be rare, and thus more expensive - used only when a tight fit or extra oomph justifies the higher cost. |
HiddenPorpoise
Under Dark Sins of our Fathers
291
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:20:42 -
[49] - Quote
Is the domi model going to the room with the atron and maulus models to cry? |
Jim Jams
Perkone Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:51:25 -
[50] - Quote
CCP <3! Thank you for linking Zest to the Exequror, a great honor! The changes look very nice. I might just have to make another video to celebrate the new Exeq at some point :-) |
|
Maul555
Enso Corp
421
|
Posted - 2014.12.19 23:58:06 -
[51] - Quote
STOP!!!! Stop eliminating unsymetrical hulls from this game!!! you have hit the exequor with a FUGLY stick... scrap this abomination please! This was one of my favorite ships... Its now moving to one of my most hated.... |
Jim Jams
Perkone Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:12:56 -
[52] - Quote
The current design does have its asymmetrical charm that I will miss. It has that SC2 Spathi magic to it... |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
543
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:25:35 -
[53] - Quote
Under the category of bad features, like SP clones, which only penalize new and/or forgetful/stupid players, but don't add much to the game, I'd like to suggest that you take a look at the Auto Pilot feature in one of the upcoming releases.
The most common player advice about AP is "don't use it" - which should pretty much summarize its role and value in the game.
The current mechanic - dropping players away from the gate, to spend time slowboating in and probably get ganked - doesn't work; it just encourages players to use macros or bots to do a safer series of WTZs.
My suggestion for fixing AP would be simply to make it always WTZ, but add a large penalty to warp speed, ie. using AP is as safe as manual warping, but takes a lot longer to make the same trip.
An easier fix, ofc, would be to just remove AP from the game. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
368
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 00:42:32 -
[54] - Quote
I would like to reiterate what I've said previously about module tiericide. I hope this reaches the right people, as I feel very strongly about this.
Primary This Rifter wrote:No, module tiercide is itself a sound idea. What I'm against is a homogenous naming convention and a reduction in incentives to train for T2 modules.
What I hope to see from module tiercide is an increase in diversity between sub-T2 modules, and in situations where T2 is not necessarily the optimal choice (however as said above, I'd like them to maintain a general superiority over T1 variants). I think armor plates are a good example of the latter concept: T2 armor plates provide the biggest boost to armor HP, but in turn they cost more CPU and PG, and they add more to the mass of the ship.
What also needs to happen is an elimination of scenarios where certain variants are superior in every respect. A lot of modules have this issue with regards to their meta 4 and T2 variants, where every attribute between the two types is the same, except that the meta 4 variant is easier to fit and easier on capacitor. The classic argument is that this is fine because T2 modules can be manufactured whereas meta 4 modules are acquired from rat loot drops. In a scenario where the supply of meta 4 modules is limited then it makes sense to use the T2 variant, but in practice this rarely happens.
My biggest concern though is how much immersion is lost if everything has "ample" or "compact" or "polarized" variants. Now I'm not saying that "Quad LiF Fueled Booster Rockets" was a particularly informative name, but it could have been given a name that retained some of its original flavor more than "Prototype 100MN Microwarpdrive I".
Alt of [redacted on advice from a reputable internet spaceships lawyer]
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1160
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:36:21 -
[55] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote: looks like the result of malnutrition throughout childhood.
You are describing the caracal in general here. I like it's concept, but it's extremely skinny looking. I'd like it to be redesigned in a manner in which it has a similar f-zero'ish design, but with a bit more imposing appearance.
Ferox on the other hand looks quite powerful. Could use a couple adjustments but as it is I like the ferox's appearance more than the drake.
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
543
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 01:46:47 -
[56] - Quote
With regards to Module Tiericide, T2 modules NOT be the baseline for rebalancing modules and ships.
T2 modules are currently OP, too easy to fit, and too cheap. Only rarely will you see anyone post a ship fit which doesn't fit T2-only; and I don't think I've seen a T1-only fit in years, outside of RvB.
In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera.
And, fitting T2-only should be much more difficult, or even impossible, for the majority of ships. After ship tiericide, fitting T2-only became quite easy for most ships, even without implants or maxed skills. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1160
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:12:09 -
[57] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:With regards to Module Tiericide, T2 modules NOT be the baseline for rebalancing modules and ships.
T2 modules are currently OP, too easy to fit, and too cheap. Only rarely will you see anyone post a ship fit which doesn't fit T2-only; and I don't think I've seen a T1-only fit in years, outside of RvB.
In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera.
And, fitting T2-only should be much more difficult, or even impossible, for the majority of ships. After ship tiericide, fitting T2-only became quite easy for most ships, even without implants or maxed skills.
They do have drawbacks, they burn out faster than T1 modules when utilizing overheating.
They are also supposed to be more powerful in general due to additional skill requirements. I believe this is perfectly fair.
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
TheSmokingHertog
TALIBAN EXPRESS
271
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:31:54 -
[58] - Quote
This seems to be a very neat package.
Though give some love to the Economy related Enablers please, the Contracts Update Feedback thread tells a lot about committed people who want to have some love, so does the MD little things thread. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1800
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 02:34:00 -
[59] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:With regards to Module Tiericide, T2 modules NOT be the baseline for rebalancing modules and ships.
T2 modules are currently OP, too easy to fit, and too cheap. Only rarely will you see anyone post a ship fit which doesn't fit T2-only; and I don't think I've seen a T1-only fit in years, outside of RvB.
In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera.
And, fitting T2-only should be much more difficult, or even impossible, for the majority of ships. After ship tiericide, fitting T2-only became quite easy for most ships, even without implants or maxed skills. Please T2 fit your ships with 0 skills. If someone trains their fitting skills they deserve to be able to T2 fit their ships. Also try fitting T2 everything without using the cheapest T2 options and you will run into issues. There are a LOT of modules out there with fairly steep fitting requirements. That, or you fly AC Minmatar ships only and wonder why other people have fitting issues. |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 03:06:26 -
[60] - Quote
Now that the first round of module tiericide has been out for a while, are we going to see any metrics (usage statistics, market figures, that sort of thing) on whether it's been a success from CCP's perspective?
Your spirit is the true shield.
|
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance
7635
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 03:47:07 -
[61] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:since coming on board. well as no one else has said it yet,
welcome aboard
i like your direct tone.
o7
"I'm also quite confident that you are laughing
and it's the kind of laugh that gives normal people shivers."
=]I[=
|
Essack Leadae
Core Industry. Circle-Of-Two
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:27:06 -
[62] - Quote
One question related to the team retiring, just to be sure because I already expect a yes :
Does it mean that any already paid team will disappear too the january 13th ?
I just want to be sure that I shouldn't buy new ones from now...
To be honest, removing them is a very bad move in my opinion, as they just require a small amount of love like : - Secret bidding to avoid sniping - Better teams for stuff like crystals for exemple (2.5% of material reduction means nothing for them) - And very important, a small GUI correction too : I know that there are some players who didn't realize than click on the "Team Chartering" words at the bottom of the industry window would give access to the bidding section, even in my corp...
The related topic about the team subject contains interesting feedback, it is a shame that you don't try two or three months with some of them if they don't require too much code maintenance. I mean, the industry revamp will become nearly nothing apart a GUI (good btw, but with few bugs) and a cost index tax who will be impossible to contain with the team retiring.
Another question : can we have few visual themes who aren't dark, please ?
Removing obsolete signature... You just lost time to read that =)
|
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF
440
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 04:44:17 -
[63] - Quote
Normally I'm not one to enjoy the look of gallente cruisers since ick, frogs, but WOW that exeq looks nice. I can really see it shining on the exeq navy issue; looking forward to seeing more pretty ships in the WZ to shoot at.
ALSO I'm disappointed to see people still complaining about 'focusing' on the art department instead of doing things for mining. They are a completely separate team doing completely different things, geniuses; no resources or time is being 'diverted' towards one or the other, features just go out when they're ready. |
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
521
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 05:34:50 -
[64] - Quote
I don't think the Exequror redesign is an improvement. The ship didn't need a redesign in my opinion. It is currently kind of cute and retro. Take the Event Horizon, build it out of 60s car parts, and stick it in a wacky comic book universe. That is the Exequror. It has character. The redesign looses the sexiness and becomes more straight and brick-like. The same fate befell the Megathron. Is there a reason for removing the organic gracefulness of Gallente ships?
The new stubby Manticore-esque wings also do it no favors. Neither do the two satellite dishes that give it the appearance of ears from the front.
All the Exequror needed was a few more divisions in the cylinders to smooth out the geometry. Also some smoothing of the exposed wires on the underbelly. Though I don't understand why so many EVE ships have exposed wiring to begin with. I guess that is one positive to the new design, the wires are gone. But instead of retaining the smooth shape down there it is now straight. Meh. |
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Cynosural Field Theory.
1162
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 06:10:30 -
[65] - Quote
Unezka Turigahl wrote:I don't think the Exequror redesign is an improvement. The ship didn't need a redesign in my opinion. It is currently kind of cute and retro. Take the Event Horizon, build it out of 60s car parts, and stick it in a wacky comic book universe. That is the Exequror. It has character. The redesign looses the sexiness and becomes more straight and brick-like. The same fate befell the Megathron. Is there a reason for removing the organic gracefulness of Gallente ships?
The new stubby Manticore-esque wings also do it no favors. Neither do the two satellite dishes that give it the appearance of ears from the front.
All the Exequror needed was a few more divisions in the cylinders to smooth out the geometry. Also some smoothing of the exposed wires on the underbelly. Though I don't understand why so many EVE ships have exposed wiring to begin with. I guess that is one positive to the new design, the wires are gone. But instead of retaining the smooth shape down there it is now straight. Meh.
I think it looks great. Looks more like a ship that would do logistics and less of a joke. Most of the logistics ships have the appearance of a lame duck, like they couldn't damage or do anything of use. This redesign makes it look more like a repairer ship and less like a joke.
I also like the embracement of the original design.
TunDraGon Director ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~
Youtube ~ Join Us
My ship fits
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27904
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 06:14:18 -
[66] - Quote
A drake change is going to make me sad. I'm already sad about it, actually.
:-(
CCP all will be right with the world if I can have more Kaalakiota versions of things. Kaalakiota.Everything. :-)
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4155
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:35:47 -
[67] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
IMO this is a high priority.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
COMM4NDER
Legendary Umbrellas
153
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:43:27 -
[68] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future. IMO this is a high priority. Think Corp/Alliance and Sov & structures changes are really more of a priority.
[url=https://github.com/CommanderAlchemy/.bin/blob/master/eve] EVE - Online Launcher [Linux] [/url]
Installs, launches character prefixes (both SISI & Tranquility).
Simplescreenrecorder shm inject
|
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
1527
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 08:52:24 -
[69] - Quote
Callic Veratar wrote:Fonac wrote:The fact that you're using ressources on doing artwork for the mining belts, can only mean that you're currently not working on improving this aspect with things like ring mining and the likes... This saddens me abit. Well, it can only mean that if you assume that the environmental artists are the ones developing ring mining game play. Or that ring mining has even been mentioned on the road map since Seagull took over. Ring and comet mining were ideas that were floated in the past with no clear game play or reason behind then. We'd need a reason to include new resource harvesting that isn't present right now otherwise it's an alternate source of existing minerals, gas, or ice (or some combination there of) that doesn't really add anything new that's interesting.
Reason where there enough like, making mining a group/corp thing and removing the extraordinary boredom out of mining.
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
262
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 09:32:06 -
[70] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Re: Module Tiericide
I'm hoping that this round will remember to include T1 modules - addressing their relative uselessness (except as a component to build the T2 versions), due to (a) weaker stats across the board compared to metas, and (b) typically higher cost as compared to low, and sometimes even high, metas.
Metas for most modules are simply too plentiful, due to high NPC drop rates, and too cheap, since the lower bound on their value is usually determined by the reprocessing value (which dropped by 50% during the reprocessing changes and made things even worse). The build cost of T1 modules typically exceeds the reprocessing value of metas - thus the T1 price is usually higher, as a result.
Because of this, there is no reason to use, or build, most T1 modules.
Module Tieiricde is the right time and place to fix this problem, and make T1 modules and T1 module manufacturing (aka noob manufacturing) a part of the game again.
Note 1: MAPCs are a good example of how to do it right, although the T1 build cost could be lowered somewhat, relative to the T2 build cost. Metas should always be rare, and thus more expensive - used only when a tight fit or extra oomph justifies the higher cost.
Note 2: Cargo Scanners a good example of how to do it WRONG. Enduring Cargo Scanners are always better than T1 versions, and usually cheaper, due to abundant (over)supply. There isn't any reason to use the T1 version.
The solution to this is simple and trivial to implement- remove meta drops from hisec and sov null. |
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:15:20 -
[71] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote: In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera.
Primary This Rifter wrote:What I hope to see from module tiercide is an increase in diversity between sub-T2 modules, and in situations where T2 is not necessarily the optimal choice (however as said above, I'd like them to maintain a general superiority over T1 variants). ... My biggest concern though is how much immersion is lost if everything has "ample" or "compact" or "polarized" variants.
With this round of module tiericide we haven't touched the overall balance of the modules by too much, since most of them were in a good place already. With that being said, in general T2 modules should have the most powerful effects (not including storyline, faction and officer modules) but also the largest skill and fitting requirements. Conversely, the new 'Basic' variants have much lower skill and fitting requirements and much weaker effects. T1 is your basic, and the named modules are between T1 and T2 in power and fitting, with their own niche specializations. We applied this reasoning to as many module types as we could without breaking existing economies or causing other issues.
As for naming, we've changed our policy on naming based on the feedback from you guys. Personally, I think it strikes a good combination between flavour and function now.
We'll be putting up a dev blog about the next module tiericide round early next week, which will have much more information. Right now we're shooting for Tuesday.
Ralph King-Griffin wrote: well as no one else has said it yet,
welcome aboard
i like your direct tone.
o7
Thanks :) It's a blast working at CCP. o7 |
|
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5598
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:31:14 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future. I do applaud that. As long as 'visceral' does not translate into 'loot sew'. And I would guess Sovereignty is in more of a need for a ground breaking overhaul than mining at the moment. So one step at a time, I guess. And no silly walks!
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
987
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 11:55:59 -
[73] - Quote
Well CCP is taking care of the crappiest looking ships upfront, so the ferox is up there, probably the cyclone too.
The rest of the cruisers look good but I do have a issue with the vexor (need to be purdyer). My own personal opinion though.
Exeq looks great. Onie looks good too.
Yaay!!!!
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
987
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:03:23 -
[74] - Quote
Abrazzar wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future. I do applaud that. As long as 'visceral' does not translate into 'loot sew'. And I would guess Sovereignty is in more of a need for a ground breaking overhaul than mining at the moment. So one step at a time, I guess. And no silly walks!
I'm pretty sure they are going to input a targeting game into mining, you succeed you get higher ore value. You don't want to do the game, collect Low ore, do the game, upgraded ore for temporary time.
That's my guess.
Yaay!!!!
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
889
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:05:32 -
[75] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Oh my gourd! Beccy, look at Oneiros It is so symmetrical It looks like one of those GǪ Star Citizen ships Who understands Star Citizen?
They only fly it because it looks so clich+¬, okay? I mean GǪ Oneiros is just so GǪ straight I can't believe it's just so symmetrical It's out there I mean GǪ *phah* GǪ gross!
It's just so-áGǪ-áboring.
(with apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot, and the art team)
This so much.
Please stop removing the special EVE look and feel with every hull upgrade. EVE is on it's way to look like just any other IP out on the market.
Remove insurance.
This thread is the reason, why CCP should stop advertising any aspect of EVE PvE
|
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1231
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:10:18 -
[76] - Quote
Wow.
Nice work on music!
The way you guys set up the Exequror diagram is pretty cool. What's the purpose of the alignable warp propulsion engines?
Also, the rock fragments being added to asteroid belts won't be collidable will they?
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
Oraac Ensor
592
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:19:44 -
[77] - Quote
Maul555 wrote:STOP!!!! Stop eliminating unsymetrical hulls from this game!!! you have hit the exequor with a FUGLY stick... scrap this abomination please! This was one of my favorite ships... Its now moving to one of my most hated.... I like the new Exequror hull because it tidies up the look of the ship quite neatly while paying homage to its ancestry by remaining asymmetric. |
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending Sindication
52
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 12:23:39 -
[78] - Quote
Quote: Combat Recon Ships Undetectable by Directional Scanning
Combat recon ships will be impossible to detect with directional scans and bonuses and attributes will be looked over for all 8 Force and Combat Recon ships. For more details and to provide feedback, take a look at this thread: Recon Ships
What in the name of flying ****?! Whose idea was that ****?! It may be a funny gimmick in k-space, where you have other ways of intel, but in w-space? Seriously? Cloaks aren't good enough anymore or what?
VETO! |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1064
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 13:32:34 -
[79] - Quote
T2 lml's are too good they basically obsolete all the meta's by having all their specialisations and then some.. the point should be too offer different options throughout not upto T2 then T2 is always better
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.
|
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF
441
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 14:02:46 -
[80] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:T2 lml's are too good they basically obsolete all the meta's by having all their specialisations and then some.. the point should be too offer different options throughout not upto T2 then T2 is always better I'm going to have to lay that particular opinion down to rest as it is flatly untrue.
Compact light missile launchers have proven to be revolutionary in fitting in lowsec combat, specifically FW. The SIGNIFICANTLY lower cpu reqs allow for far more fitting options than you would otherwise have on ships with tight room, and the reason why the compact micros remain at such a premium even over the navy faction variants isn't due to lack of supply by any means.
Generally t2 carriers a hefty premium over its meta counterparts; this is especially true with weapons certainly, but the offset of higher fitting reqs and capacitor balance it out quite handily; the Crow is an excellent example of this since after the pass over it can't actually fit a full rack of t2 launchers and anything resembling a tank without serious skills and gimping its potential speed by loading up on fitting implants and rigs. A full rack of compact lights work wonders on the crow, corax, or even the kestrel to a certain extent. It's just not very visible now due to the lack of 'rebalanced' modules and weapons currently out. Light missiles being the only ones, and they have done very nicely. |
|
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF
441
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 14:08:12 -
[81] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Vic Vorlon wrote:And....sold all my meta 4 Aoede mining laser upgrades. Phew! Those are become faction modules with the same drop rate as before. Mining Laser Upgrades are not changing as much as some of the other module types when it comes to merging named modules. There will be more info out about the changes very soon. So question here...if hull and prop upgrades like overdrives and nanos use no pg or cpu, what exactly will be unique about cleaning up the meta with them? will they just have intermediate stats or will you be changing the mods themselves in some way? |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
249
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 16:22:42 -
[82] - Quote
The poll part about starbases is compounded to the point, where picking any choice just does not answer the question.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
---áHarlan Ellison
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
227
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 16:32:24 -
[83] - Quote
Rain6637 wrote:Hey. This is important. The Exeq looks amazing, but now the pace of things has me worried you're going to touch the Caracal or Merlin. Or the Drake. However, please do touch the Ferox vigorously... it is very face-heavy and its hind quarters look like the result of malnutrition throughout childhood. Can we agree the only issue with the Merlin is the thing that right-handed turrets do when they're mounted on the left? ( something k8 and I noticed while discussing the visual updates on Sisi)
Do you have problems with your eye sight? Have you not zoomed in on the Drake since PBR an seen the painted on parts that should be 3D but are just a painted image? Almost all Caldari ships need an update on their design.
Look at the Drake from the front left or right side towards the back. Look at the panels on the side towards the front of the hull. Look from the side then rotate camera. You'll see what I mean. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
938
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 17:51:58 -
[84] - Quote
that video really blows and is totally misleading. recommend something good next time. |
Sabrina Scatterbrain
United Souls Research And Development
21
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 18:31:18 -
[85] - Quote
Recons not on D-scan? So what you're saying is that you want wormhole space to be a bloodbath for a week and then completely dead? |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
7445
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 19:31:07 -
[86] - Quote
Great job with Oneiros CCP. It is now not skewed, I suppose some bloody galentean drunken facility crew has been fired. Time for Imicus.
Don't look any further for negative energy, you will find it by being lazy.
|
Oraac Ensor
592
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 20:13:34 -
[87] - Quote
Quote:A few more things may make it into the release, keep an eye out for the Patch Notes in January for the full set of changes. Like the new Dominix hull, maybe?
Or the new hulls for the Atron, Imicus and Navitas that were show at Fanfest 2-+ years ago? Only the new Tristan shown with them has so far materialised.
How is it that revised hulls like the Incursus and Exequror arrive out of the blue with no prior hint of their existence, and yet items shown at Fanfest are still missing years down the line?
|
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 20:13:56 -
[88] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:Harvey James wrote:T2 lml's are too good they basically obsolete all the meta's by having all their specialisations and then some.. the point should be too offer different options throughout not upto T2 then T2 is always better I'm going to have to lay that particular opinion down to rest as it is flatly untrue. Compact light missile launchers have proven to be revolutionary in fitting in lowsec combat, specifically FW. The SIGNIFICANTLY lower cpu reqs allow for far more fitting options than you would otherwise have on ships with tight room, and the reason why the compact micros remain at such a premium even over the navy faction variants isn't due to lack of supply by any means. Generally t2 carriers a hefty premium over its meta counterparts; this is especially true with weapons certainly, but the offset of higher fitting reqs and capacitor balance it out quite handily; the Crow is an excellent example of this since after the pass over it can't actually fit a full rack of t2 launchers and anything resembling a tank without serious skills and gimping its potential speed by loading up on fitting implants and rigs. A full rack of compact lights work wonders on the crow, corax, or even the kestrel to a certain extent. It's just not very visible now due to the lack of 'rebalanced' modules and weapons currently out. Light missiles being the only ones, and they have done very nicely. Would you say, then, that the compact LMLs have become the new Arbalests, just with better fitting stats? If that is the case, then all that the rebalancing has achieved is the replacement of one obvious t1 choice with another. Is this what the the tiericide was meant to do?
Your spirit is the true shield.
|
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
67
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 21:19:56 -
[89] - Quote
Catherine Laartii wrote:So question here...if hull and prop upgrades like overdrives and nanos use no pg or cpu, what exactly will be unique about cleaning up the meta with them? will they just have intermediate stats or will you be changing the mods themselves in some way? The named modules in these categories are almost all being combined into a single module. This module has intermediate stats between the T1 and T2 variants and usually of the Restrained type, meaning the module drawbacks are not as severe. |
|
Catherine Laartii
Dominion Fleet Group Templis CALSF
441
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 21:40:16 -
[90] - Quote
Morihei Akachi wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:Harvey James wrote:T2 lml's are too good they basically obsolete all the meta's by having all their specialisations and then some.. the point should be too offer different options throughout not upto T2 then T2 is always better I'm going to have to lay that particular opinion down to rest as it is flatly untrue. Compact light missile launchers have proven to be revolutionary in fitting in lowsec combat, specifically FW. The SIGNIFICANTLY lower cpu reqs allow for far more fitting options than you would otherwise have on ships with tight room, and the reason why the compact micros remain at such a premium even over the navy faction variants isn't due to lack of supply by any means. Generally t2 carriers a hefty premium over its meta counterparts; this is especially true with weapons certainly, but the offset of higher fitting reqs and capacitor balance it out quite handily; the Crow is an excellent example of this since after the pass over it can't actually fit a full rack of t2 launchers and anything resembling a tank without serious skills and gimping its potential speed by loading up on fitting implants and rigs. A full rack of compact lights work wonders on the crow, corax, or even the kestrel to a certain extent. It's just not very visible now due to the lack of 'rebalanced' modules and weapons currently out. Light missiles being the only ones, and they have done very nicely. Would you say, then, that the compact LMLs have become the new Arbalests, just with better fitting stats? If that is the case, then all that the rebalancing has achieved is the replacement of one obvious t1 choice with another. Is this what the the tiericide was meant to do? I would not say they've become the new arbalests as their RoF is significantly less than the previous meta 4. The bonus, though is that in addition to being quite a bit more affordable, the 'flavor' of compact and ample works well in relation to the previous meta, which scaled up from something useless to something absurdly expensive. Tiercide in this case was 'meant' to clean up underused and useless modules and fix drop rates for them to help with balancing use with distribution.
Here's an even better example: Ballistic Control Systems. Along with damage controls, Ballistic Control Systems have the distinction of being absurdly overpriced for literally no benefit; all the meta launchers have less damage output than the t2 and only one has less CPU (39 to be exact). While there is probably some issue with how they drop, it doesn't reflect well. While people can pay a premium for faction, deadspace and officer modules, the same should NOT be applying to meta-level items. The end hope with module tiercide for many mission remains to be balancing the loot table so the stuff dropped is actually something marginally useful instead of a giant pile of junk that's either sold for basically nothing, and for the people fitting them, not having half or more of the meta items in the variants you're using be useless, laughably expensive, or some combination of the two. |
|
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
331
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 22:34:12 -
[91] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Sizeof Void wrote: In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera. With this round of module tiericide we haven't touched the overall balance of the modules by too much, since most of them were in a good place already. With that being said, in general T2 modules should have the most powerful effects (not including storyline, faction and officer modules) but also the largest skill and fitting requirements. Conversely, the new 'Basic' variants have much lower skill and fitting requirements and much weaker effects. T1 is your basic, and the named modules are between T1 and T2 in power and fitting, with their own niche specializations. We applied this reasoning to as many module types as we could without breaking existing economies or causing other issues.
So with the obvious skill requirements, I still do not see people use meta as much. I posted this in the past and I still think it should be the case:
on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the best Tech 1 (meta zero): average all bonuses from the mod end up about a 3 Tech 2: average of all bonuses end up at 4, with fitting being a 1 or 2 (hard to fit) Tech 1 ( 0 < meta): all bonuses average a 2 but the primary bonus (say range or tracking) is a 5.
The bonus of a meta mod is higher than a T2 but all other stats would be reduced to below T1 standards. |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
129
|
Posted - 2014.12.20 23:02:53 -
[92] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right?
Your spirit is the true shield.
|
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
263
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:17:03 -
[93] - Quote
Looks like another awesome patch, looking forward to the Exeq!
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
544
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:18:00 -
[94] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Catherine Laartii wrote:So question here...if hull and prop upgrades like overdrives and nanos use no pg or cpu, what exactly will be unique about cleaning up the meta with them? will they just have intermediate stats or will you be changing the mods themselves in some way? The named modules in these categories are almost all being combined into a single module. This module has intermediate stats between the T1 and T2 variants and usually of the Restrained type, meaning the module drawbacks are not as severe. Kudos to you for participating in the forums, Terminus.
With regards to module tiericide, please don't forget that it isn't only about merging metas and tweaking stats. You also need to rebalance the module economics by looking at the BPO build cost for the T1 version, particularly relative to the reprocessing value of the metas and their drop rate from NPC wrecks. Most of those build numbers have not been tweaked since the modules were first introduced into the game.
You also need to look at the in-game supply of the metas and adjust the NPC drop rate accordingly. In most cases, when you combine all of the metas into a single meta module, it will result in a large market surplus of that combined module. Esp. if the NPCs continue to drop them at the rate of the low metas. This tends to push the price of metas down to their reprocessing value, which is always lower than the T1 build cost, since the 50-55% change to reprocessing.
Keep in mind that if the metas have better stats, identical skill requirements, plenty of supply and lower price, then the T1 versions have no place in the game.
And, thanks for reading and responding - it is greatly appreciated by all. |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
987
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:24:38 -
[95] - Quote
Let's go through what we got. Recons finally getting rebalanced, every other hull except t3's And black ops have been touched (in regards to subcaps).
The d3's are the test for the t3's and I know they need more review.
If there was a review round to be done on ships, I would take a second look at assault frigates because interceptors have blurred the line so much, they are a bit difficult to distinguish. I think they all need a second look to determine whether they are all where they should be at. Some are ok, some people don't bother with.
The arbitrator needs a second and third look at. Both a model revamp and a stat review (and this actually looks like a good ship already).
The vexor needs a model "update". It looks good, just needs to have it really bling itself vs just looking like a petite potato.
The ferox needs a total model revamp, but it is a decent ship, it just looks like crap (just my opinion but it looks like garbage)
The cyclone also falls into this area. It probably just needs a model revamp.
Regarding the combat recons and their dscan immunity, these ships now have a purpose, a role, and something that isn't "cloak", but might as well be. Combat probe scans will be much more viable, and the d3's now have a primary target to kill.
Looking good so far.
Yaay!!!!
|
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
7447
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:34:02 -
[96] - Quote
Quote:The vexor needs a model "update". It looks good, just needs to have it really bling itself vs just looking like a petite potato. It have ugly part of texture in the upper front. That is my only issue with it, for the model I can't complain, As my first character was Gallente, I really wanted to fly it because it looked badass.
Don't look any further for negative energy, you will find it by being lazy.
|
novasux
Nex Exercitus Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 00:37:41 -
[97] - Quote
i know this is probably is long shot but is it possible to have a patch that actually fixes something in the game instead of breaking it or making it worse. the force projection changes had some interesting effects on capitals but some massive down sides to black ops. their pretty much useless at this point. maybe instead of making hulls look better and recons not visible to d scan witch is stupid to begin with. perhaps this is the intent of ccp to drive the players away that have played this game since day one and bring in more people who play for a month or to and then go away.
im sorry if i come across as a bitter old vet stuck in my old ways but when i have a dozen accounts sitting idle and theirs no use for them i get bitter. short of rolling my supers through gates just to get killed by Ishtars theirs not much left in this game..
thank you ccp for yet another useless patch
sincerely the bitter old vets |
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4166
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 03:22:09 -
[98] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:...With that being said, in general T2 modules should have the most powerful effects (not including storyline, faction and officer modules) but also the largest skill and fitting requirements. Conversely, the new 'Basic' variants have much lower skill and fitting requirements and much weaker effects. T1 is your basic, and the named modules are between T1 and T2 in power and fitting, with their own niche specializations. We applied this reasoning to as many module types as we could without breaking existing economies or causing other issues.
I don't see the reasoning for this, as meta modules are considerably more difficult to acquire in quantity than tech 2 ones.
Consider Light Neutron Blaster II, a module that is considerably better than all of the meta variants. I could produce a thousand of them in a week on just this character, logging on less than twice a day. There's probably a quarter million or more of them produced each week gamewide. On the flip side, judging from the market statistics, the meta 4 version, Modal Light Neutron Particle Accelerator I, probably only enters the game at a rate of a few thousand per week gamewide.
The scramble by the Goons to keep alliance-level stockpiles of Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I at the beginning of the Halloween War added a lot to the game, IMO, and I say that as someone whose only interaction with that market was as a trader seeking to exploit the Goons' desperation to get them.
Had Remote Sensor Disruptor II been the overall superior choice, the Goons would have had a more steady supply of their new weapon of choice, and the market waves wouldn't have reverberated through highsec the same way.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Midnight Hope
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
153
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 04:03:43 -
[99] - Quote
Not looking forward to this one.
First, and hot on the heels of the senseless Incursus redesign comes the redesign of my all-time favorite ship in eve. There are so many ugly ships in EVE you keep messing with the Gallente ones. If you want to redesign a Gallente ship go with the Celestis.
Second, let's break EVE completely and unbalance it by making recons invisible to d-scan.
Very dissapointed. |
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
5627
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 05:47:40 -
[100] - Quote
Morihei Akachi wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right?
"Dear newbies GǪ despite their name, the Hobbled Overdrive Injector System is actually better than the basic Overdrive Injector System I."
(Elements of this story have been exaggerated for dramatic effect)
Day 0 Advice for New Players
|
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
545
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 10:13:46 -
[101] - Quote
Can we also get the annoying fade up, fade down, fade up, fade down, fade up, ad nauseam effect removed from window backgrounds in Proteus, if not much, much sooner?
Every time you switch window focus, or have a popup window appear, this effect happens and it really causes eye strain when working with a lot of windows, such as when you are updating a lot of market orders. I feel like I'm watching an old CRT monitor which has a seriously bad phosphor persistence problem.
At the very least, add an option to disable it.
Thank you.
And, yes, I've posted this same request in the other forum threads, but no one from CCP appears to have read it yet, since this simple-to-fix UI bug has not yet been fixed. |
Cpt Gini Seal
Cosmic-General-Company
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 11:27:34 -
[102] - Quote
Deutscher Text steht unten an
If even the Corps to be revised , then I would have some suggestions:
1. Money transfer to the main account should also be simplified for the members here , which means that you can transfer money from his account. What my Noobs only about detours is possible!
2. Hangar sale permit , I've Equipment , Skills , and ships are for Noobs in my hangar and must take everything into their own hands if I want to sell it to them. Why not just allow the corp hangar , as a sale , just for the Corp ?
Can sort or classify 3. Hangar better, the seven main hangars, should be able to be classified under way , according to need , we have a lot of stuff lying on station and tens of thousands of containers where everything is in it!
4. Pos: Pers+¦nhnliche hangars should be appreciated as well as the station hangars members , whenever I need to break down what I destroy one probably unintentionally something , one probably should also be possible that you can remove the stuff out of the hangar as a package as CEO and the Members may determine as contractual .
5. mailing system , one probably should be revised times so you can for example set instances to write mail to the entire Corp 's easy. But one probably should not consider a title related mailings.
6. revise the entire Corp. system , my director for the Corp has made to award the title , had already complete a half EVE - study so that we at all times by a look which had for what items are fixed . Where are the Info button , dammit. And please no official German course when it comes . We do not want to study play !
7. Corp Logo , the possibility also upload their own thing ? nothing against the kits but they are probably a bit poor . Then you could make a lot more drau+ƒ if you sometimes can even ran .
8. Colors of vessels can be one probably a color designer to create? For example, the ships Corp uniformly plate? must not be much yes, STO can design all compatible with each other .
so that it was only once , as far as I think.
Wenn schon die Corps ++berarbeitet werden, dann h+ñtte ich noch einige Vorschl+ñge :
1. Geld auf das Hauptkonto ++berweisen, sollte hier auch f++r die Member vereinfacht werden, das hei+ƒt das man von seinen Konto aus ++berweisen kann. Was f++r meine Noobs nur ++ber umwege m+¦glich ist!
2. Hangar verkauf erm+¦glichen, ich habe Ausr++stung, Skills und Schiffe f++r meine Noobs im Hangar liegen und mu+ƒ alles in die Hand nehmen wenn ich es ihnen verkaufen will. Warum nicht direkt vom Corphangar, als verkauf, nur f++r die Corp erm+¦glichen?
3. Hangar besser sortieren oder einteilen k+¦nnen, die sieben Haupthangars, sollten nach M+¦glichkeit gegliedert werden k+¦nnen, je nach Bedarf haben wir viel Zeug auf Station liegen und zig tausend Container wo alles drin liegt!
4. Pos : Pers+¦nhnliche Hangars sollten genauso einzusehen sein wie die Stationshangars der Member, wenn ich mal was abbauen muss, zerst+¦re ich vllt ungewollt etwas, vllt sollte auch die M+¦glichkeit bestehen das man als CEO das Zeug aus dem Hangar als Paket entfernen kann und dem Member als Vertrag zustellen kann.
5. Mailling System, sollten vllt mal ++berarbeitet werden damit man zum Beispiel Instanzen setzen kann, Post an die gesamte Corp zu schreiben ist ja einfach. Aber vllt sollte man noch eine Titel bezogene Postsendungen erw+ñgen.
6. Das gesamte Corpsystem ++berarbeiten, mein Direktor f++r die Corp der die Titelvergabe gemacht hat, mu+ƒte schon ein halbes EVE-Studium absolvieren damit wir ++berhaupt mal einen durchblick hatten f++r was welche festen Titel sind. Wo sind die Info-Buttons, verdammt. Und bitte verst+ñndlich kein Beamtendeutsch wenn es geht. Wir wollen spielen nicht studieren!
7. Corp-Logo, besteht die M+¦glichkeit auch was eigenes hochzuladen? nichts gegen die Baus+ñtze aber die sind ja wohl etwas d++rftig. Da k+¦nnte man viel mehr drau+ƒ machen wenn man auch mal selbst ran kann.
8. Farben der Schiffe, kann man vllt ein Farbdesigner erstellen? Um z.B. die Corpschiffe einheitlich zu Kennzeichen? mu+ƒ ja nicht viel sein, bei STO kann man ganze Design aufeinander abstimmen.
so das war es erst mal, soweit denke ich. |
|
CCP Terminus
C C P C C P Alliance
72
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 15:48:09 -
[103] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Morihei Akachi wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right? "Dear newbies GǪ despite their name, the Hobbled Overdrive Injector System is actually better than the basic Overdrive Injector System I." (Elements of this story have been exaggerated for dramatic effect) So as stated earlier we've revised the naming system taking your guy feedback into account. More specifically the naming style will now consist of three parts [flavour] [specialization] [module type]. So you will see Restrained modules, but they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors for example. This will also be retroactively applied to modules which lost their flavour names in the last tiericide pass so everything should be consistent.
There will be a dev blog out about the module tiericide most likely on Tuesday. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
943
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 17:35:57 -
[104] - Quote
when are you going to do modules that actually matter? |
Arronicus
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
1421
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 18:16:27 -
[105] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
I really hope this doesn't mean changing our ability to mine as a relaxed activity where intel, scouting, and logistics are the mainstay of the workload, into some high activity operation that favours the wants of those who don't actualy mine now. Unless of course your intent is to completely destroy the economy with massive mineral shortages due to all the current miners unsubbing, and those who cry for something different failing to pick up more than a fraction of the slack.
If you're talking about ADDING new ways to mine, or new stuff to mine, like moving moongoo into an actively mined item (PLEASE THIS), sure, just don't wreck the playstyle of many of us who like it how it is now. |
Morihei Akachi
Nishida Corporation
132
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 18:55:26 -
[106] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors GǪ (I'll save the long version for the dev blog.)
Your spirit is the true shield.
|
Justin Zaine
The Scope Gallente Federation
109
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 19:54:07 -
[107] - Quote
Really loving all the new ship models coming out lately CCP, good work on the Exequeror.
Now please redesign the Celestis, it looks like a green piece of **** and I don't want to be embarrassed taking it out in public after these upcoming recon changes. |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1665
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 19:56:05 -
[108] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors GǪ Excellent - nicely balances simplification with flavour and lore. The best solution I think.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
skandra Kishunuba
Perkone Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2014.12.21 21:05:46 -
[109] - Quote
No mention of revisiting the UI changes made in the last patch.
Is this something that is going to be looked at or are people with issues just going to be ignored? |
Angmar Udate
16
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 09:10:01 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Seagull wrote:.. We are doing design work and preparing for big changes to structures overall in EVE--including structures involved in sovereignty mechanics. As input into that work, we are running a survey on structure related gameplay in EVE, including a number of questions around sovereignty structures and gameplay. Please give your thoughts and perspective by participating here: http://structures.questionpro.com..
In de survey there is talk about
Quote: Starbase management Outpost deployment Outpost upgrading Outpost Management
As a player in null I know about POS (player owned structures or starbases) and Stations (technically outposts). What is what? Is my assumption that outposts refer to stations and starbase to POS correct? Why are there three separate options for one and just one option for the other? Typically a very small player group deals with managing and building outposts or stations. I imagine a bit of a larger group deals with POSses. Is directing these questions at the general EVE public effective? |
|
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
65
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 18:06:30 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
It's to be hoped CCP redact the travel nerfs or they will have precious few players left willing to play, takes so much time now just moving around or moving anything around that they often as not run out of play time, 4 jumps to Empire will now consume over a full hour of game time jst spinning in stations waiting for timers to run down, for someone who's time online is limited this is unacceptable, result they do not engage with those activities.
Similar with people simply moving around a region, using JB's to reduce travel time and increase security for there expensive assets is now something they rarely consider doing, instead they remain locked into single systems with vast areas under utilized that were once thriving with players, now there all turtled up in one place unable to move for fear of catching ''SPACE AIDS'' crippling there ability to travel in Alliance fleets at a later time.
Sorry guys but you really screwed the pooch on that one, less time on looking more un-required changes, lot more time looking at the ramifications of what you just did to the game, for most it,s not been good. |
SFM Hobb3s
Wrecking Shots Black Legion.
249
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 19:06:32 -
[112] - Quote
Then there's lots of folks like me who love the Jump Fatigue changes, it is a necessary evil...and one of many needed steps to a newer, more vibrant Nullsec. Hopefully CCP's occupational sov rings the Death Bells for coalitions, because if CCP really wants to see an environment where new entities can stake a claim in space, they are going to have to roll a hard six.
And while I would like to see coalitions die, the objective CCP really needs is to implement a system where they are just plain irrelevant. Forced localisation will mean that systems will only be held by whatever local inhabitants live and defend there. It must be quick and easy to conquer systems, and just as quick and easy to take them back. It must be so easy to do, that if an aggressing force wants to take and hold a system, they have to actually stay there or risk losing it almost immediately. |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty. Circle-Of-Two
5226
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 21:31:13 -
[113] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:It's to be hoped CCP redact the travel nerfs or they will have precious few players left willing to play, Except you're in a vanishingly tiny minority of players that actually dislike the changes. Everything I've seen on the forums is people celebrating the changes wildly and a few people upset about them because probably spells the beginning of the end for cluster-spanning coalitions.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
548
|
Posted - 2014.12.22 22:49:26 -
[114] - Quote
The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics:
1) Bouncing ships: simply put, when ships collide with each other, or with other objects, they look like balloons or toys. Breaks the illusion of massive starships for me every time.
2) Lots of ships undocking from station at same time: interpenetrating and bouncing ship models look completely unrealistic.
For (1), I'd like to see something more realistic - an image of a Nyx crashing into a station comes to mind. Ships should take massive damage when colliding, with appropriate explosion effects. However, if this is simply too complicated to implement, or would excessively unbalance the game, then I'd at least suggest that ships always veer off from hitting other objects, rather than bouncing off of them.
For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station. |
Justin Zaine
The Scope Gallente Federation
110
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 04:26:05 -
[115] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics:
1) Bouncing ships: simply put, when ships collide with each other, or with other objects, they look like balloons or toys. Breaks the illusion of massive starships for me every time.
2) Lots of ships undocking from station at same time: interpenetrating and bouncing ship models look completely unrealistic.
For (1), I'd like to see something more realistic - an image of a Nyx crashing into a station comes to mind. Ships should take massive damage when colliding, with appropriate explosion effects. However, if this is simply too complicated to implement, or would excessively unbalance the game, then I'd at least suggest that ships always veer off from hitting other objects, rather than bouncing off of them.
For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station.
1. It's a game
2. It's a game
3. You realize that we warp through planets, that our ships somehow turn and maneuver with only one point of thrust, that celestials don't have orbits and so on?
4. This would be interesting but would never be able to be done. Would also bring new meaning to the phrase "Don't bump the ******* titan." |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
548
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 05:08:23 -
[116] - Quote
Justin Zaine wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:The ongoing improvements to the ship graphics may make them look more real, but this realism is ruined by two old mechanics... 1. It's a game True enough - sometimes the "realism" in EVE Online does reminds me of Minecraft... lol. |
Andreus Ixiris
Duty. Circle-Of-Two
5229
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 10:00:24 -
[117] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:For (2), I suggest making the undock portals much larger, to allow ships to undock without intersecting each other or colliding - with a corresponding increase in the size of the stations, if necessary. Also, there could always be more than one undock portal from a station. There are already several stations that very clearly have multiple docking ports, although some of them are very large and look like they could (or were, in fact, meant to) house freighters or capital ships.
Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.
Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.
Andreus Ixiris > ...
Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
|
Vala Ancalagon
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:30:00 -
[118] - Quote
I don't like the new Exeq model, it lacks the un-symmetric aspects that made the original so interesting. It lacks that organic feel of Gallente ships. And it simply looks like a Caldari vessel now. =( |
Niraia
Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory.
272
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:16:52 -
[119] - Quote
It would be fun if we could choose which language Aura uses, regardless of the language setting :)
Niraia
EVE Online Hold'Em
|
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
427
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:49:23 -
[120] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness
Yes, symmetry must stop.
Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
|
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
550
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 02:56:17 -
[121] - Quote
Sable Moran wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness Yes, symmetry must stop. Symmetry is cheaper to render.
A bilateral symmetric 3D model requires 1/2 the geometry and 1/2 the texture map of an asymmetric 3D model. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:20:10 -
[122] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Sable Moran wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness Yes, symmetry must stop. Symmetry is cheaper to render. A bilateral symmetric 3D model requires 1/2 the geometry and 1/2 the texture map of an asymmetric 3D model. So what happens when they aren't actually completely bilaterally symmetrical as is the case with the new Execquror? |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
550
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:29:50 -
[123] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Sable Moran wrote:Sarmatiko wrote:ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness Yes, symmetry must stop. Symmetry is cheaper to render. A bilateral symmetric 3D model requires 1/2 the geometry and 1/2 the texture map of an asymmetric 3D model. So what happens when they aren't actually completely bilaterally symmetrical as is the case with the new Exequror? Less efficient, ofc.
There are a number of shader & rendering tricks, though, which can make a model appear asymmetric, yet still benefit from the savings of symmetric geometry and texture maps. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1355
|
Posted - 2014.12.24 03:35:57 -
[124] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Less efficient, ofc.
There are a number of shader & rendering tricks, though, which can make a model appear asymmetric, yet still benefit from the savings of symmetric geometry and texture maps. That calls the motive into question as the same tactics could be applied to old models as well. But the real test would be finding these half models/textures and the asymmetrical "parts" in the client files. To my knowledge this hasn't been done despite some models being found of asymmetrical ships not too long ago.
I'm not saying it isn't possible, but that evidence doesn't support the reasoning unless I'm missing something. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
555
|
Posted - 2014.12.25 23:34:07 -
[125] - Quote
A suggestion for a future release, one which should help clean up the database:
1) Remove all POSes, which have been unfueled for a year or more. 2) Remove the assets of all unsubbed players, who have been unsubbed for a year or more. 3) Dissolve all corps, whose members have been unsubbed for a year or more, and remove the corp's assets.
This can be scheduled to begin relatively far off in the future, such as next December, so that no one will have any reason to complain. And, a list of the affected assets can be saved, with the names of the players and/or corps, so that returning players can always petition for a reimbursement for, or replacement of, those assets - again, so there will be no reason for anyone to complain.
A more entertaining alternative to simply removing the assets may be to jettision them into space, as a jetcan free-for-all. In the case of POSes, they can simply be unanchored - letting anyone scoop them up.
I'm sure that the EVE database, like most databases which have been running for years, is pretty cluttered with entries which are rarely, if ever, accessed. Removing these entries should significantly improve the performance of the database, and the lists of those removed assets, and their owners, can be kept offline, if the need to restore them ever occurs.
And, writing a SQL script to do this is pretty easy - not more than a few hours of work, at most. It is certainly cheaper, too, than upgrading the servers or adding more, and more, disk drives. |
Fujiko MaXjolt
ACME HARDWARE
17
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 15:15:54 -
[126] - Quote
I really, really, REALLY hope you guys will rethink the combat recon rebalance. The problem isn't so much them being immune to d-scan, as it is the combination of that and them basically being a HAC landing on your grid that you can't detect. At least the force recons are fairly flimsy and easy to kill (in exchange for their immunity to d-scan in the form of cloaking).
Or allow us to fit a module to allow our d-scan to detect them at least... On that note, maybe even a module to extend your d-scan range - possibly at the cost of resolution (being able to tell ship-type) ? |
Sol Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
1305
|
Posted - 2014.12.27 23:29:06 -
[127] - Quote
Copypasting my response from a different thread here.
Seems slightly off, but fits just fine.
Quote:I don't know what people would usually expect from me regarding this topic ... ... but there is not a shadow of a doubt that this is a seriously ****** up change that makes no sense in actual ingame reality.
Yes, "new player friendly" corporations get awoxxed ... and they do that rightfully so!
Because they are crap.
Unless CCP creates a few dozen alts ... ... and starts checking out all these crappy corps ... ... and then comes to a proper conclusion ... ... any proposed change based on "data" is simply bullshit.
If the Minutes actually have anything relevant to actual reality (= what actually really happens ingame) ... ... then please point me to a page so I can read it up.
Everything else is just crap and bullshit. Most "new player friendly corps" out there get killed off for the simple reason that they are not doing anyone any good. It makes NO sense at all to remove the mechanic just because some people get killed inside the corp.
If the CEO isn't smart enough to keep his people together, safe or gather them up to fight the awoxxer, then it's not the fault of the mechanic! And no ******* one can tell me that a bunch of noobs couldn't properly deal with an awoxxer. Put ten noobs in frigates with a proper FC and they kick ass.
Most "new player friendly" corps out there are only about dicksizes. How many members the CEOs can gather. Carebear CEOs.
This is what it's really about, because no one who is actually worth running such a corp would whine about awoxxers or would be unable to get his people together and fight whatever threat there is!
Only carebears whine about this. If CCP caters to these people then ooohhh boooyyy good night EVE ONLINE, because we will see an influx of horrible losers this game will not survive in the long run! These people will shape the future of this game, because they have power over new players!
It's bad enough with all the assholes in rookiecorps telling people to mine or run missions.
With such a change it will only get WORSE!
I said it before, I am saying it again:
The whole issue has NOTHING to do with game mechanics and is ALL about social engineering!
Ladies of New Eden YC 117 Calendar by Indahmawar Fazmarai
Warning: NSFW! Barely legal girls in underwear!
|
Estella Osoka
Perkone Caldari State
522
|
Posted - 2014.12.29 18:17:50 -
[128] - Quote
When is the next Tactical Destroyer being released? |
Arsine Mayhem
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
385
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 15:48:19 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in. With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.
Even considerably reducing the cycle time of mining modules would help reduce the mind numbing operation of mining.
I mean what is it, 3 minutes? I haven't mind in a long time and don't plan to any time soon, but omg, 3 minutes? What were you thinking. |
J A Aloysiusz
Precision Strike Brigade Easily Excited
96
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 23:35:04 -
[130] - Quote
If we're not getting the next tactical destroyer in proteus, could we at least get the tactical destroyer skill books, so we're ready to rock when the others come out? |
|
Rain6637
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29224
|
Posted - 2015.01.02 14:40:33 -
[131] - Quote
nice. I like the macross look
President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Twitter |-ámk.III | Imgur
| Evening Games Club: Casino concept redefined |
|
Cpt Gini Seal
Cosmic-General-Company
2
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 20:46:25 -
[132] - Quote
Here a little Update from a Player
If even the Corps to be revised, then I would have some suggestions: Maybe you get sometimes a response from the concerned personnel who read these ideas forward, or perhaps even a comment would be nice.
1. Corp: transfer money to the main account should also be simplified for the members here, that is that you can transfer money from his account. What my Noobs only about detours is possible! Example: Corp looking at the bar / click, click Corp_logo, a new window opens Search Corp name and next click on the info button, then click in the new window at the top left on the 4 strokes, giving money .... far too cumbersome in my opinion
Currently: Awkward on the way as described above or the CEO and directors, which unnecessarily forces back and forth the money! Constant check whether the payments comply with the goods issues !!! We want to play !!!
2. Station : enable station hangar sale, I've Equipment, Skills, and ships are for Noobs in my hangar and must take everything into their own hands if I want to sell it to them. Why not just allow the corp hangar, as a sale, just for the Corp? Saves the director responsible a lot of work to spend and what the terms flying back and forth! If any members that need and every 5 minutes from the pretty annoying!
3. Station: can sort or classify hangar better, the seven main hangars, should be able to be classified under way, according to need, we have a lot of stuff lying on station and tens of thousands of containers where everything is in it! The hangar, with different benenn ble Labels share that one example Skills and blueprints can be distributed in the related subcategories.
4. Position: Personal hangars should be appreciated as well as the station hangar of the members, if I do have to break down what I destroy one probably unintentionally something, one probably should also be possible that you can remove the stuff out of the hangar as a package as CEO and the Members may determine as contractual.
5. EVE-Mail: mailing system, one probably should be revised times so you can for example set instances, post is to write to the entire Corp. yes easy. But one probably should not consider a title related mailings. Post only for directors, post only for the CEO / Co-CEO
6. Corp: The entire system Corp revise my Director of the Corp has made to award the title, had already complete a half EVE-study so that we at all times a clear view of what had what items are fixed. Where are the Info button, dammit. And please no official German course when it comes. We do not want to study play!
7. Corp: Corp Logo, the possibility also upload their own thing? nothing against the kits but they are probably a bit poor. Then you could make a lot more drau+ƒ if you sometimes can even ran. Or, more options give the designs as a shield crest quarters can (4 elements in a choice), allow color coding (instead of just the 16 color standard), may be allowed to integrate what itself (self-created graphics upload as with alliances),
8. Ship Designs: Colors of ships, one probably can create a color designer? For example, the ships Corp uniformly plate? must not be much yes, STO can design all compatible with each other.
9. Corp: Adjust the Auto-discharge. This means that you can set periods in which players Corp be removed. (Member XY is for 2 months without apology Offline, kick) (Member YX is for 2 months with apologies offline, remains) Save-time on the part of the directors and CEO who want to keep their Corp clean.
so that it was only once, as far as I think. |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
48
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 00:55:04 -
[133] - Quote
CCP Terminus wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:Morihei Akachi wrote:CCP Terminus wrote:GǪ usually of the Restrained type GǪ But you're not going call them that, right? "Dear newbies GǪ despite their name, the Hobbled Overdrive Injector System is actually better than the basic Overdrive Injector System I." (Elements of this story have been exaggerated for dramatic effect) So as stated earlier we've revised the naming system taking everyone's feedback into account. More specifically the naming style will now consist of three parts [flavour] [specialization] [module type]. So you will see Restrained modules, but they'll be Type-D Restrained Overdrive Injectors for example. This will also be retroactively applied to modules which lost their flavour names in the last tiericide pass so everything should be consistent. Also note this naming scheme is only for the named modules (meta 1-4), we aren't touching the other names. There will be a dev blog out about the module tiericide most likely on Tuesday. But what I have never understood, what part of the game's lore is "Type-D"... I mean really, most of these names are just extra descriptors with no understandable or stated tie to anything about the Eve universe. And I'd rather not have to deal with hundreds or thousands of modules that have short/long sentences for names when 2-3 words would be more than sufficient.
People keep complaining about the lore, please tell me, what do any of those descriptors have anything to do with lore? And ships have lore too, but you don't see something called Type-D Scoped Megathron... instead you get a tab that has the history and lore of the ship, why not the same for modules with a more simplistic and understandable abbreviated naming convention and then a separate area to spell out legitimate lore for a module past Type-D or EP-S Gaussian, as by itself just clutters the module name lists. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
563
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 01:52:04 -
[134] - Quote
Since SP clones are gone, and since the risk vs. reward of high-sec ganking is ridiculously now in favor of the reward, I'd like to suggest that pods of outlaws (-5 sec status or lower) become valid free-for-all high-sec targets, with no sec status penalties for shooting them.
Gotta keep that risk vs reward thing balanced.... :) |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
59
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 02:17:40 -
[135] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Since SP clones are gone, and since the risk vs. reward of high-sec ganking is ridiculously now in favor of the reward, I'd like to suggest that pods of outlaws (-5 sec status or lower) become valid free-for-all high-sec targets, with no sec status penalties for shooting them. You haven't actually tried this in game did you? Because anyone -5 is free to shoot anywhere in hisec, but like you said, they have little risk as they are usually in a cheap dessie, noobship, or a pod. So shooting them is of extremely non-incentived, at most if you catch one you might inconvenience them a couple minutes. |
Jed Clampett
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
38
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 13:16:51 -
[136] - Quote
Structure survey sucked big time. The survey was unfortunately written in a way where many questions are understandable only to CCP and CSM insiders who have a common understanding based on a very long discussion history of these topics. Sometimes the survey creator just goes too far in use of vagueness as a quick way to pursuit neutrality between choices.
EVE players in general do not know which concepts/implementations have already been depreciated by the development team and CSM as less practical or undesirable. Survey takers might confuse rejected ideas with ideas still under consideration due to seeming similar in many aspects prior to critical analysis. Its clear that the survey creator forgets at times that the general EVE population does not know what the final candidate choices are and how those choices are named.
A lot of vagueness came from undefined terminology that is not yet very standardized across EVE. Survey takers were left to take their own uninformed guess as to what terminology meant. The survey needed a Wiki dictionary link to nail down the fine but critical points of each term or to use an introductory paragraph before question in lieu of undefined shorthand terms. In fact some terms might still be fairly unique to CCP and CSM insiders who have been evolving shorthand for repeated CONFIDENTIAL discussions on certain topics.
CONCLUSION: Future surveys need quality assurance testing before release. Two or three levels of critique by someone other than the team insiders and survey creator. All testing should attempt to ensure clarity to someone new to the discussion / choices. The last step should presenting the survey to a small cross-section group of players -- ones not working with CSM.
Obviously even the best survey will have many subtleties that are not going to be clear to noobs or those who never play that aspect of EVE. But simply never having discussed the topic with GMs or reading 100% of the forums every day should not be a bar to those who do use those aspects of EVE. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
564
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 22:20:15 -
[137] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Since SP clones are gone, and since the risk vs. reward of high-sec ganking is ridiculously now in favor of the reward, I'd like to suggest that pods of outlaws (-5 sec status or lower) become valid free-for-all high-sec targets, with no sec status penalties for shooting them. You haven't actually tried this in game did you? Because anyone -5 is free to shoot anywhere in hisec, but like you said, they have little risk as they are usually in a cheap dessie, noobship, or a pod. So shooting them is of extremely non-incentived, at most if you catch one you might inconvenience them a couple minutes. You can shoot their ship, without a sec status penalty, but not their pod. |
Oraac Ensor
598
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 01:16:14 -
[138] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Dangeresque Too wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Since SP clones are gone, and since the risk vs. reward of high-sec ganking is ridiculously now in favor of the reward, I'd like to suggest that pods of outlaws (-5 sec status or lower) become valid free-for-all high-sec targets, with no sec status penalties for shooting them. You haven't actually tried this in game did you? Because anyone -5 is free to shoot anywhere in hisec, but like you said, they have little risk as they are usually in a cheap dessie, noobship, or a pod. So shooting them is of extremely non-incentived, at most if you catch one you might inconvenience them a couple minutes. You can shoot their ship, without a sec status penalty, but not their pod.
Evelopedia wrote:The penalties for pod killing are suitably harsh for the effect it can have on the victim pilot. The security penalties are very steep in high security and low security space. However, there is no security penalty for destroying pods belonging to a war target or to an outlaw (a player with -5 security rating or less), nor to players in 0.0 and Wormhole Space. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
564
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 01:50:24 -
[139] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Evelopedia wrote:The penalties for pod killing are suitably harsh for the effect it can have on the victim pilot. The security penalties are very steep in high security and low security space. However, there is no security penalty for destroying pods belonging to a war target or to an outlaw (a player with -5 security rating or less), nor to players in 0.0 and Wormhole Space. Hmm, thanks for pointing me to this... maybe I'll give it a try and see what actually happens. I've been operating under a misconception and letting those red pods go free for years... how embarassing... :)
Unfortunately, though, it also says:
Evelopedia wrote:Warning: Killing capsules of members who belong to NPC corporations can cause large standings penalties with those corporations, even if the person you attacked was an outlaw or otherwise legal to engage at the time. Duels are included in this. So, I may have gotten this mixed up with sec status.
New recommendation: Remove *all* penalties for killing red pods! |
Oraac Ensor
598
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 02:24:21 -
[140] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Evelopedia wrote:Warning: Killing capsules of members who belong to NPC corporations can cause large standings penalties with those corporations, even if the person you attacked was an outlaw or otherwise legal to engage at the time. Duels are included in this. Yeah, I got caught with that one.
I spent weeks trying to figure out why my Gallente main's standing with the Center for Advanced Studies had taken a sudden nose-dive.
Then I discovered that rule and realised I had repeatedly blown up and podded one of their members who had been misbehaving. |
|
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
564
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 02:31:30 -
[141] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Evelopedia wrote:Warning: Killing capsules of members who belong to NPC corporations can cause large standings penalties with those corporations, even if the person you attacked was an outlaw or otherwise legal to engage at the time. Duels are included in this. Yeah, I got caught with that one. I spent weeks trying to figure out why my Gallente main's standing with the Center for Advanced Studies had taken a sudden nose-dive. Then I discovered that rule and realised I had repeatedly blown up and podded one of their members who had been misbehaving. Yeah, that doesn't make sense to me.
Outlaws should not be able to join empire NPC corps - only pirate NPC corps. |
Oraac Ensor
598
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 03:07:50 -
[142] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Outlaws should not be able to join empire NPC corps - only pirate NPC corps. You don't get a choice of NPC corps - you can only ever be in one of two possibilities, both based on your bloodline. You either stay in your starter corp, as this guy did, or you go into your default NPC corp, always the same one, when you drop out of a player corp. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
564
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 04:11:34 -
[143] - Quote
Oraac Ensor wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Outlaws should not be able to join empire NPC corps - only pirate NPC corps. You don't get a choice of NPC corps - you can only ever be in one of two possibilities, both based on your bloodline. You either stay in your starter corp, as this guy did, or you go into your default NPC corp, always the same one, when you drop out of a player corp. Yeah, I know. But, CCP should change this old and obsolete game mechanic. |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
66
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:09:46 -
[144] - Quote
I'll add that to the ever getting longer list of non-incentives for players to handle crimewatch and policing of criminals and suspects... you know, cause the butthurt gankers always say that carebears should fight back, even though it actually costs the gankers no real losses, and infact costs the carebears standings penalties. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
566
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 19:55:43 -
[145] - Quote
Dangeresque Too wrote:I'll add that to the ever getting longer list of non-incentives for players to handle crimewatch and policing of criminals and suspects... you know, cause the butthurt gankers always say that carebears should fight back, even though it actually costs the gankers no real losses, and infact costs the carebears standings penalties. Well, I don't care so much about carebears fighting back against gankers - that is an old and tired argument.
However, I would like to see better incentives - and no silly penalties - for those of us who would like to do more bounty hunting in high-sec. Needing to grind back that NPC standing, if you pod an outlaw, or sec status, if you pod someone who isn't quite yet an outlaw, just isn't worth it.
Also, if you have neg sec status, there *has* to be more risk in flying around in high-sec, otherwise, what's the point in ever worrying about it? Just remove sec status from the game, then no one needs to hassle with it anymore.
And, no, the current penalties for neg sec status are not enough. Most -10.0 players just laugh at them and find them to be completely ineffecitve. Faction navies? Give me a break. Their stats have never been improved, and ship tieiricide has made it virtually impossible for them to kill anyone, who isn't flying around AFK or on AP.
And, I hate the fact that you can't pop the non-outlaw alts of an outlaw, like that big fat Orca that is dumping out his ships. That also makes no sense. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
6129
|
Posted - 2015.01.11 19:38:08 -
[146] - Quote
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Will the Redesigned Exequror Hull have moving parts ?
Yes, of course! If you'd like an advanced peek I have put together an overview of the Proteus release in High Def. here:
PROTEUS, CHANGES INBOUND: EVE Online
View the latest EVE Online developments and War Thunder game play by visiting Ranger 1 Presents.
|
Skalle Pande
Teknisk Forlag
89
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 00:21:50 -
[147] - Quote
Hmm - just read the patch notes for Proteus. Nothing there about Industry Teams being removed. An oversight, or a last-minute reversal of plans? |
Dangeresque Too
Pistols for Pandas
68
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 02:26:40 -
[148] - Quote
They weren't part of proteus, but were done in between, jan 1st they died. |
Sissy Fuzz
Sissy Fuzz Communications
26
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 18:17:16 -
[149] - Quote
Sarmatiko wrote:Akrasjel Lanate wrote:Will the Redesigned Exequror Hull have moving parts ? Yes. Those "alignable warp propulsion engines" move up when you warp. ps: CCP please stop this symmetry madness
This.
What is the problem, CCP? Why does everything have to be dumbed down in EVE? So now asymmetry is too hard to grasp for the 15-year old grinders? Before that it was the very very complicated missile names. Or scanning. Or.... Or what is the angle here? It is so f immature.
When you kill the Arazu I suggest you study the Ford Fiesta for some nice design details that I think you will appreciate. Like the Ford Fiesta also the Arazu has to operate in an atmosphere which, as anyone will know, is the primary constraint dictating symmetry in various crafts.
|
Oraac Ensor
600
|
Posted - 2015.01.12 22:21:37 -
[150] - Quote
Sissy Fuzz wrote:So now asymmetry is too hard to grasp for the 15-year old grinders? Even if it is, CCP are clearly disregarding it as far as the new Exequror hull is concerned. |
|
ramblin rodriguez
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.13 01:48:41 -
[151] - Quote
Thx Rise, for give every soloplayer the middlefinger,with this unessary D-scan invul |
Adunh Slavy
1605
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 02:59:37 -
[152] - Quote
Don't see much with regards to belts, yes I checked the setting in graphics settings. Just some light dust. Missing something?
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.-á-á- William Pitt
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
4756
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 03:04:33 -
[153] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Don't see much with regards to belts, yes I checked the setting in graphics settings. Just some light dust. Missing something?
Did you move to a new belt, after turning the option on?
Woo! CSM 9!
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |