| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
112
   |
Posted - 2015.06.26 10:24:33 -
[181] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:
No. A game should reward you for being smart of punish you for being dumb. Idiots should not be protected from their own actions.
There is nothing smart about forcing an FC to have to rely on alts for warp-ins as people's time is wasted waiting.
There is also nothing smart about forcing a WH player who used to be an active logi/dps/recon member into a mobile bookmark.
Arguably, the tedium would lower quality of gameplay for the FC, as it would of the poor WH player.
Introducing idiocy into existing smart gameplay is unfortunate.
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16297
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 11:34:40 -
[182] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
There is nothing smart about forcing an FC to have to rely on alts for warp-ins as people's time is wasted waiting.
Nobody is forcing people to use alts, get dedicated pilots to do the job.
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
There is also nothing smart about forcing a WH player who used to be an active logi/dps/recon member into a mobile bookmark.
Sure there is, it gives them another job other than being an F1 monkey.
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
Arguably, the tedium would lower quality of gameplay for the FC, as it would of the poor WH player.
Introducing idiocy into existing smart gameplay is unfortunate.
Re-introducing. It was fun and enjoyable to be a fleet scout back when we had no fleet commands at all. Its good to be bringing back content we have lost over the years in the name of catering to the lowest bar of player laziness.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Joseph Seyburn
State War Academy
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 12:19:29 -
[183] - Quote
Quote: What are the goals of these changes?
Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation'
|
Greygal
Redemption Road
Affirmative.
461
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 13:29:46 -
[184] - Quote
While you are digging around in the code, please be magicians and code some miracles:
- Greatly increase the number of bookmarks we can copy at a time, or better yet, eliminate limits on copying bookmarks. Currently, it's 10 at a time, but as the need to create and disseminate bookmark packs will be higher, making copying bookmarks less tedius would be nice.*
- Make it so that anything that can be broadcast, can have a shortcut key assigned to that broadcast. For example, you can't assign "align to..." broadcast to a shortcut key. (I've been begging for the ability to assign a shortcut key to broadcasting "align to," "warp to," and "jump to" broadcasts for about four years now... eternal optimist, I guess ....)
- Alliance bookmarks. *
- Bookmarks that automatically expire after a set time.
- Be nice if we could broadcast align/warp/jump to anomaly's (not the ones you scan out, those are signatures, right?  )
*Yes, I know we'll be able to broadcast warp-to-bookmark, but you can't broadcast warp-to orders to objects not in the same system as you currently, and I suspect that won't change. We've got a lot of out-of-corp/out-of-alliance scouts/skirmishers who we'll have to set up with more complete and/or new bookmark sets.
Serious question: How will the large increase in separately-handled warps affect server load? Currently when we align then warp as a fleet, our warp is treated as one warp instead of 30-40 warps, all on the same server tick. (Not claiming I know anything about how the server actually handles fleet warps, but this is how it's been explained to me for years). With this change, there will be multiple warp requests across multiple server ticks, will this impact server load?
What you do for yourself dies with you, what you do for others is immortal.
Free weekly public roams & monthly NewBro new player roams!
Visit Redemption Road or join mailing list REDEMPTION ROAMS for information
|
Alexis Nightwish
292
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:17:14 -
[185] - Quote
Joseph Seyburn wrote:Quote: What are the goals of these changes? Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation'
PL wanted to reduce the time it takes for a fleet to land on a combat probe hit. So Manfred Sideous of PL, Dark Razor (CCP Larrikin) of PL, and Raivi (CCP Fozzie) of PL got together to create a "solution" to this "problem."
Good to see that CCP's legacy of cronyism is still alive and well, even so many years after D20.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16297
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 16:48:09 -
[186] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Joseph Seyburn wrote:Quote: What are the goals of these changes? Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation' PL wanted to reduce the time it takes for a fleet to land on a combat probe hit. So Manfred Sideous of PL, Dark Razor (CCP Larrikin) of PL, and Raivi (CCP Fozzie) of PL got together to create a "solution" to this "problem." Good to see that CCP's legacy of cronyism is still alive and well, even so many years after D20.
So much tin foil in use here you could bake a potato.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
113
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:11:59 -
[187] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Nobody is forcing people to use alts, get dedicated pilots to do the job.
You know as well as I do that FCs will get those, if they don't have them already, rather than trust the fate of fleets to random fleet members.
baltec1 wrote:Sure there is, it gives them another job other than being an F1 monkey.
F1 monkey WHers.. now there's an oxymoron worthy of a prize.
baltec1 wrote: It was fun and enjoyable to be a fleet scout back when we had no fleet commands at all. Its good to be bringing back content we have lost over the years in the name of catering to the lowest bar of player laziness.
But now we do have fleet commands. And exponentially better organization in multiple nullsec blocs. Simply wishing time to turn backwards will not see it happen.
|
Abby Noramel
Langtang Himal
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 18:30:59 -
[188] - Quote
I guess I'm confused. 1st, I'm not a PvPer. 2nd I pay CCP for a lot of accounts that I mine ore at times with, it takes time to get each toon setup to mine, but I am a heavy EVE player and have always had the safety of fleet warp to keep all my ships from being ganked. Now you are saying it is not fair that I pay for many accounts and have a way of warping them all at once to safety as an active player? Why do you advertise "The power of 2" and even state mining if they are not equal? If you are removing fleet warp, remove it. But not just for the people you don't seem to care about. Be fair and remove it for everything/ everyone. Be they PvPers, PvE.
WH people will suffer from this in many ways. Isn't this game to be somewhat realistic future stuff, how is "You can only fleet warp to public areas" realistic? That is just changing the game to help certain people not the whole.
And if this is all going the way it looks, will those of us with multiple account that pay months at a time be allowed a refund as the multiple accounts become useless in the new change?  |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16297
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:47:32 -
[189] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
You know as well as I do that FCs will get those, if they don't have them already, rather than trust the fate of fleets to random fleet members.
Siad FCs will get their fleet killed/have to leave when their alt dies because their attention was elsewhere. Dedicated pilots are better than alts and you can have more of them. Again, we got along just fine without fleet warp commands before.
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
F1 monkey WHers.. now there's an oxymoron worthy of a prize.
If you live in a WH then you should have more than one guy able to probe.
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
But now we do have fleet commands. And exponentially better organization in multiple nullsec blocs. Simply wishing time to turn backwards will not see it happen.
We also had titans able to track frigates. Many things have been changed then changed back over the years and the world didn't end. People are using the exact same arguments they tried to use against the IS-boxer nerf.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
16572
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 19:59:06 -
[190] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:
You know as well as I do that FCs will get those, if they don't have them already, rather than trust the fate of fleets to random fleet members.
Siad FCs will get their fleet killed/have to leave when their alt dies because their attention was elsewhere. Dedicated pilots are better than alts and you can have more of them. Again, we got along just fine without fleet warp commands before.
As I understand it fleet warping isn't even going away. It's just being trimmed a little?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16297
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 20:18:24 -
[191] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
As I understand it fleet warping isn't even going away. It's just being trimmed a little?
Rather than warping the fleet to a probe result you warp a cov ops to the result then the fleet.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
TarPalantir I
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
12
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:04:48 -
[192] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Quesa wrote:I think reverting the scan probe time back to ~40 seconds would have fixed a lot.
Instead your using magic to add special cases which not only increases the depth of difficulty for newer players but increases the headache for FCs. Special casing is BAD. If an object is warp-able, it should be warp-able for a fleet. Combat scanning is in a good place, when you don't already know your targets location. Players who are good at scanning down a ship 'somewhere in system' are valued by corporations, alliances and FC's alike. Combat scanning is broken very easy & fast when your on-grid with your target. While increasing the time it takes to scan targets down would have achieved our 2nd (long-range fleets) and 3rd goals (bombing runs), it wouldn't do anything for our 1st goal (player participation), and it would break system-wide combat scanning.
And there you have the problem - the problem that has been there for 5 years. As the system was designed, all the work is in finding out where in system the thing is, and then narrowing it down sufficiently to be able to warp to it. The design works well for the game when looking for sites, and reasonably well when looking for ships that are in system somewhere, but you aren't sure where.
With fleets of any decent size, the parties involved will frequently know roughly where the opposing fleet is - or can find out fairly quickly. Once the fight starts, it is pretty obvious. No work is involved because the design of the probing system puts all the work in the finding. You can't fix this without changing the design/adding complexity, and in doing so impacting system wide scanning (site and ship). One suspects that this is the reason why the probing system remains as it was introduced in/around the Dominion release despite its impact on combat.
Tar-Palantir wishes Manfred Sideous much luck pushing for a solution to problems caused by probing - he will probably need all he can get. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
320
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:15:11 -
[193] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Joseph Seyburn wrote:Quote: What are the goals of these changes? Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation' PL wanted to reduce the time it takes for a fleet to land on a combat probe hit. So Manfred Sideous of PL, Dark Razor (CCP Larrikin) of PL, and Raivi (CCP Fozzie) of PL got together to create a "solution" to this "problem." Good to see that CCP's legacy of cronyism is still alive and well, even so many years after D20.
Requesting the CCP devs behind this change to tweet a pic of themselves holding a D20 dice. Thanks!
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!
|
Dermeisen
23
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 21:20:43 -
[194] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:baltec1 wrote:Nobody is forcing people to use alts, get dedicated pilots to do the job. You know as well as I do that FCs will get those, if they don't have them already, rather than trust the fate of fleets to random fleet members. baltec1 wrote:Sure there is, it gives them another job other than being an F1 monkey. F1 monkey WHers.. now there's an oxymoron worthy of a prize. baltec1 wrote: It was fun and enjoyable to be a fleet scout back when we had no fleet commands at all. Its good to be bringing back content we have lost over the years in the name of catering to the lowest bar of player laziness. But now we do have fleet commands. And exponentially better organization in multiple nullsec blocs. Simply wishing time to turn backwards will not see it happen.
Trust must be earned, and to earn it you have to allow it. Therefore those FC that learn to trust their scouts, through experience, will be triumphant, and those, for whatever reason, that can't will opt for the suboptimal alt-ernative and fail. It'll be like shooting obnoxious FCs in barrel.
Decreasing the neuroticism of FC is unfortunately outside of the scope of possible game changes,  .
"Not the Boreworms!"
|
Alexis Nightwish
293
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 22:26:45 -
[195] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Joseph Seyburn wrote:Quote: What are the goals of these changes? Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation' PL wanted to reduce the time it takes for a fleet to land on a combat probe hit. So Manfred Sideous of PL, Dark Razor (CCP Larrikin) of PL, and Raivi (CCP Fozzie) of PL got together to create a "solution" to this "problem." Good to see that CCP's legacy of cronyism is still alive and well, even so many years after D20. So much tin foil in use here you could bake a potato.
I had a bet with myself regarding how long it would take for someone to say "tin foil." I bet 1hr, but it only took 30 minutes. Oh well.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
379
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 22:52:50 -
[196] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:baltec1 wrote:Alexis Nightwish wrote:Joseph Seyburn wrote:Quote: What are the goals of these changes? Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation' PL wanted to reduce the time it takes for a fleet to land on a combat probe hit. So Manfred Sideous of PL, Dark Razor (CCP Larrikin) of PL, and Raivi (CCP Fozzie) of PL got together to create a "solution" to this "problem." Good to see that CCP's legacy of cronyism is still alive and well, even so many years after D20. So much tin foil in use here you could bake a potato. I had a bet with myself regarding how long it would take for someone to say "tin foil." I bet 1hr, but it only took 30 minutes. Oh well.
I'm just not sure how you think this reduces the time it takes for a fleet to land on a probe hit.
I mean, if you'd said 'PL's stock in trade has been caps and supers so long, the ex-PL devs think everyone's doing as little as the guys in an Aeon blob are', I might've bought that... |
Rat Scout
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 23:49:34 -
[197] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:baltec1 wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:[quote=CCP Larrikin]
[quote=Minchurra]1. Can I fleet warp my fleet to a fleet member as I can now, or does it require extra steps? (Right click watch list > Warp fleet to)
2. Can I fleet warp my fleet to a personal bookmark I made a couple years ago as I can now, or does it require extra steps? (Right click in space > Warp fleet to)
3. Can I fleet .....
Blah Blah Blah....
Warp one miner to belt, fleet warp the rest to that miner. So you agree: Nerf of mining income, you waste time to do this. More boring to mine and less rentable after change.
Bolded and underlined the part that proves this change is a positive one. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
320
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 00:44:42 -
[198] - Quote
Joseph Seyburn wrote:Quote: What are the goals of these changes? Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation'
It has been stated many times in this thread. From in depth analysis to simple basic words in short sentences for the mostly brain dead. Just because you stick your fingers in your ears and run around in circles screaming, 'la-la-la I can't hear you!', doesn't mean it has not been said.
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!
|
Alexis Nightwish
293
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 01:00:10 -
[199] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:
I'm just not sure how you think this reduces the time it takes for a fleet to land on a probe hit.
I mean, if you'd said 'PL's stock in trade has been caps and supers so long, the ex-PL devs think everyone's doing as little as the guys in an Aeon blob are', I might've bought that...
Doh! I meant increase. Increase the time. lol nice catch.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
89
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 08:30:18 -
[200] - Quote
is it that hard to get for ccp to not change something that works just fine.  |
|
|
Delt0r Garsk
Shits N Giggles
394
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 08:46:43 -
[201] - Quote
I didn't read the whole thread. But over all these changes more or less deals completely with my concerns.
So now this change gets a +1 from me.
Have you considered setting minimum warp distance to 300km or something. 150km always seems small.
But for the love of god, leave orbit, keep at range etc. Since flying your ship is not just position it is all other things you have to manage and this is *not* god dam star citizen, so don't go there.
Death and Glory!
Well fun is also good.
|
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc.
Official Winners Of Takeshi's Castle
193
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 13:40:50 -
[202] - Quote
First of all why do k-spacers still have fleet warps to gates and stations?
They are right there on virtualy everyones overview.
I think they should also be exempted from fleet warps.
Most fight happens on gates and stations anyway.
Why should the guys on the station/gate be the only one in a fight that can not fleet warp to the opposing side?
No local in null sec would fix everything!
Fleet warp proposal = the rubix cube is back into eve especialy the second part of the saying.
|
Eve Back Online
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 21:14:46 -
[203] - Quote
Thanks CCP. I'll return the favor by unsubbing any mining alts I run while doing homework. Thats what I get for trying to come back to Eve. |
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
16304
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 21:24:37 -
[204] - Quote
Eve Back Online wrote:Thanks CCP. I'll return the favor by unsubbing any mining alts I run while doing homework. Thats what I get for trying to come back to Eve.
No you won't.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
kraken11 jensen
The Gallant Collective
Requiem Eternal
91
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 21:32:19 -
[205] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Eve Back Online wrote:Thanks CCP. I'll return the favor by unsubbing any mining alts I run while doing homework. Thats what I get for trying to come back to Eve. No you won't.
I know people who have quitted eve because off changes ccp have made, so never say never. if eve become a too big pain in the ass, (like becoming more work) ... etc. you know. then I understand if people quit/unsub'etc. |
Miner Hottie
Haywire.
174
|
Posted - 2015.06.27 23:56:08 -
[206] - Quote
Alexis Nightwish wrote:Joseph Seyburn wrote:Quote: What are the goals of these changes? Anyone? and please not the schmockbait about 'Encourage individual participation' PL wanted to reduce [edit] increase the time it takes for a fleet to land on a combat probe hit. So Manfred Sideous of PL, Dark Razor (CCP Larrikin) of PL, and Raivi (CCP Fozzie) of PL got together to create a "solution" to this "problem." Good to see that CCP's legacy of cronyism is still alive and well, even so many years after D20.
I thought CCP T20 was the dev implicated in scandal?
It's all about how hot my mining lasers get.
|
Awkward Pi Duolus
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
113
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 02:34:55 -
[207] - Quote
kraken11 jensen wrote:I know people who have quitted eve because off changes ccp have made, so never say never. if eve become a too big pain in the ass, (like becoming more work) ... etc. you know. then I understand if people quit/unsub'etc.
Same here. A bunch of experienced folks have just had it over the last two years, with the constant unnecessary changes that don't really do much in terms of improving game experience, but make the game more of a chore..
|
Rekatan
We Heart U
12
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 04:13:50 -
[208] - Quote
This just feels like adding another layer to the already convoluted "solution". People are breathing a sigh of relief because this is a slightly less destructive iteration of the original concept, but the core concept is still entirely flawed so at this point it feels like we're just beating our heads against a wall.
If you want to remove fleet warp, which would potentially be incredibly beneficial, then just remove fleet warp and do it right, with proper features released ahead of time such as 0 bookmark propagation delay, alliance bookmarks, etc. You already started with an ill conceived half measure, and now you're adding another level of complication to an already unnecessarily complicated change.
It feels like we're providing feedback ad nauseam at this point. If this hairbrained idea is on rails then I guess we're just going to have to figure out how to deal with the annoyances it creates. All hail our new Slippery Pete overlords. |
Dictateur Imperator
Babylon Knights
DARKNESS.
27
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 12:30:10 -
[209] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:
So you agree: Nerf of mining income, you waste time to do this. More boring to mine and less rentable after change.
Oh no, CCP added a few more seconds on to my mining activities...
CCP reduce income of mining , so how you call it ? it's a nerf of income. It's few sec each rotation at end you loose minutes. CCP have think this change for pvp and forget a lot of player use it... not for pvp but for some industrial thing. Maybe CCP must remimber they call the game a "sandbox" so when they make 1 "pvp" change it's impact all game play, not only pew pew.
Allow fleet warp to BM in anomaly , or allow fleet warp for people in same ip/official owner, problem solve. |
Abla Tive
95
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 15:41:14 -
[210] - Quote
As a mission runner, I approve of this change. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |