EVE Search - Sticky:[AEGIS] Fleet Warp Changes

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[AEGIS] Fleet Warp Changes

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Vanilla Mooses KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:36:08 - [421] - Quote Querns wrote: 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. Fair enough. However, it is far from the focus of my argument and is simply one point of many that I brought up. The bulwark of my argument is that this change is a rather hamfisted way of going about it. If the goal is to limit the effectiveness of bombers (something I fully support!) and require fleet members to have to take more manual action vs. relying on a FC to warp them around (which I also support!), I simply feel this can be accomplished in a much more precise and logical way. The proposed change feels like using a sledgehammer to pound in a nail. Sure, it will work, but it is going to cause some unexpected damage to other things.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1691	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:38:16 - [422] - 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.
TarPalantir I Evolution Northern Coalition. 7	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:39:14 - [423] - Quote Manfred Sideous 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. {snip} Bombers were retardedly op and combat probing was very op. They strangled tactics and doctrines. Ideally id like to see those things nerfed or rebalanced but this change has the effect that it hits both of those things at the same. To put this into context drone assign was largely removed as we know it. CCP said that they think it is bad when other people play the game for you. Fleet Warping falls under the same rationale. This change will actually help FC's as they will have more choices on tactics and viable doctrines to put to the field. Currently everything has to be low/sig & bomb proof . This is why you don't see many shield tanked BS doctrines or more kiting or sniping doctrines. This change will help open up the battlefield to something more than Eagles , Tengus , Ishtars and Domis. Tar-Palantir isn't opposed to this change because of the harm that may or may not happen. Rather, he thinks it may be a bit misguided depending on what the goals/outcome of the changes are. Tar-Palantir would argue that fleet warping - which has been around since Fleets were introduced - isn't really the cause of major problems in the game. Not upset about people having to warp themselves, but don't really think the whole fleet warp thing causes our problems. You seem to be alluding to that in your comments. Rapid/near instant probing of targets that are at known celestials/grids seems to be the core problem with fleet warps just being a way to make use of them. However, the rapid/instant probing still exists and can still be used to get warp-ins on hostile fleets of all sizes. It now means you have to wait for the cloaked prober to warp to the location and X up in some channel, but that doesn't fundementally change the problems. It slows the process down by X seconds and introduces more risk to the prober. However, they can still be cloaked, still provide a warp-in for a fleet warp, and still warp out. Bit more dangerous because of bubbles, but still quite doable. A greater than 150 km range snipe fleet could hold its position for 20-40 more seconds maybe against a competent foe with decent cloaked probers. That isn't going to change the outcome against a short range damage fleet unless you are talking very small, very rapid engagements. Changing other mechanics to try and mask the root problem usually doesn't work well. Sometimes you have no choice because fixing the root problem is out of reach (TiDi comes to mind here). In the case of probing, that doesn't seem the likely cause. More likely it is that the probing system works very well for what it was designed for - finding hidden objects like Signature sites/WH/safed up ships. The work is in the finding where in the system the thing is. It works horribly for fleets (of any size from 5 to 2000) because you already know where it is so all you have to do is click the scan button after launching your probes. No real challenge, no real game play, no particularly practical counters that aren't very specific/niche, just results. While Tar-Palantir does understand the idea of getting more people involved in fleets (scouts are a good thing - something that people should actively be doing/playing rather than being provided scout functionality via game mechanics) and making fleet members control their own ships rather than have others control them, Tar-Palantir would urge CCP to work on the core problem - instant probing - rather than the in game mechanisms that people use to make use of instant probing. Sounds like Manfred is already pushing that for which Tar-Palantir is grateful.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2488	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:41:23 - [424] - Quote Naglerr wrote: So this reply chain got a bit specific on the disagreement Querns and I seem to have about this change. I'd like to bring it back to the topic at hand: Is this change for sure directed specifically at bombers? I didn't watch the o7 youtube video people are mentioning that they claim say this. If the nerf is indeed directed at bombers, then why not simply apply a hull bonus to bombers: Can not receive fleet warps? specifically directed? There is no absolute indication it was the only or main intention, no. It has been mentioned plenty of ties by players and fozzie did say it was a positive outcome, but aside from that it would be a speculation of intentions. Bombers were only mentioned once and given as an example alongside brawling doctrines as needing good on grid warp ins. It mostly sounded as the OP is worded, more fleet member involvement and importance of roles like tackle and scouting.
Tara Read Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 827	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:41:33 - [425] - Quote 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. It's all there! But please show us on your MLP figurine where the bombing run touched you. I'm generally curious. Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
Asuka Solo Knights of Azrael Circle-Of-Two 2963	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:41:41 - [426] - Quote Delicious predominantly sub cap tears. yum. +1 Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Ikaika Wahine Khashour Black Scorpions Inc Fidelas Constans 4	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:43:04 - [427] - Quote I'm really starting to worry you are starting to make this game to safe for people. A lot of changes have take some of the more fun mechanics of the game. I mean agree with a lot of them like the removal of Skynet and using multi-command programs. However Pulling of power out of an FCs hands... I dunno personally, I guess for me it's a wait and see.. much like Fozzie sov.
Tara Read Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 827	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:43:40 - [428] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Delicious predominantly sub cap tears. yum. +1 As a Super and Cap pilot/owner I find this post stupid and insulting. - Sincerely every other capital pilot in New Eden. 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 05:48:37 - [429] - 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.
TarPalantir I Evolution Northern Coalition. 7	Posted - 2015.06.12 05:56:29 - [430] - Quote {big snip} 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. There was a time, before instant probing (December 2009) when the "I was There" trailer was part of most fleet fights. For years, small fast ships burned across the open spaces between fleets, trying to get their light tackle, dictors and their short range DPS ships warp-ins on the hostile fleet. In the mean time, webbers, Destroyers, HACs, and BC tried to kill all this incoming tackle and pop their wrecks to prevent such warp-ins. Game play. It seemed to keep us oldies entertained for the 6-7 years before we figured out instant-probing after the Dominion patch.
MekaJonna Nehalem Inc. 4	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:00:08 - [431] - Quote For those of you who still think this is a good idea, I'll describe in detail how this completely breaks w-space. My underlying concern here is that these changes will create a close to uncatchable ratting meta. When rolling your w-space static, It is already hard enough to catch people ratting. When ratters see new sigs on their probe scanner they leave the sites they are in to PoS up until the sigs are scanned down. This means smart active pilots are already difficult to catch. However not all pilots keep their probe scanner open, but most watch d-scan and keep alts cloaked off known wormhole connections. Currently d-scan is not too big a issue for hunters who connect to new holes as ratters will almost always be at a site still on the anomaly list. This gives us a chance to catch them with off-d-scan tackle(cloaky or recon) as the rest of the fleet waits for initial tackle. However if they are on the last wave of a site, combat probes are needed which are very obvious on d-scan. This is still not an issue currently as a fleet warp can get fast tackle to the target, giving the fleet a chance of catching the prey. Now lets imagine things with the new system in place. Its will still be very possible to catch ratters in anomaly on scan. But in the second situation, the combat scanning ship is the only ship that can attempt to tackle the ratter (in a reasonable amount of time before the ratter notices the new sig on scan/ or combat probes). Naturally this would make T3's the only capable ship of probing cloaking and tackling ratters in. Unfortunately the current meta is to rat while sitting on a mobile depot with a full rack of stabs in your cargo bay. With only 1 ship being able to land during the first critical minute of opening a hole, it makes ratting battleship in the last wave of a site near impossible to catch. Well at least we can still catch the majority of the ratters who are still in anomaly on scan right? Wrong! If this change goes through pilots are just going to pop all the wave triggers as soon as they get into the site and bam, they are off the anomaly list, and can feel safe knowing they have a chance to see probes on d-scan and have at least an additional 30 seconds to notice the new sigs on their probe scanners before having a fleet land on top of them.
Tara Read Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 827	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:02:47 - [432] - Quote Querns wrote: 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. 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. Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
Onslaughtor Occult National Security Phoenix Naval Systems 147	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:03:08 - [433] - Quote So I haven't really been able to play recently. :( so I cant really test this. But can you warp to missions at range without useing a fleetwarp? I am recalling you can't.
ArmEagle Kusoni Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters 37	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:05:05 - [434] - Quote CCP Larrikin wrote: ArmEagle Kusoni wrote: So, to run sites (in w-space) we can't easily warp there all together anymore. Everyone will need the bookmarks or have to wait for one player to have landed. Alliance bookmarks would only make that slightly less of an issue. That's just one example of how people will become unnecessarily more vulnarable, or things taking more time. and below... Ele Rebellion wrote: Concern about this is WH space. We don't have gates we can warp to and have to rely on the Bookmarks of the wormhole. Edit: What I mean is if we have non-corp members that we are trying to move through a chain to a target, it will slow the entire fleet by 100% since a fleet member will have to warp ahead and then the entire fleet will have to warp to that fleet member. Both of these points are solid. Corbexx brought these up while we where talking to the CSM about the change. Regarding slowing down the speed of sites, given the potential profitability of wormhole space, we don't consider this a major negative. Regarding movement fleets though WH space, we have something we're working on for this. That said some of the feedback we've received is mixed. Reducing power projection though WH space (for both WH residence & passes though) not seen as all bad. Thanks. I'm very interested to see what that mechanic will be. Can't give further feedback (on power projection/speed) until that is made known. To be honest, if Corbexx brought it up, it should have been part of the publication of the change.
Rn Bonnet Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 21	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:05:09 - [435] - Quote Tara Read wrote: Querns wrote: [quote=Tara Read] 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. Before the probing buff years ago all of eve was played this way. It was for more entertaining and things like sniper hacs and hit and run fleets actually worked because 50 inteceptors wouldn't be on you in 10s.
Ryno Caval House of Praetor Fidelas Constans 28	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:05:16 - [436] - Quote You know what I've got a bright idea rather than totally remove it make it so much more complicated by only allowing squad leaders to warp their squads, that'll teach us to rely on one person to lead a fleet as a "FLEET COMMANDER", delegate that **** down to the lowest level but add this twist, in order for the squad to warp the wing commander has to get the request and send it up to the fleet commander and fleet commander has to give approval through an in game prompt, we can make EVE more like the real annoying functions of real life war than anything any of us want to play. I mean there will still be fleet warps but it will be a long and absurd process. That'll teach us to question a change that no one asked for.
Tara Read Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 827	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:05:26 - [437] - Quote Onslaughtor wrote: So I haven't really been able to play recently. :( so I cant really test this. But can you warp to missions at range without useing a fleetwarp? I am recalling you can't. No you cannot. And that's another stickler. Not being able to warp at range risks you getting stuck on a beacon and killed. That's why squad warps by alts are essential. I've seen people die first hand getting stuck on a mission beacon. Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2489	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:05:27 - [438] - Quote Tara Read wrote: Thanks for the compliment even if you meant it as an off the cuff insult. But see here's the disconnect. The reality is people fill many facets and roles in Alliances. In smaller Alliances these roles pass down to a few select people. Placing more burden on these people creates burn out and headaches that in turn create problems. The problem may then lie in the 'few select people' issue. No gameplay mechanic forces that. And certainly an FC telling his interceptor to move for a warp in isnt adding any more stress than having to run it himself. In a small alliance and even a corp, sometimes its best to trust some basic tasks to others.Heck, they could do that now and would be the better for it in terms of pressure. However, I see fairly little what this has to do with alliance leadership and roles. Unless your few FCs double double as officers and directors. Tara Read wrote: Every Alliance faces these things small gang not withstanding. But this isn't even really about small gang or low sec. If it were I'm certain yourself or a few select other personalities here wouldn't grace us with such estute opinions. At any rate, my opinion is very strong on these issues because it is but a small piece in the preverbial ** pie CCP is continually forcing down our throats rolling out baseless changes without any forethought or after sight. sure. 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 dont know where youve been reading or who've you been listening to, but jus reading comments and reading alliance chat i've seen those who see its benefits and improvements. Tara Read wrote: These changes are vieled nerfs to bombing runs that kick everyone else in the balls and their hidden profit generation. CCP isn't stupid. They know FC'a wil make designated grid alts due to these changes. They know they have to for fleets to even get into proper position. I mean, If you want to speculate, I won't try to stop you. I Tara Read wrote:** t's all utterly rediculous. But thank you for such a thought-provoking post. I'll make sure to meditate and chew on each letter. No problem, don't strain yourself.
Claud Tiberius Caldari State 118	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:06:03 - [439] - Quote Mixed feelings: More participation by individuals in fleets is always good. One day we might even see the last of: "Everyone fire at single target" tactics, to something that's more strategic and fair. But removal of bookmarks/scans/sites with fleet warps seems like a step backwards. Can't fleet members just continue to use corporation bookmarks? Thus bypassing the need to use fleet-warp. Regardless, I think the concept of "bookmarks" is an old idea that I would prefer to be removed. I don't mind players saving names, stats and general locations of an area. But a specific pin-point spot is OP. I would prefer a totally new system of warping to areas, one that comes with a lot more freedom for pilots - but also new risks. Once upon a time the Golem had a Raven hull and it looked good. Then it transformed into a plataduck. The end.
Sollana FireStar Inc Evictus. 245	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:09:43 - [440] - Quote so now the scanning ship has to warp in first for the rest of the fleet to warp to them........about bloody time... heavy tackle time has returned, in a way this could be a recon buff.. hint hint
Tara Read Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 827	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:13:18 - [441] - Quote Rowells wrote: Tara Read wrote: Thanks for the compliment even if you meant it as an off the cuff insult. But see here's the disconnect. The reality is people fill many facets and roles in Alliances. In smaller Alliances these roles pass down to a few select people. Placing more burden on these people creates burn out and headaches that in turn create problems. The problem may then lie in the 'few select people' issue. No gameplay mechanic forces that. And certainly an FC telling his interceptor to move for a warp in isnt adding any more stress than having to run it himself. In a small alliance and even a corp, sometimes its best to trust some basic tasks to others.Heck, they could do that now and would be the better for it in terms of pressure. However, I see fairly little what this has to do with alliance leadership and roles. Unless your few FCs double double as officers and directors. You still fail to give any of us here a positive answer why these changes are GOOD. Picking apart my posts is fine, but trying to tear at my argument from one angle isn't going to get you anywhere. There's also the issue of grid placement, targets getting away, fleet separation due to warp speed variations, survivability of the on grid warp in, landing on different grids due to mechanic issues, fleet movement during travel, squad warping at missions at range due to beacon issues, probing and tackle becoming nigh impossible for hunting low sec supers, designated "tackle" and possible fleet warp in DC'ing in Tidi leading to a fleet spread and out of place etc etc. I can go on and keep giving reasons and possible issues with just one facet of these changes. But please go on about how it's clearly my misunderstanding or "lack of game skills" or my "alliances leadership" as your means for justification as to why your argument is valid. Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
Manfred Sideous North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 1177	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:14:20 - [442] - 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. Does this mean I am not gonna win a popularity contest ? Aww shucks im gutted really. @EveManny https://twitter.com/EveManny
killerlman BURN EDEN Northern Coalition. 16	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:14:41 - [443] - Quote Is this broken? Why have you changing the fleet warps mechanic? Sigh,its total hit for my probe launcher. Know what,make the ****** new map mandatory instead of killing fleet warps. That one i can handle with some pain.
Tara Read Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel 827	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:23:01 - [444] - Quote 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.... Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2232	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:23:49 - [445] - Quote Sollana wrote: so now the scanning ship has to warp in first for the rest of the fleet to warp to them........about bloody time... heavy tackle time has returned, in a way this could be a recon buff.. hint hint Except it isn't. Because recons have no bonus to probes of any sort, meaning to fit combat probes recons are so gimped in their fitting that they aren't going to be effective as heavy tackle. The only viable probe ship now for this has become a T3 Cruiser. T3 destroyers not being covert cloakable.
NoobMan Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 173	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:24:27 - [446] - Quote 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. Dark Razer Please! So you realize the FC is just going to have to login another client to fly a specific ship to constantly make warp ins so he can fleet warp his fleet. If the actual outcome you were hoping for was to slow fleet movement down across the board then you have succeeded. Wormhole standpoint: This a huge quality of life hit. This will affect us wormholes every single day in every fleet. What is the benefits to this game mechanic? What is the game design change or reason this is a good idea for wormholers? A few activities in wormholes this is going to negatively affect. Chain Static Collapsing (Rage Rolling) will be slower. Jumping into a new wormhole that has capitals running sites, the prober is going to have to combat the caps then warp to them, then have the dictor wait and warp to the prober. Its unnecessary amount of extra time that the hostile caps have that they can escape. Safe fleet movement through wormhole chains is going to be slower. You're going to need to have a worthless interceptor moving in front of you so the FC can fleet warp to that pilot to safely move and not leave straglers. That inty pilot could be in a useful ship. What is more likely going to happen is the FC is going to be dual boxing that second client himself to insure the validity of the warpin, and increase the speed of the warp in so he doesn't have to waste time confirming the warpin is ready There are so many combat situations I can think of where this is just going to be annoying and slow down gameplay. Did you think about that? Increasing the time of doing boring things like waiting for a warpin? If you want a useful "fleet warp" game design change I've got one for you: allow the fleet FC to flag a fleet member with the ability to fleet warp, so I don't have to drag my links out of Wing to move myself into Wing then warp, then move the pilots back. Operations Director of Hard K(n)ocks Inc.
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 550	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:24:58 - [447] - Quote blue coeur wrote: Seriously, I challenge you to live in a Wormhole for a month. Wormholes are next for the chop. It's not part of Fozzie and Rise's plan to force everyone to pretend to be micro gang elite pvp jerkoffs.
Kendarr Zebra Corp The Bastion 46	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:25:58 - [448] - Quote I do not mind the fleet warps changes to public items but not being able to fleet what to probe results is a nightmare for me. Its slowing fleets down to much. Its hard enough alot of the time to probe something down in system then to try and warp to it with one ship for the fleet to follow. You are never going to beable to catch that fleet rolling safes ever again. which means there's less pvp going on. I understand the need to slow bomber wings down / get people more interactive in fleets but come on CCP you can do much better then this... like by restricting ship types fleet warping to probe results? Zebra-Corp
knobber Jobbler Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 550	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:26:29 - [449] - Quote This whole problem could be solved easily if the person probing could broadcast their probe results and allow people to warp to those. Add that feature in and removing fleet warp to probes is moot.
Querns GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation 1691	Posted - 2015.06.12 06:27:33 - [450] - 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.

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.