|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 02:50:43 -
[1] - Quote
Good changes -- I'm mostly in favor of them. I am concerned about the knock-on effects regarding un-probe-able ships, however. How concerned about them I am depends on whether or not a Rokh can hit a tengu, which is something I'm too lazy to check right now. :V
Offgrid boosters that can't be probed down except by heavily bonused and implanted covops ships are also a problem, but it is common knowledge that this won't be handled until the Destiny rewrite is finished, so I guess we have to suffer with it for now.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 03:02:25 -
[2] - Quote
Random unsolicited, unread probing suggestion:
Make how hard a thing is to probe a function of strictly signature radius. Use sensor strength to affect how long it takes to actually act upon the results.
This would turn probing into a two-pass process: the initial probe scan would reveal the targets. However, for 100% results, the result would not be immediately actionable. For 100% results, a timer bar would automatically tick down a delay based on the ratio of sensor strength to signature radius of the target. Once the timer bar elapsed, the probe result would be eligible for warping.
(This could be implemented by sending a timestamp along with the probe results, describing the earliest time the 100% result was actionable. UI fanciness could dress this up with the delay bar/etc.)
The idea here is to make ECCM still affect how difficult it is to be probed, without turning it into an essentially binary toggle on whether one can feasibly probe you down or not.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:40:29 -
[3] - Quote
Naglerr wrote: By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.
Adapt.
Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:41:25 -
[4] - Quote
Vanilla Mooses wrote:Dearest CCP:
You have 18 pages of (with very few exceptions) players from all walks of EVE telling you this is a awful idea.
So?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:43:19 -
[5] - Quote
Youmu Konbaku wrote:This changed is the most stupid ideapÇé If you make this change, I will unsubscribe, because you are no longer selling a product I am interested in purchasing. This is a poor way to influence game design decisions. Holding your subscription hostage has, historically, never produced results.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:51:36 -
[6] - Quote
Louanne Barros wrote:SilentAsTheGrave wrote: Your point?
My point is that "Warping yourself or warping to Wwwww's in fleet" is not a replacement for fleet warp, as it does not synchronize the arrival of your ships. It's so unhelpful for the task that I'm grinning at the absurdity of him suggesting it. It appears you'll simply have to work around the fact that ships warp at different speeds.
Also, remember that warp speed is a ship stat that can be modified. I, personally, enjoy having it as high as is practical.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:56:24 -
[7] - Quote
Naglerr wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote: By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.
Adapt. Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter. I would be perfectly happy to adapt to a mechanic that has at least some positive impact. This change is one that simply makes more burdensome the same tasks I've previously had to complete in order to earn kills. I guess I'm just not understanding how literally removing functionality from a product is supposed to make it more appealing to the customers of said product. Can you explain that one to me Querns? This change has plenty of positive impact -- it severely diminishes the efficacy of bombers, whose omnipresence choked off available fleet comps to those that could either not be caught, or had small enough signature radii to shrug off bombing runs. Assuming workarounds are not found, we could see the resurgence of shield doctrines for subcaps. This returns a whole host of ships to combat effectiveness, which, to me, is a win.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:03:12 -
[8] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote: By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.
Adapt. Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter. Oh shut up. This is a line of utter BS and you know it. People shouldn't be punished for CCP's constant grid issues. There's been dozens of times where you land off grid, out of place, out of position from a target. Mere seconds are what count in these types of positioning and execution. As any FC worth their salt. It's yet again another account some poor bastard has to log in just to try and maintain some sort of fleet cohesion with constant grid issues. There's no "Grandmaster" difficultly level for putting up with terrible game mechanics and half baked ideas. Go tout more H1Z1 advertising and leave Eve to the rest of us who give a ****. Nice, a pithy throwaway line at the end. This is sure to increase the level of discourse!
It's a little amusing to me that you see the change and immediately think, "aw man, now the FC has to multibox MORE accounts!" Did you consider delegating tasks to others? The FC doesn't have to be the only decision maker in the fleet.
Also, if we're going to sink to the level of dragging in the alliance membership into the conversation -- consider that my alliance is generally considered to have the lowest skill level possible, when considering line members of fleets. As such, we can be said to rely on the FC far more than any other group in the game. Yet, all of the thought leaders of Goonswarm Federation are unilaterally in support of the change. Curious...
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:08:30 -
[9] - Quote
Naglerr wrote: So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?
No.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:09:22 -
[10] - Quote
Agama Tissant wrote:Started with jump fatigue, then fozziesov, now ... no more fleet warps. Updating EVE is a good thing, but radically changing the way we play within our fleets is very WRONG! Quote: Q: CCP, why you do this? A: We want transfer more responsibility for the success of a fleet from its FC to its members.
Actually it's more than just changing the way we play, is just about FORCING us to play as you developers want to ... in a sandbox game! I'll unsubscribe 3 accounts if this gets implemented, this is way too much ! "Sandbox" does not mean the thing you think it means.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:15:56 -
[11] - Quote
Naglerr wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote: So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?
No. Please elaborate. If I were assigned to nerf bombers I would start with a hull bonus: Can not receive fleet warps. Please explain how this is a worse idea than removing fleet warps from all ships. Nah. You asked for a positive aspect to the fleet warp change, and I supplied it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:17:39 -
[12] - Quote
Vanilla Mooses wrote:Querns wrote:Vanilla Mooses wrote:Dearest CCP:
You have 18 pages of (with very few exceptions) players from all walks of EVE telling you this is a awful idea.
So? I believe I answered your question in the rest of my post. You should try reading it. I don't need to -- this line invalidates any potential point you could have made by dint of it being a completely specious argument towards reversing a change.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:22:23 -
[13] - Quote
Tara Read wrote: There's a difference between having 10000 F1 monkeys and a delegated few in small gang pvp to take on roles. The application of these ideas is foolish. It's another burden on small gang and core content creators. So again I call utter BS. Funny how you say "adapt" yet tout that the role can easily be passed on to other players.
Are you going to fill that role? Are you going to step up and be designated tackle *****? And when you fail and when you screw up a fleet position due to grid issues what then? I seriously doubt you'd fill this role. But for sake of argument I'll entertain the thought of some poor sap getting his ass chewed on TS for screwing the pooch due to these changes.
Don't use the word "content" in this way when referring to Eve. It's a terrible mental shortcut that strips entire layers of player interaction away, leaving behind a pile of monkey filth.
Adaptation to the change can mean learning to delegate tasks. Passing the role to another player does not somehow castrate the meaning of the term.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:25:38 -
[14] - Quote
Naglerr wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote: So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?
No. Please elaborate. If I were assigned to nerf bombers I would start with a hull bonus: Can not receive fleet warps. Please explain how this is a worse idea than removing fleet warps from all ships. Nah. You asked for a positive aspect to the fleet warp change, and I supplied it. So now that I ask a question that you don't have an answer to that suits your narrative you decide to bow out? Thank you for reinforcing my point that this change is a very poor way of achieving the desired effect, both in end result effect to bombers and to end result effect to all other ship types this nerf was apparently not intended for. I have an answer -- a good way to nerf bombers is to remove fleet warp to bookmarks and probe results. If you don't agree, that is fine, but I'm not going to entertain your tangent when there's no point to doing so.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:28:47 -
[15] - Quote
Vanilla Mooses wrote:Querns wrote:Vanilla Mooses wrote:Querns wrote:Vanilla Mooses wrote:Dearest CCP:
You have 18 pages of (with very few exceptions) players from all walks of EVE telling you this is a awful idea.
So? I believe I answered your question in the rest of my post. You should try reading it. I don't need to -- this line invalidates any potential point you could have made by dint of it being a completely specious argument towards reversing a change. When a overwhelming majority of people using a product feel that a proposed change may not be a good idea, it's quite valid to cite popular opinion as a reason to further evaluate the proposed change. Therein lies the problem -- this forum is frequented by a vast, vast, vast minority of the player base. Measuring popularity by forum posts is extremely incorrect, in the most basic way possible. You are citing popular opinion when none actually exists. It's the bulwark of your entire argument and it isn't even right.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:38:16 -
[16] - Quote
Tara Read wrote: I've heard not ONE person praise the icon changes. I've heard not one person like the UI changes. We've endured them because CCP throws them out in patches. And we've continually seen even at the begging of players to give us freedom with ship looks due to the skin bug that CCP is tight fisted as ever clutching every dammed penny since Incarna.
I think the icon changes were alright. They suffer a bit when you do UI scaling, but that can be fixed. Combat roles of ships are pretty easy to tell apart at a glance, and the icon for a cyno is the All-Seeing Eye, which is great.
Throwing out absolutes is a pretty bad way of arguing.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:48:37 -
[17] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote: There's a difference between having 10000 F1 monkeys and a delegated few in small gang pvp to take on roles. The application of these ideas is foolish. It's another burden on small gang and core content creators. So again I call utter BS. Funny how you say "adapt" yet tout that the role can easily be passed on to other players.
Are you going to fill that role? Are you going to step up and be designated tackle *****? And when you fail and when you screw up a fleet position due to grid issues what then? I seriously doubt you'd fill this role. But for sake of argument I'll entertain the thought of some poor sap getting his ass chewed on TS for screwing the pooch due to these changes.
Don't use the word "content" in this way when referring to Eve. It's a terrible mental shortcut that strips entire layers of player interaction away, leaving behind a pile of monkey filth. Adaptation to the change can mean learning to delegate tasks. Passing the role to another player does not somehow castrate the meaning of the term. Delegate how? Please enlighten us on HOW delegating an unbroken mechanic is a GOOD thing. Please show us ALL why these changes are positive. All you are saying is that for the sake of increased effort and annoyance these changes are positive. That's your entire argument. I've given context to several points that are true and backed by CCP's track record. Not to mention the aforementioned negative these changes create toward players wallets, player time, FC time delegation, fleet positioning, target elusion including low sec targets. You delegate the task of creating warp-ins to players in covops or interceptors. See the "I Was There" trailer for a fairly decent dramatization of this oddly foreign concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxSyv4LC1c
The changes may be annoying to you and the crutches upon which you rely to play eve, but they're positive for the game as a whole. Adapt.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:27:33 -
[18] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:You delegate the task of creating warp-ins to players in covops or interceptors. See the "I Was There" trailer for a fairly decent dramatization of this oddly foreign concept: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSxSyv4LC1c The changes may be annoying to you and the crutches upon which you rely to play eve, but they're positive for the game as a whole. Adapt. How exactly is a fleet warp a crutch? Are you saying I am incapable of right clicking a name on my watch list and warping to them at a designated range? Because people do this already. You fail to see the stupidity in these changes because you cannot see the context of the problems they create which are many. Also, if I may I play Eve in many different ways and many different situations. The battlefield and the tactics and strategies therein are fluid and constantly in motion. That's what makes Eve unique and sadly maybe it's only redeeming quality if this trend continues. The unknown. The enigma. The what "if". Every action has a reaction in Eve. Every command, target, fitting, ship, strategy, convo, every detail can have a shift in the outcome of everything from battles to Alliances and Coalitions. Your very own Coalition owes it's successes and rise to power by the actions of one person. So please as someone who has played this game since 2004 do not sit here and lecture me on the virtues and reasons to "adapt." I've been doing it in this game for a long time. You still have failed to give me a reason as to WHY these changes are positive. If you feel another role for a player to field is a potential good thing then come at it from that angle! And while the intention MAY be good. The execution so far has been terrible. IF anything this diminishes a players role: the FC. Or even worse creates an even greater difficulty for FC'a and content creators. The negative implications out weight the good intentions these changes try to instill. That you cannot argue against and that is what over 20 pages of a majority of people here agree upon. There we go with the "majority" thing again. Length of forum thread does not dictate popularity due to the low patronage of the forums. This argument cheapens the position of anyone using it. You've also used the "content" word again, which is another loaded phrase. Thinking of Eve in terms of "content" puts blinkers on your ability to converse.
I've given plenty of positive effects associated with this change -- the castration of the bomber meta, the potential revitalization of shield ships, increased effectiveness of travel interdiction, increased fleet roles for interceptors/covops, a higher skill ceiling for eve. If you don't like any of these, that's fine, but I find them to be overwhelmingly positive.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:28:55 -
[19] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Budrick3 wrote:
Poor attempt at saving face.
Rule of all holes, stop digging when you are in one.
Your embarrassing your alliance, the people that put faith in voting for you, and most of all, your embarrassing yourself.
Does this mean I am not gonna win a popularity contest ? Aww shucks im gutted really. Weren't you elected to instill positive changes for a majority of the Eve Community? Or am I just being fickle thinking the CSM is supposed to do that.... I mean honestly. Didn't you guys take into consideration the myriad of problems this creates for people? Even if the intentions were good, the execution is utterly terrible. I mean really terrible. Can't you guys come up with something better than this? I mean besides terrible icons and super skins for only half the titans at 35 USD a pop.... Your mistake was assuming that the CSM is a widespread popularity contest. Virtually no-one in Eve likes Goonswarm Federation, yet we consistently elect 2 candidates to the CSM. A CSM member who owes his spot to his confederates has little incentive to represent the player base as a whole.
Don't like it? Vote next time.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:33:20 -
[20] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:And then land the capitals and ask themselves why te grid is empty. Your capitals, maybe. Mine warp faster than cruisers.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:36:52 -
[21] - Quote
Kendarr wrote:Also if you want to nerf the speed of bombers bombing, why not just put a huge timers on the bomb launchers or reload time? like 10 mins or something. Bombers are too inexpensive for this to be viable. Use a bomber, then warp to a pos or a cloaked carrier to swap out your bomber for one lacking the reload/activation timer.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:40:27 -
[22] - Quote
Tara Read wrote: So you hate bombers. Gotcha. Jesus Christ that's a lot of words for "I hate being bombed!" And please stop trying to circlejerk yourself with these convoluted paragraphs of buzz words like "content" and "meta". It's beginning to sound like another propaganda Jim Jones cool aide fest that I have no intention of drinking.
If you have issues with bombers why not fix them? Why instead of screwing the pooch with everyone else CCP perhaps place warping or grid restrictions on bombers? Maybe make flying them more niche than making us all suffer for half baked fleet mechanics?
Oh of course. Instead of building a fire to keep the house warm CCP just sets the whole house on fire instead. Typical.
I mean, I'm not a game designer, nor do I work for CCP, so I don't actually fix things. I don't even have a backchannel, nor even reliable access to the ears of a CSM member (for all the good THAT does one.) I just post words in a forum.
Also, you're allowed to use terrible, nuance-destroying buzzwords like "content," but I can't use "meta?"
What you consider "half-baked" I consider "crutch."
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:42:17 -
[23] - Quote
Tara Read wrote: Oh this is just too cute. If this is the fruits of the CSM's labour which is nothing but self posturing and positioning to bend CCP's ear then I have no interest. Period.
It's less that and more "having a group of confederates who will vote for you in excess of the amount of votes garnered by the disenfranchised masses of Eve."
If you don't like the way this works, I strongly encourage you to actually vote next time, as I said before. Otherwise, you lose your purchase towards complaining about it. The CSM does not warp to your whims because you refuse to put forth even a token amount of effort towards changing it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:44:54 -
[24] - Quote
Tara Read wrote: You are the one constantly coming back and trying to twist a Tolkien like description of the meaning meta to say you don't like bombing runs. It's utterly hilarious.
Nah. I just think that with bombers castrated, the major detriments to fielding shield tanked ships are gone. In the current era of Ishtars and Tengus, it's a breath of fresh air.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:50:20 -
[25] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote: Oh this is just too cute. If this is the fruits of the CSM's labour which is nothing but self posturing and positioning to bend CCP's ear then I have no interest. Period.
It's less that and more "having a group of confederates who will vote for you in excess of the amount of votes garnered by the disenfranchised masses of Eve." If you don't like the way this works, I strongly encourage you to actually vote next time, as I said before. Otherwise, you lose your purchase towards complaining about it. The CSM does not warp to your whims because you refuse to put forth even a token amount of effort towards changing it. Token of effort? My dear friend and ignorant bloated bee you've gotten too fat on the sweet honey of complacency! If you'd only gone back a few years ago to the posed gate mechanic changes and sentry proposals to low sec youd see ive been quite active and vocal in the past which resulted in those changes not happening. It doesn't take a CSM vote to make things in New Eden change. Certainly not if it's just the same group of ankle biting pompous self indulged personalities that grace the likes of reddit and failheap. But hey. Typical mindset of the ignorant. If you don't vote for a candidate that doesn't hold your best interests in mind you have no right to complain. Cute. If it doesn't take a CSM vote to make things in New Eden change, then why complain in the first place?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 06:51:18 -
[26] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote: You are the one constantly coming back and trying to twist a Tolkien like description of the meaning meta to say you don't like bombing runs. It's utterly hilarious.
Nah. I just think that with bombers castrated, the major detriments to fielding shield tanked ships are gone. In the current era of Ishtars and Tengus, it's a breath of fresh air. So you want to fly an Ishtar. God I pity you so so much. This is pretty far afield of anything I was actually talking about.
Also, I can fly an ishtar quite competently -- thanks for asking!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:00:17 -
[27] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Because it's under the cheating of Bob and deva that the CSM was formed in the first place. A check and balance system. Now it's as selfish and twisted as anything else in Eve. Sure there's a handful of members who generally care. But there's those few sweet charitable personalities who are only in it for the agenda of their groups they ally with.
Not to hold CCP in check but to bend CCP to the changes THEY want. Case in point. These changes are clearly a vieled nerf to bombers and is just another account for someone to need to run. As an aside, I love the utter helplessness betrayed by this post. The ability to influence the CSM's composition is in the hands of every individual, yet you are pre-abandoning the idea completely in lieu of posting tinfoil-coated nonsense. I'd find it sad if it wasn't so hilarious.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:05:32 -
[28] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote: You are the one constantly coming back and trying to twist a Tolkien like description of the meaning meta to say you don't like bombing runs. It's utterly hilarious.
Nah. I just think that with bombers castrated, the major detriments to fielding shield tanked ships are gone. In the current era of Ishtars and Tengus, it's a breath of fresh air. So you want to fly an Ishtar. God I pity you so so much. This is pretty far afield of anything I was actually talking about. Also, I can fly an ishtar quite competently -- thanks for asking! You complain about adapting and "skill", insult my skill as an Eve player, yet boast about flying an ishtar well. I think I wet myself just now laughing. Again, quite outside anything I was talking about, but, fine, I'll indulge the tangent a bit.
I've never actually undocked in an ishtar! Check my killboard if you don't believe me. For whatever dumb reason, I happen to have Gallente Cruiser, Heavy Assault Ships, and Sentry Drone Operation all at rank five, so if I was so inclined, I feel like I'd operate the ship quite well. Haven't had a reason to do so, however -- Goonswarm Federation, in general, doesn't fly them outside of SIGs.
e: In PVP, anyways -- ishtars are very common PVE ships in Deklein.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:08:05 -
[29] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote: Might I suggest CSM rep if the problem is bombers and combat probes that you adovacte they be fixed and not a normal functiom like fleet warps.
I suppose it never crossed your mind that the intent of restricting fleet warps was multi-faceted in nature. The bomber nerf is only one part. (It does, however, happen to be my favorite part!)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:16:12 -
[30] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:I am a FC I feel no extra weight from this change and if I did. I get volunteers from fleet to help me. That's a terrible excuse Manfred. Come on.... so you expect other FC's to force other people to play fleet jockey or get another account. I rest my case. Far be it from people in the fleet actually having to contribute towards its success.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:20:17 -
[31] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Querns wrote:Miner Hottie wrote: Might I suggest CSM rep if the problem is bombers and combat probes that you adovacte they be fixed and not a normal functiom like fleet warps.
I suppose it never crossed your mind that the intent of restricting fleet warps was multi-faceted in nature. The bomber nerf is only one part. (It does, however, happen to be my favorite part!) Manny said bombers and combat probes are the issue (which I can agree with). So why not apply a change like a 50% reduction in bomb explosion velocity with a small increase in base damage, with a further slow down of the bombs to decrease a bombers effectiveness whilst a base slowing of combat probes scan time. Obviously these things need to be refined. But making bombs apply less damage per sig radius gives shield bs a chance (despite the devs thinking battleships are ok, they are not afaik). Point is nerfing fleet warps to fix another problem breaks other things intentional or not that's not cool if you don't state that is the intended consequence. I'm not entirely sure how it "breaks" things, honestly. Does it make them less convenient? Sure!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:23:38 -
[32] - Quote
The best thing about this thread is that it is basically the Jump Fatigue thread, only in reverse.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:24:59 -
[33] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:
I've never actually undocked in an ishtar! Check my killboard if you don't believe me. For whatever dumb reason, I happen to have Gallente Cruiser, Heavy Assault Ships, and Sentry Drone Operation all at rank five, so if I was so inclined, I feel like I'd operate the ship quite well. Haven't had a reason to do so, however -- Goonswarm Federation, in general, doesn't fly them outside of SIGs.
e: In PVP, anyways -- ishtars are very common PVE ships in Deklein.
So you say these changes will help shield doctrines from bombers... Yet never undocked in an Ishtar before. Okay.... So first you denigrate me for thinking that I fly ishtars, now you denigrate me for not flying an ishtar? I am confused -- which one of these scenarios makes me better at Eve: Online?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:28:54 -
[34] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:I am a FC I feel no extra weight from this change and if I did. I get volunteers from fleet to help me. That's a terrible excuse Manfred. Come on.... so you expect other FC's to force other people to play fleet jockey or get another account. I rest my case. Far be it from people in the fleet actually having to contribute towards its success. Implying you've even undocked and contributed towards something besides being on the ass end of a bombing run. You just stated you've never even undocked in an Ishtar yet speak as if well versed in shield doctrines.... I understand that you are trying to jam the crowbar of EVE SKILL DEFICIENCY into any crack in my rhetoric that you can perceive, but I'm confused as to the point of even bringing it up.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:29:49 -
[35] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote: Immediately below your post quoted here Teh Replika gave you a pretty good example of consequences. Back to my comment why wont someone state what are the other intended consequences of this change?
Pretty much all game changes have consequences. What particular consequence "breaks" the game?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:31:28 -
[36] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:
I've never actually undocked in an ishtar! Check my killboard if you don't believe me. For whatever dumb reason, I happen to have Gallente Cruiser, Heavy Assault Ships, and Sentry Drone Operation all at rank five, so if I was so inclined, I feel like I'd operate the ship quite well. Haven't had a reason to do so, however -- Goonswarm Federation, in general, doesn't fly them outside of SIGs.
e: In PVP, anyways -- ishtars are very common PVE ships in Deklein.
So you say these changes will help shield doctrines from bombers... Yet never undocked in an Ishtar before. Okay.... So first you denigrate me for thinking that I fly ishtars, now you denigrate me for not flying an ishtar? I am confused -- which one of these scenarios makes me better at Eve: Online? You clearly railed me for speaking against the changes, berated my skill as an Eve player because I disagreed and made counter points. Then you boldly made assumptions about shield doctrines and their viability against bombing runs when I clearly stated fix bombers instead of this tripe. And still you went on until you stuck your foot in your mouth about never even undocking in an Ishtar which tells me: You are full of ****. There are other shield ships besides ishtars. I, in particular, am quite chuffed about the potential return of alphafleet and rokhs. These ships were retired from Goonswarm Federation active duty due to their hilarious bomb vulnerability in favor of lower sig, armor tanked ships.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:33:52 -
[37] - Quote
Regardless of your opinion of my ability to play Eve: Online, it's not exactly a mental stretch to say that bombers disproportionately affect shield tanked ships, due to the signature radius penalties associated with shield extenders and core defense field extenders (and other shield rigs.) It's just not that difficult of a concept to wrap your head around.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:41:36 -
[38] - Quote
Additionally, the dual implication that one somehow has no verifiable skill at Eve: Online if they haven't undocked an ishtar, and the denouncement of being an ishtar pilot as requiring no skill leaves me in a well of observed cognitive dissonance so vast and churning that I think I'm getting motion sickness just thinking about it.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:48:05 -
[39] - Quote
Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:Tara Read wrote:Querns wrote:
I've never actually undocked in an ishtar! Check my killboard if you don't believe me. For whatever dumb reason, I happen to have Gallente Cruiser, Heavy Assault Ships, and Sentry Drone Operation all at rank five, so if I was so inclined, I feel like I'd operate the ship quite well. Haven't had a reason to do so, however -- Goonswarm Federation, in general, doesn't fly them outside of SIGs.
e: In PVP, anyways -- ishtars are very common PVE ships in Deklein.
So you say these changes will help shield doctrines from bombers... Yet never undocked in an Ishtar before. Okay.... So first you denigrate me for thinking that I fly ishtars, now you denigrate me for not flying an ishtar? I am confused -- which one of these scenarios makes me better at Eve: Online? You were the one to first berate my skill at this game because I simply disagreed and gave counter points. Now you don't want to play this little game anymore? Point taken. No -- feel free to try that crowbar as much as you want. If you're going to do it, however, do it in a way that doesn't immediately contradict itself by implying that both flying and not flying the ship in question betrays one's lack of skill; it tends to work a little more effectively.
Also, I just told you to adapt to a post-fleet warp world. Everyone has to do this; it isn't really a personal attack.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:49:06 -
[40] - Quote
Miner Hottie wrote:Querns wrote:Miner Hottie wrote: Immediately below your post quoted here Teh Replika gave you a pretty good example of consequences. Back to my comment why wont someone state what are the other intended consequences of this change?
Pretty much all game changes have consequences. What particular consequence "breaks" the game? Large wormhole groups can absorb the cost of a suicide warpin for a fight, sucks to be that guy but whatever. Smaller groups cannot. Therefore they are forced to amalgamate or not play. You need to be a large wormhole group to afford interceptors?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 07:55:38 -
[41] - Quote
Manfred Sideous wrote:Kendarr wrote:I see that Manfred Sideous has companioned this change as CSM and now no one likes it he is seriously butt hurt. Confirming. Please someone confirm this confirmation. Confirmed. Enjoy being a soldier of Christ.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1709
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 13:34:21 -
[42] - Quote
The number of people decrying the fate of the SMALL GANG is reaching "think of the children" proportions.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1712
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 14:59:30 -
[43] - Quote
Leeluvv wrote:baltec1 wrote:So use a warp speed rigged cov-ops or interceptor. So you want your probing ship to potentially have no probing bonus and no probing rigs? I'm sure the number of Hard To Probe ratting fits you waddle upon on a daily basis is staggering.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 15:52:15 -
[44] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I guess I just don't understand what this goal achieves: Quote: The goal of these changes is to encourage more individual fleet member participation and reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets (e.g bombers)
Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't create more engagement. Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change any imbalances or fleet metas Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change anything of any other relevance other than to add annoyance to almost everyone in game. Besides, if the goal is JUST to reduce speed of fleet to target, then why not just make all ships in fleet warp fly at a given slow speed like 1AU a sec... It would be really helpful if when you talk about changes you talk about why you have your goal and what the end game actually is. I daresay their opinion is that combat probing allows fleets to engage too quickly. You're falling into the trap of commoditizing Eve gameplay under the monkey filth that is the contemporary use of the word "content."
Also, reducing the power of bombers almost certainly will allow the fleet meta to shift, as fleet meta is currently dominated by ships whose vulnerability to bombs is at a minimum.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 15:56:40 -
[45] - Quote
Ralen Zateki wrote:Soldarius wrote:36 pages of tears... well done. My tear cup runneth over.
The fix is simple: have someone in a covops ships warp first, then FC (or individual members, or wing commanders) warps fleet to them. Fixed.
Such a simple solution. Eve is not dying. Fleet combat is not dead. Almost nothing to see here. Carry on. Why are we fixing and solving what previously was a non issue? And I agree, your solution will be what we need to do, so yea whatever but.... I suspect most of the time the warp in is gonna be a dual boxing FC alt...which is just going to be another layer of **** to manage. My objection is more aimed at where did this change come from and why is CCP spending resources on an at best inconvenience item that isn't going to add do much to achieve the intent? Especially as other issues go unresolved, and Fozzie doc has not yet been implemented (and afaik they've yet to. Resolve the implementation of flexible time zone options) I mean, if you're going to start messing with core systems like fleet mechanics isn't that worth a more thought out debate over a bit of time?
Please refrain from using specious argument tactics.
For reference, the two you used are:
* Assumption that development time in Eve is completely fungible between concerns. It's not, and CCP, being an entity that hires more than one person to develop the game, is capable of doing multiple things at once. * Declaration that the game change in question cannot be implemented until every niggling issue, imagined or real, has been thoroughly debated and solved. We don't need to cure cancer in order to reduce a fever or bandage a wound.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:08:12 -
[46] - Quote
Ralen Zateki wrote: I figured all that was a safe assumption. But let me spell it out so that you don't have to think too hard:
Lots of change right now as it is, peeps still curious about how Fozzie sov will play out and be actually implemented, lots of uncertainty about super cap future. From a messaging perspective I think CCP lost their focus on this one and didn't think through the angles before rushing to conclusions and a delivery date. Seems that's a waste of resources no?
Or is that too specious for you still?
Yes. You're still assuming that developer time at CCP is completely fungible, and that work in one department somehow necessarily detracts from another.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:22:02 -
[47] - Quote
Ralen Zateki wrote:Querns wrote:Ralen Zateki wrote: I figured all that was a safe assumption. But let me spell it out so that you don't have to think too hard:
Lots of change right now as it is, peeps still curious about how Fozzie sov will play out and be actually implemented, lots of uncertainty about super cap future. From a messaging perspective I think CCP lost their focus on this one and didn't think through the angles before rushing to conclusions and a delivery date. Seems that's a waste of resources no?
Or is that too specious for you still?
Yes. You're still assuming that developer time at CCP is completely fungible, and that work in one department somehow necessarily detracts from another. Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm saying its a messaging issue - bad mechanics aside - that conveys a lack of focus and concern for vetting given the context of all other change going on. Despite your assumptions I'm generally aware that multi million dollar organizations are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time... Vetting by whom? The community? Because that falls under the purvey of the second mistake: requiring every niggling issue to be solved before any change can be moved forward.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:23:36 -
[48] - Quote
Ripblade Falconpunch wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:+1 this is a excellent change that will help to open up combat/fleet tactics. I supported and pushed hard for this. In your opinion. And the 42 pages of mostly negative feedback seem to think that by and large, your opinion sucks. Sadly there's no mechanic for impeaching CSM members - because you and most of your brethren would be on the docket right now after the buggy / broken / terrible map, the "new and improved" icons, and now this. You have a very strange view of how the CSM works that is wrong in more than one way.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:30:34 -
[49] - Quote
Elana Apgar wrote:Querns wrote:Valterra Craven wrote:I guess I just don't understand what this goal achieves: Quote: The goal of these changes is to encourage more individual fleet member participation and reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets (e.g bombers)
Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't create more engagement. Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change any imbalances or fleet metas Reducing the speed of fleet to target doesn't change anything of any other relevance other than to add annoyance to almost everyone in game. Besides, if the goal is JUST to reduce speed of fleet to target, then why not just make all ships in fleet warp fly at a given slow speed like 1AU a sec... It would be really helpful if when you talk about changes you talk about why you have your goal and what the end game actually is. I daresay their opinion is that combat probing allows fleets to engage too quickly. You're falling into the trap of commoditizing Eve gameplay under the monkey filth that is the contemporary use of the word "content." Also, reducing the power of bombers almost certainly will allow the fleet meta to shift, as fleet meta is currently dominated by ships whose vulnerability to bombs is at a minimum. Unless you're in a carrier, if you're paying attention you should be able to notice combat probes. Messing with Fleet Warp mechanics and breaking W-Space is not the way to solve the problem of people not paying attention. Bombers don't really strike at disconnected W-space farming groups. They attack large fleets, where the presence of combat probes is both assured and in numbers precluding easy identification of their owner.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:47:35 -
[50] - Quote
Suspicious Tubesteak wrote: So why not just fix bombers and/or bomb damage application then?
This change goes a long way to help the situtation.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:48:23 -
[51] - Quote
Elana Apgar wrote:No, it won't. When you are attacking at tower in W-Space, and need to warp to bounces AS A FLEET a fast tackle interceptor won't help. When you are warping a fleet from a hostile tower or wormhole AS A FLEET to a safe/friendly tower, a fast tackle interceptor won't work. When you are running capital escalation sites in a C5 or C6 and you need to warp back to the friendly POS AS A FLEET, a fast tackle interceptor won't work. When you are fighting off of a tower with a hostile fleet and need to warp to a safe spot as A FLEET fast tackle won't work, because it could very well be dead. Fast tackle might be the answer for everything in Null Sec, but it certainly isn't in W-Space. It sounds like you need to find new tactics.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:57:01 -
[52] - Quote
HTC NecoSino wrote:Col North Chanlin wrote:Just a request; Can you please disclose how much the Nullsec funders paid for the further killing of W-Space life? They have to get their return off buying a CSM, dontchyaknow. #RecallCorbexx. This shit right here is why I keep coming back to eveo.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1713
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 16:58:11 -
[53] - Quote
Suspicious Tubesteak wrote:Querns wrote:Suspicious Tubesteak wrote: So why not just fix bombers and/or bomb damage application then?
This change goes a long way to help the situtation. Goes a long way to help the situation for nullsec and basically nobody else. I meant more along the lines of why not just fix the ships and / or bombs directly? Who said the change was specifically to nerf bombers? The knock-on effects to wormhole space may even be intentional!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1714
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 17:15:54 -
[54] - Quote
Jeff Kione wrote:Querns wrote:The knock-on effects to wormhole space may even be intentional! Right, because there was a problem in w-space that needed to be solved. That's just nonsense. That's just, like, your opinion, man.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1716
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 17:16:45 -
[55] - Quote
Budrick3 wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:Tara Read wrote:Manfred Sideous wrote:I am a FC I feel no extra weight from this change and if I did. I get volunteers from fleet to help me. That's a terrible excuse Manfred. Come on.... so you expect other FC's to force other people to play fleet jockey or get another account. I rest my case. Teamwork its a alien concept I guess hey? Not everyone chooses to fly in blobs that can warrant a scouting position. Scouting is valuable to gangs of all sizes. Hell, I use scouts when in a gang consisting of solely my own accounts.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1718
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 17:50:03 -
[56] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote: I daresay their opinion is that combat probing allows fleets to engage too quickly.
Then why not adjust combat probing, or how quickly fleets warp instead of changing something unrelated that has effects beyond the stated goal? This is an adjustment to combat probing.
Quote:Querns wrote: You're falling into the trap of commoditizing Eve gameplay under the monkey filth that is the contemporary use of the word "content."
Normally, I respect your opinion, but this just makes no sense. What are you even talking about? Your use of the term "engagement" falls under the general purview of the use of the word "content" as a term meaning "a commodity borne of engaging in PVP activity in Eve Online."
Quote: But this doesn't actually reduce the power of bombers. Cuse ya know they are still just as powerful as before. Bombs aren't affected by this change and neither are bombers capabilities. You can still fleet warp to a cloaky on grid and bombers can still do the same amount of damage as before. This change just makes no sense.
Positioning matters. Contemporary bombing runs rely on split-second combat probing. Requiring a physical warp-in not only decreases the number of bombing runs that can happen, but also places a weakness in the whole shebang in the form of the warp-in.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1718
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 18:31:40 -
[57] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Leoric Firesword wrote:Sparrow Creature wrote:this change will kill wormhole just saying.. not really, after you align to your next site, instead of your FC warping you he gives the command "warp now" or "warp to b" and boom, you're doing the same thing you did before. you're welcome that I fixed wormholing for you :) And al the different ship classess arrive in dibs and drabs and are obliterated because there was no logi or support for the logi. Brilliant. Or did you forget they all warp at different speeds now? You did, didn't you..... In what world do you live in where ships die instantly upon loading grid?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1718
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 18:34:29 -
[58] - Quote
Jeff Kione wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi Mates, The original post has been updated with a few more Q&A's answering some of your questions. We've got a lot of amazing feedback and we're going to go back to the CSM with some ideas. Expect an update next week. Have a great weekend! Fleet participation =/= sitting in space pretending to be a bookmark. That's not very engaging. It is when you are in the middle of an enemy fleet, desperately keeping traversal up to survive.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1718
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 18:54:40 -
[59] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Jeff Kione wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi Mates, The original post has been updated with a few more Q&A's answering some of your questions. We've got a lot of amazing feedback and we're going to go back to the CSM with some ideas. Expect an update next week. Have a great weekend! Fleet participation =/= sitting in space pretending to be a bookmark. That's not very engaging. It is when you are in the middle of an enemy fleet, desperately keeping traversal up to survive. You're mixing up combat enagagement vs simply warping to a corp bookmark. Given the lag on BM propogation there's NO COMBAT impact to those, but hey - we don't need QOL or a way to move fleets as a unit efficiently, right? We need to find something for those poor poor frigates that everyone leaves at home because no FC ever wants tackle. Right? It's horseshit. There were a plethora of ways to address the perceived issues without heinous collateral damage and these changes are not it. It's like deleting drones because of ishtars. It sounds like, indeed, they think moving fleets is too easy. It appears to be the primary point of the change. Is it less convenient than the status quo to which you and quite a few of the posters here are accustomed? Of course.
Also, your insistence, and the insistence of several posters in the thread, of corp bookmarks being the solution to the problem (or a font of annoyance due to their slow propagation time) is amusing. These bandaid workarounds only work if all of your pilots are in the same corporation. Being able to share bookmarks and probe results in this fashion automatically would give homogeneous groups an advantage over those not in the same corporation. As such, I steadfastly disagree that corp bookmarks should ever be instantaneous.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1718
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 19:20:33 -
[60] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Querns wrote: In what world do you live in where ships die instantly upon loading grid?
Lol Rooks and Kings kinda invented pipe bombing that does this almost exact thing haha. Sure, but logistics arriving too late due to non-uniform warp speeds wouldn't help you in that situation.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1720
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 21:37:50 -
[61] - Quote
HiddenPorpoise wrote:D'Kmal wrote:Dunk Dinkle wrote:...causing so many cancellations in the thousands.
Citation needed. We aren't at a real "EvE is dying" point, but yes, the numbers are slipping pretty bad from a late 2013 peak. Given that CCP doesn't publish subscription numbers, I find it difficult to believe you could actually prove this.
Note: peak concurrent user count has poor correlation to subscriber count.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1722
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 23:13:08 -
[62] - Quote
Laena Solette wrote:RIP Miningfleet controlled by one person?! If a neut comes in the system, what can i do with my fleet? -I can't use a fleetwarp to the POS-location -I can't use a fleetwarp to a deepsave
-I can use a fleetwarp to the station (Interdictors have fun) -I can warp to my Rorqualpilot and pray, that no fleetmember bump it outsite the forcefield -.- Warping your fleet to your rorq at 10km is hard.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
|