|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 85 post(s) |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
28
   |
Posted - 2015.06.15 20:55:44 -
[1] - Quote
I don't know if anyone else is having this issue but when I attempt to log onto Duality I am being prompted that my account has been disabled. Is this a known problem or am I not doing something right. |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 06:22:45 -
[2] - Quote
Blue Ice wrote:please name command nodes A B C D etc.
e.g.
9UY4-H Station Command Node A
or any way to differentiate them.
+1 without specific command node names there won't be much of a way to coordinate a multi layered attack or defense, which defeats the purpose of creating a multi-front battlefield, if you don't know what front you are fighting on how are you supposed to fight |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:14:55 -
[3] - Quote
Dorijan wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many people do you have testing on Duality and how many BRAVE nerds showed up at your doorstep? Kinda interested in the numbers that made you form strategic partnerships.
SPAI!!!!! |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:43:33 -
[4] - Quote
Ruune en Gravonere wrote:Apex Aubaris wrote:Ruune en Gravonere wrote:Dorijan wrote:
Out of curiosity, how many people do you have testing on Duality and how many BRAVE nerds showed up at your doorstep? Kinda interested in the numbers that made you form strategic partnerships.
Yeah probably a bit more information than I'm comfortable sharing  But we looked for mutually beneficial partnerships before the fighting started... But then again the guy that made the deal with you is in the same corp as Dorijan  I'm just trying to aid your internal comms processes 
Its a spy spying on a spy that's spying on spy spying on a dream
Spyception |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
28
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:46:39 -
[5] - Quote
Ok I'm done putting my filth on the forum I have a serious idea about the UI for capping SOV with Entosis would it be possible to use a shape other than a circle if there is not going to be a numerical system or percentage system, specifically a dodecagon because it is much easier to say what fraction of 12 you have done then trying to eyeball about where around the circle you are.
Base 12 is superior to base 10
|
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
30
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 14:18:43 -
[6] - Quote
broken code sorry see below |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
30
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 14:19:36 -
[7] - Quote
CCP Fozzie and Team five 0- "This goal would be broken if certain types of forces could somehow just ignore enemies (for instance, through overwhelming remote repair or through evasion) or if mechanics pushed fights towards indefinite deathless stalemates. This goal is the reason for most of the special restrictions and limitations on the Entosis Link, such as the GÇ£no remote repsGÇ¥ rule."
How are we supposed to be testing this when quite literally it is an endless stalemate if, when both sides have equal numbers and when one side has superior numbers the can just field AT ships and infinite Capitals and Sub-Capitals and pretty much use the same Dominion bully tactics. Play testing the mechanic is nice but when you made it a competition and didn't take into consideration the actual dynamics of the competition you pretty much said "hey, IDGAF if you guys use blobs to hellcamp like the Dominion SOV system just have the numbers to do that and spread out and capture everything and you get to win"
Furthermore, The Evasion statement is 0% true when the Entosis Link II can basically be used out to 250km on a ship that can speed tank at range... Guess what beats that...NOTHING.
You can't accurately scan down a ship going as fast as what some people have seen on the test server and even if you do by the time you land on grid they are already too far away to do anything. Add this to the absurd fleet warp changes and you basically have an invincible ship that can entosis freely or prevent counter entosising.
As expected a few things happened
1. Brave had their usual drama and pretty much gave up because they stopped caring which in turn screwed over their "blues" because from a tactical standpoint, aligning with your next door neighbor is smart, but from an execution based standpoint, Brave is cancer and anything it touches goes to ****.
2. PL flexed it's Supercarrier and Titan muscle due to the practically zero risk involved(other than it being gone on the test server). You don't have you enemy plus 2k-3k other people trying to whore on KMs. So, you can freely use things like this with no repercussions nor did they have to worry about a larger alliance countering them with their own Super and Titan Blob. Giving PL far too much freedom to maneuver things that they would not use so excessively in a scenario where the loss would be real.
3. The excessive use of unrealistic doctrines lead to mass disinterest due to the fact that the people who were testing got what they needed to know out of it with a base understanding of how to attack and defends SOV and after that didn't care because through unrealistic doctrines the testing value ceased to be anything outside of who has more people willing to participate.
4. Most alliances who didn't show up early on had a few people figuring out how the SOV system works and will likely be coming into the competition near the end when capping SOV actually means you can keep it cause the competition is at its end and it will be impossible to capture it back when zero day hits.
The FozzieSov mechanic is new and interesting and will likely add some interesting changes to the Nullsec dynamic but this "competition" is absolute cancer and at this point is the Spectre and PL show. Everyone else has basically lost interest;
between the incomprehensive UI, the inability to know how much, by % or by time, you have completed of you "attack or defense", and the absolutely ridiculous doctrines that are being used; nobody really seems to care anymore. |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
31
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 15:51:55 -
[8] - Quote
Warmeister wrote:the main thing that killed this competition is lack of dedication from most of the alliances that registered.
This, exactly this.
The problem is that everyone is complaining about the exact things I mentioned previously and refuse to participate because of it, the frustration lies, not only in the lack of participation but, in the complaints that are becoming the scapegoats everyone eludes to. It is frustrating being one of the few people that is trying ATM within the alliance and about all I can do is have conversations about random philosophical stuff and make horrible typo mistakes in the chat channels that are highly embarrassing for me regardless of how much nobody gives a crap.
I can hardly actually participate in the testing environment since it is rather hard to do anything with a maximum of 5-10 people other than be annoying and that really doesn't add anything of value to the testing environment.
The reality is if you want max participation these are the things that need to change because the value of learning the new mechanic is lost when you don't have the proper participation. The UI is buggy and there are a lot of thing that were mentioned that would make this FozzieSov mechanic better. I know it is still in the testing stage and will continue to be buggy for a while. If you combine the buggy mechanic and UI with the aforementioned complaints it makes for an unwillingness to participate. Not only do people want to learn the new FozzieSov but they would like to experiment with realistic doctrines and fight a war on a footing that would be realistic in a competitive environment. If the devaluation of in game assets allows for market hubs that have been free-ported to become ship pinatas where is the value in testing anything within the context of competition. I have no actual issue with the current way things are and I will continue to try to urge people to participate in order to learn this new mechanic and get some experience with it but I can only relay the complaints that are discouraging people.
I, myself, do enjoy being able to use things I never would be able to use on TQ because it's fun and interesting. Unfortunately, not everyone sees it this way and a lot of people saw that PL was involved and knew for a fact they would abuse their sheer number of supers and titans. This caused them to shy away at first. Then after that the excessive use of unrealistic doctrines based on the sheer isk inefficiency that those doctrines would produce if they were defeated on TQ caused a lot of people to stop participating because this was supposed to be a competition and now it has become a game of who can reship the fastest into the hard counters to doctrines that are not efficient or likely at all due to the general misering of the actual AT ships.
The sentiment is if I wouldn't see in on TQ why should it be in play on Duality during a wargame exercise. When participating in a wargame IRL I never was given equipment that I wouldn't use during actual combat, or that was either experimental or not part of the unit's MTOE (Modifications of Table of Equipment) and if the equipment was down for maintenance or was called out of play due to a catastrophic kill it was out of play. You turn a playtest into a wargame run it like one, if you don't have the knowledge of what a wargame is than do not call it that. There is a strong military community within EVE and all you have to do is ask about these kinds of things. |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
32
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:31:11 -
[9] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I want to make sure we're clear that this was never intended to be a test of fleet compositions and tactics. Unfortunately there was no way to make those aspects realistic on a test server.
This test is intended to help find bugs, to help us improve the UI and how the system is communicated in the client, and to allow players and alliances to try out the mechanical nuts and bolts and understand them better (which helps us get better feedback).
The simple fact of the matter is you created something that defeats that purpose exactly, you should have not incorporated a competition into it, people are so diverted away from the actual purpose of playtesting that some bugs that are major enough to highly affect the effectiveness of the new system of SOV will be hidden away so that when this does go live people can exploit them as much as they did on the test server. When you only have 2 alliances left willing to participate that are "blue" with each other what makes you think that they will expose any bug that gives them a tactical advantage to exploit when this goes live. This is the fundamental flaw with calling this a Wargame there is no incentive to expose bugs that can be exploited if it gives you an advantage over your opponent. Not to mention the level of realism that a Wargaming implies.
I am not bashing on you at all CCP Fozzie I absolutely love the idea of FozzieSov and think it is a fresh new mechanic that will really improve player experience all together. In my opinion you could have gone about this differently and give a little better incentive to the participants as a whole not just the alliance naming rights of a module. Not everyone cares all that much about lore, and corporations come and go within alliances if the incentive was player focused like the free SP on sisi incentives I feel like there would have been a far better turnout than the current dismal number of people actually playtesting this.
I purpose better incentives such as a guaranteed spot in the alliance tournament next year for the top 4 alliances who have the most active participants. You want to get an effective play test when making it a wargame give us something more than a mod to name.
I am going to continue to try and get as many people to participate as possible just so the knowledge isn't focused to one individual or a select few individuals. The more people know what they are doing when taking SOV the better. This is so that the employment of tactics from the test server can be properly executed and disseminated to the lowest level FC's and leaders to prepare them for the upcoming changes rather than leave all of it reliant on a SOV team who has to coordinate so far ahead that they will not have the mobility to be successful in the new SOV system.
Just what insight I have. No hate, All love. |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
32
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 18:46:43 -
[10] - Quote
Parley Queen wrote:Viaharo Musa wrote:I would have loved to see a realistic test.
But sadly. Its been a shitshow from the beginning.
Reasons why:
Unrealistic ships and fittings due to no cost on the server. This lead to unrealistic fleets and tactics.
As a side effect, way to much clutter for even the most robust gaming system to have some lag due to so many wrecks / abandon'd drones (again prob due to no cost on the server)
Dude i am dualboxing on a freaking laptop and the performance is exactly the same as TQ no matter how cluttered a grid is. Please keep the excuses coming why this test is bad, the responses from brave and fcon so far have been pure gold. The simple fact that so many people are unable to adapt to two new things at once(market seed+new sov) and rather chose to quit is astonishing. What will the brave AT team say when they have to fight AT ships in the AT? 'Awh too bad, they had supers and the grid was cluttered and their AT ships are too OP for us, at least we salvaged one wreck' also SFA is recruiting if you want to afk nodes and/or fight PL hopefully.
If the same thing were happening to you this would be the exact way you would respond. If FCON and Brave had the participation on the test server to outnumber what the participation of PL and SFA has been the exact complaints would be fielded by the opposite side and we would have the same response you are having.
If you cannot look at something like this from an unbiased perspective and imagine the situation reversed onto you, then you are failing to grasp the true complaint, which is people will not participate in a Wargame that has limited levels of realism or practical application. The value of this is simply who can get the most people to log onto a server where actions have zero effect on the live server and the incentive is not enough for enough people to care.
I'm not trying to call SFA/PL out or be salty, yes I am frustrated at the lack of participation but I am glad someone is participating I really wish our turnout was better for this. If it were we could have actually put up a fight. I just hope that something can be learned from this and it does at least the job of the playtesting and work out all the bugs and hiccups. When this goes live people will have no choice but to participate and I truly think it will be utterly chaotic, which, I am looking forward to |
|
|
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
32
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 19:49:08 -
[11] - Quote
Elise Randolph wrote:Ryno Caval wrote:
The simple fact of the matter is you created something that defeats that purpose exactly, you should have not incorporated a competition into it, people are so diverted away from the actual purpose of playtesting that some bugs that are major enough to highly affect the effectiveness of the new system of SOV will be hidden away so that when this does go live people can exploit them as much as they did on the test server.
I'm just going to say this flat out, but if you don't report bugs that have to do with the sov system on Duality you're dumb as hell.
Unfortunately not everyone is this "honorable" and will let some of the bugs slip through. I wish this were not the case but it's not just in EVE, this is a mentality that is ported from real life. Perhaps my faith in humanity if just non existent due to personal experiences but who knows. |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
34
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 05:38:04 -
[12] - Quote
There seems to be a an issue with the 0345 eve DT it says it is supposed to come back up in 30mins but the server stays offline till after TQ downtime |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
34
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 03:39:27 -
[13] - Quote
Some of the system's vulnerability timers are still bugged and do not show up |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
34
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 18:57:23 -
[14] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ryno Caval wrote:Some of the system's vulnerability timers are still bugged and do not show up Can you let us know which structures are experiencing the problem? Either here or through a bug report would work.
At first I was only checking a few systems but it seems a majority of the systems are showing an unknown Vulnerability window if they are not showing they are already vulnerable.
Also it would be nice to see a timer on structure that are vulnerable that said when they would go back into Invulnerability so that both the defending side and the attacking side could know how much time they had to attack or defend parts of a constellation. I understand that after a structure has been attacked it remains vulnerable until it is defended but It would be nice to look at the SOV window and know how much time is left to attack or defend.
Obviously, there will be OOG game tools made by players to do this but for smaller alliances that might not have web development savvy people in it, who can't necessarily make these tools it would be nice to be able to see. I already know that major alliances have web developers and programmers that are in them because of the sheer number of people and the culture of people that play EVE there are bound to be people with these skills in these major alliances/coalitions but for the little guys it is less likely so having something in game would be nice. |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
35
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 21:36:12 -
[15] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Most recent timer list: Exit Time Solar System Structure Owning Alliance Defense Multiplier
2015.07.02 16:11 H6-CX8 Station Defense Fidelas Constans 6
2015.07.02 20:03 H6-CX8 IHub Defense Spectre Fleet Alliance 3.4 What I dont get is, how the H6 station can still have a 6x defense multiplier. They lost the TCU and the IHub and when I open the sov info tab it says 3.4 and rapidly dropping. Is there 3 different multipliers even tho there is only one visible and others are hidden or ... ? Confusion.
It has the Alliance Capital Modifier |
Ryno Caval
House of Praetor
Fidelas Constans
35
|
Posted - 2015.07.01 22:12:09 -
[16] - Quote
Heinrich Rotwang wrote:Ryno Caval wrote:Heinrich Rotwang wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Most recent timer list: Exit Time Solar System Structure Owning Alliance Defense Multiplier
2015.07.02 16:11 H6-CX8 Station Defense Fidelas Constans 6
2015.07.02 20:03 H6-CX8 IHub Defense Spectre Fleet Alliance 3.4 What I dont get is, how the H6 station can still have a 6x defense multiplier. They lost the TCU and the IHub and when I open the sov info tab it says 3.4 and rapidly dropping. Is there 3 different multipliers even tho there is only one visible and others are hidden or ... ? Confusion. It has the Alliance Capital Modifier Wouldn't it be awesome, the sov tab would clearly show you the exact effective multiplier for each structure instead of one thats obviously not relevant?
I completely agree with you I think the problem is that no one else had an Alliance Capital system or has had it attacked yet or what not it is clearly an issue with the in-game display for specific structures, or maybe CCP is being nice to FCON cause we are going out swinging who knows. |
|
|
| |
|