| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 61 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16133
   |
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:19:33 -
[361] - Quote
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.
The only embarrassing thing here is you going out of your way to be offended at nothing.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Klyith
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:20:06 -
[362] - Quote
Since this is a nerf to the power of probing (though not a direct nerf to probes themselves), lets address the un-probable garbage in this release as well.
Metacide the ECCM modules
ECM has been nerfed multiple times over the years. I get it, ECM is kinda sucky to be on the receiving end and OP when the chance to succeed is too high. However, sensor strengths have gone up and up. Hulls with more base strength, skills to improve it, and ECCM mods that have remained just as powerful as were when ECCM was supposedly the counter to ECM. Now nobody fits ECCM as a counter because it's hardly necessary, instead it's become a counter to probing.
Sensor Backup Arrays - Change these to a flat bonus rather than the current (weak) bonus. A flat +8 to +10 would be great for small ships concerned about ECM such as T1 logi frigs.
Midslot ECCM - Lower the bonus substantially, say +66% from the current +98%. Make their overheat +50% rather than the current +30%. As a ECM counter they'd be good to run continuously, and when directly targeted by ECM ships you hit the overload for improved resistance. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:22:31 -
[363] - Quote
Scott Ormands wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:Scott Ormands wrote:Jezza McWaffle wrote:So you will now implement automatic bookmarking at a corporation and alliance level yes? Or is this just another way to **** up wormholers now. Since WE WILL have to wait for the bookmarks to propagate (up to 5-10 mins) unless we have to have a scout at the exact warp in at every single fight. Example if you have a group consisting of more than just 1 corp. Group A wants to fight Group B Group A consists of multiple corps Currently Group A can fleet warp onto the enemy fleet or wormhole without everyone involved having a propagated bookmark. However after this change if the group does not have the bookmark then they have no way of getting into the fight at the same time as the rest of the fleet. So all fights will be delayed until everyone has the bookmarks <10 mins. Good job CCP...  +1 I can no longer warp my entire fleet to the hole and expect them to land in a cohesive group, first my T3's land and get primaried then a minute later my Bhaals land and then 2 minutes later my triage lands by that time we are all dead. And that's assuming all of us have the BM which can take quite a long time to happen. CCP i am adamantly against this change. Please reconsider. I have a revolting solution for you: WARP IN TURNS. Warp your triage first, wait, warp your Bhaals, wait, warp your T3s. Properly timed, you arrive at the same time and it actually rewards you for being GUD at calculating warp timing. Your drop time would be the same as if you were in a fleet warp, and as a bonus, your fleet will not appear on dscan all at once. Otherwise - goons are overheating rapid tear launcher on this, means the change is great, this is the best change'o'meter I know. Sure I absolutely want to have to mental math the right time to warp my individual fleet members across my 80+AU systems so they all land in the same place at the same time. What if I dont want them to know what I'm dropping piece meal, what if I'm small gang roaming across multiple corps, more alts is not an answer. Myself and other FC's already triple box, dont make it even more complicated when it doesn't have to be. Just because there is a way around it doesn't mean they should have to be used
I have a revolting solution for you:
DELEGATE.
Have a designated fleet nerd call warps while you do whatever it is you do. |
Heinrich Rotwang
Zentralrat deutscher Fliesentischbesitzer e.V.
82
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:27:23 -
[364] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:
A cloaky prober can't get into position so the FC can fleet warp to him/her?
There are 100MN reasons saying "HAHAHAHA - no!"
|
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
34
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:33:54 -
[365] - Quote
KanmanDS wrote:Everyone else has already clearly illustrated the grossly negative impact this change will have on nearly all aspects of game play. This is so clearly the worst decision CCP has made in years, that it all boils down to this single sentence:
If you make this change, I will unsubscribe, because you are no longer selling a product I am interested in purchasing.
I can understand what motivated this proposed change, but let me explain what this proposed change does to my regular gameplay:
The fleet I am typically a part of consists of between 3 and 10 combat ships and 2 to 4 scouts. Typically all of our scouts have probes deployed. The number of actual people in these fleets is between 3 and 9 and exist in 2 different alliances. So roughly half of our fleet is actively working to get us the warp in on whatever bad that is existing in space so we can make them explode, not your typical FC does all the work fleet.
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.
TLDR: We aren't a pile of F1 jockeys and we are being significantly adversely affected by this change. I doubt that the activities I routinely participate in are the ones that CCP is trying to nerf, and yet the change all but destroys our current tactics.
If this change goes live it will only reinforce the fact that CCP does not care about feedback from their customers. We're at 18 pages of no and I've not seen even one comment to suggest this change is being reconsidered.
If CCP turns this product into one that I no longer want, then I will not hesitate to discontinue paying for it. |
Vanilla Mooses
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:35:54 -
[366] - Quote
Dearest CCP:
You have 18 pages of (with very few exceptions) players from all walks of EVE telling you this is a awful idea.
I understand why you want to make these changes - to encourage fleet members to have to take a more active role during fleets, versus just sitting there and having their FC or WC or SC do all the warping for them. Sure, I can I see that. I can even get behind that. But this approach is not the way.
Here's a simple solution: Allow someone using probes (be they combat or core probes!) to broadcast: warp to (a ship or a probed result). The same for bookmarks that a individual player has, allow that player to broadcast it, and members of the fleet may now warp to the broadcast.
This accomplishes your goal of forcing fleet members to have to take a more active role without adding a whole new layer of frustration and tedium to EVE. When players head out on a fleet, they want to be doing the stuff they see in your trailers, they don't want to be delegated to serving as a suicide "warp to me" beacon in space. Think about it, does that sound like a fun role to have?
Also, and I would love a serious answer from a Dev on this one (if possible?) ... was any time spent thinking about the logic of this change? We live in a universe that has developed technology that is amazingly advanced, developed true FTL travel, bridged the massive gaps between star systems, yet somehow a probing ship that is in communication with it's probes cannot relay that data to the rest of their fleet to take action on? When you say it out loud, it makes such little sense. Again, I understand taking the ability for the FC to simply warp the blob to those results away (even if I think it is a bad idea!) but not allowing individual members to warp to a broadcast makes very little sense and in my opinion is a very silly change.
Please slow down and focus on what you have already started. Fozziesov has been delayed, many capital ships are still in dire need of balancing, risk vs. reward is woefully broken in many areas, jump fatigue needs a good looking over as almost every single person I know feels that it is way too harsh and limiting, obnoxious bugs exist that have gone on for a long time without a fix (grouping guns in station and only having one of them fire out of the entire group, anyone?), corp management/roles/titles are beyond a pain to configure and use, the new icons are still unreadable @ 90% UI scaling, and this is just the issues I have noticed in under a year of playing. I am confident that players older then me can add to this list, and these are all things that you have started to work on and simply stopped.
In closing, I highly recommend that you listen to your players, as they are trying to tell you something here. Also, perhaps now is a good time to focus on finishing the work you have already started and making "quality of life" improvements before making massive changes to game mechanics that quite frankly make very little sense and feel very much like a "nuke it from orbit" approach to a goal that could be achieved without quite as much collateral damage and wide spread effects to so many aspects of game play.
Thanks for the time and your ear! |
Youmu Konbaku
Archangels Inc.
End of Natural Lifetime
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:35:54 -
[367] - Quote
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. |
Kalel Nimrott
Henthell Corporation
1149
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:38:34 -
[368] - Quote
Explain to me, like if I was a little kid, how on earth would removing fleet warps to bookmarks or sigs would improve the individual participation of the members of a fleet?
If you can explain that, then you have my permission.
Henthell Corporation
ESD Director.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:40:29 -
[369] - 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 -
[370] - 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 -
[371] - 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.
|
Tara Read
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
826
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:45:12 -
[372] - Quote
Personally I feel no justification for these changes as stated by others. Fleet warping is a mechanic designated to help members get on grid with targets quicker and to now deal with the cohesion of different ships warping at different speeds. While I think the thought is there I think in practice and applicability creates more headaches for content creators than CCP would like to admit.
Also in junction with probes, squad warps, etc this makes catching Supers in low sec nigh impossible with landing on grid, within point range, being able to catch one as it comes out of warp, moves through systems at very quick align speeds etc. All in all I seriously think these changes are terrible utterly disastrous when it comes to fleet positioning too.
If your warp in dies then it's pretty much akin to being off balance in a fight before it even begins and missed opportunities to capture or pounce upon targets unawares. And let's be frank here.
This is JUST another way for CCP to make competitive groups make more alts and accounts which means more profit for them. It also placea the burden upon FC's and content creators squarely on their shoulders again by making them multi box more accounts and do more things.
This isn't about having anoher player doing something useful. It's about another guy plexing or paying another 15 USD a month to cover another botched half baked idea at the behest of a few people who want this under the guise of "content". If anything this will stop people from wanting to even play with grid issues, fleet placement, establishing tackle, etc.
All in all CCP are shooting themselves in the foot. And let's not even start on the WH issues that CCP have pigeonholed groups into using since phoebe to traverse space.
Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
|
Carrey Young
Eye Of Insight
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:47:05 -
[373] - Quote
This changed is the most stupid idea.
The real world become more and more reasonable and automatic,but in EVE become degeneration.
And last we can tell people ,who will play EVE,: Wellcome to 'Middle Ages of EVE ' |
Louanne Barros
Hole Violence
Whole Squid
43
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:47:12 -
[374] - Quote
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.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2487
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:48:20 -
[375] - Quote
Kalel Nimrott wrote:Explain to me, like if I was a little kid, how on earth would removing fleet warps to bookmarks or sigs would improve the individual participation of the members of a fleet?
If you can explain that, then you have my permission.
All of the work and background alt work done by an FC is now to be done by a fleet member if you wish to remain as probe-mobile as possible. And in the event of probes not being an option, tackle ships (or anyone for that matter) now become potential and interdict-able warp ins for a fleet. For a fleet to be as mobile as possible (very important for some doctrines) the FC will need to delegate to members and have backups if necessary.
More people hunting and moving around in essence. Not just the fleet as a whole.
You're typical ship of the line won't have to do much more than warp himself if a ship is in position. However, your supporting scouts will be needed for more pings and killing of possible pings. Which is also why I believe ships capable (without axing their fleet contribution elsewhere) for scouting and probing need to be expanded a bit. |
Jack Miton
WeebleCORP
4491
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:48:52 -
[376] - Quote
Long Muppet wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:
1) Any changes that makes ganks require more skill (than 0 it requires now) are good.
This isn't the least bit true. Ganks require a lot of skill and coordination.
haha!
oh wait, you're being serious...
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
There is no Bob.
Stuck In Here With Me: http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/
Down the Pipe: http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
|
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:50:47 -
[377] - Quote
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? |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
289
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:51:25 -
[378] - Quote
Querns wrote: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.
It worked for Incarnagate. That said, this change is for the best.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:51:36 -
[379] - 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.
|
Potamus Jenkins
eXceed Inc.
157
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:53:13 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Ele Rebellion wrote:Anoms are the green sites you can warp to without scanning down. We should still be able to fleet warp to those Thats correct. Aebe Amraen wrote:Probing and tackling are already important roles in any fleet; what this change actually does is gets rid of the notion of a prober as a stand-alone role. The prober must also be a tackler, with all the risk that entails. A cloaky prober can't get into position so the FC can fleet warp to him/her? Aebe Amraen wrote:2. My second concern is about a very particular, but rather common, scenario: trying to catch cloaky, nullified, nearly-unscannable off-grid T3 links ships. In some configurations these can perma-AB at over 1km/s, aligned out to another safespot. The current best practice is to get a prober with perfect skills, a bonused ship, and virtue probes and have him warp a squad of fast tackle (T1 frigates/interceptors or specialized tackle bombers) on top of the boosting ship, hoping that one of them will be able to catch him before he reacts and warps away.
Catching these ships is already extremely difficult, and will be nearly impossible under the proposed changes. No bonused scanning ship will be able to tackle them, as they have at a minimum 5s lock delay after decloaking. No unbonused ship will be able to scan them down. In the time it takes for the prober to warp to the target and then have the tackle squad warp to him the 1km/s probing ship will be out of range.
I have interests on both sides of this scenario, having hunted PL off-grid boosters with my perfect scanning alt during the recent Catch wars and with two of my own perfect combat boosting alts. I guess I won't mind having my boosting alts be effectively invulnerable for a while, but it does seem like poor balance. This is a really good point. Awesome post in general. I don't have an answer for you just yet, but we're working on it.
"you cannot activate your propulsion module while running command links" |
|
|
Tara Read
Immortalis Inc.
Shadow Cartel
826
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:53:51 -
[381] - Quote
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 ****.
Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:56:24 -
[382] - 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.
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2487
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:57:04 -
[383] - Quote
SilentAsTheGrave wrote:Querns wrote: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. It worked for Incarnagate. That said, this change is for the best.
If a patch goes by without someone threatening to unsub, I almost feel as if there was nothing of value in the patch. Not really, but you get my point. |
kelmiler delbone
Group 2 Holdings
6
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:58:55 -
[384] - Quote
We've always been able to warp fleets to bookmarks, this change is apparently aimed at bomber wings, which make runs in 8's....
Sounds like someone's been disturbing CCP's little friends blobs and they aren't having that! (again) |
Canon Makanen
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
4
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:59:07 -
[385] - Quote
CCP, let's say in this way, FC create content, i mean most of the fleet need an FC to lead the fleet. Now you are nerfing the FC role, nerfing the experience of themn+îyou are actually nerfing everyone, just ruin the game. The icons are really bad, but this does not affect the mechanic and we will get used to it, but for this one, you are forcing people to quit. |
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
421
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:00:34 -
[386] - Quote
I do really like the squad warp idea.
Go with that, see how people react and adapt and go from there. Squad leadership mechanics have been almost completely ignored over the course of eve's history so it's an interesting idea from that aspect too.
Nothing stopping you guys from making another pass in six months or so once the sodium levels have dropped a bit. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1691
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:03:12 -
[387] - 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.
|
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:07:04 -
[388] - Quote
Querns wrote: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.
So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything? I mean, why would you start with the hull bonuses on bombers? Or possibly adjusting the stats of bomb launchers? It's clearly a much better answer to mess with the mechanics that everyone uses than simply nerf the thing that is the target of a nerf. |
Agama Tissant
Gladius Veritatis
Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:07:23 -
[389] - Quote
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 ! |
Enzaki
S0utherN Comfort
DARKNESS.
19
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:07:49 -
[390] - Quote
ccp WTF !!! kick that fozzi out of ccp NOW HE is ******* the game up ....... |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 61 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |