|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 27 post(s) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2163
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 09:46:11 -
[1] - Quote
The long wait is finally over. Looking forward to more details going forward!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2163
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:09:34 -
[2] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Display some adaptability.
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
2163
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:19:17 -
[3] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:Killing High WH, Thx CCP
Display some adaptability. adaptability? today group of capitals with support can fight against good t3 fleet with logi jams neuts damp after all. you just die. Yes -- you may need to come up with some new tactics.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2164
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:35:18 -
[4] - Quote
Dreekus wrote:As dred pilot, In PVE In dev blog you said you are going to lower EHP of dreds and their current guns dps to compensate. So Dred will do less dps and tank less, are you going to nerf Sleeples Guardian to compensate?
Just please keep in mind that if you nerf too much wh farming another region of space will just move to incursion as source of income. What I like now about Wspace now is that after you make some preparation you get high return. We do not have luxury of just logging in and warping to anomaly to earn some isk, everything takes time and everywhere is cloaked proteus.
Waiting for more detailed devblogs to come. I am somewhat optimistic. I think we can all agree that removing loot from Sleepless Guardians spawned via capital escalation will solve these problems.
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
2164
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:44:36 -
[5] - Quote
Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful.
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
2164
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 11:45:25 -
[6] - Quote
Oskolda Eriker wrote:Querns wrote:
I think we can all agree that removing loot from Sleepless Guardians spawned via capital escalation will solve these problems.
Yes, after removing endless anoms in nullsek L5 in lowsec and incursions and restrict plexs in K-space I agree Fine by me. Death to all unbounded ISK faucets.
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
2166
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 12:35:08 -
[7] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Combat refitting needs to die. There is no skill involved in switching your modules to tank when you see yellow boxes. No ship should be able to mellifluously mutate to the exact optimal configuration for whatever situation they are in. Your fitting choices should be meaningful. I disagree very much. Refitting can absolutely require skill in the form of in-depth fitting knowledge and correct situational prioritization of attributes. Even something as simple as "Throw on full tank" has stupid many permutations. What even is full tank??? Is the incoming damage balanced or can you optimize further from omni for it? Could the incoming damage change, how much should you optimize and leave yourself time to react to a damage type switch? Can you overheat specific hardeners until burnout then refit fresh ones to buy more time? Which hardener combinations give you the best omni profile with your native resists, the best trade-off vs other likely damage type swaps? Which sacrificial heated hardeners give you the most tank for the longest for a particular damage profile? Could you get bumped and lose the ability to refit, could you get neuted, should some or all of your tank be passive? If you're active hardened and being neuted should you generate cap, should you inject cap, should you reflect neuting with capacitor battery and get fed cap? Do you really even need to go full tank or is there enough surplus RR that you could reduce your tank and affect the fight beneficially in some other way? tl;dr: you can dismiss it as "too powerful" or "too tryhard" but please don't even try to dismiss it as "no skill" All of these choices are largely congruent to a situation where you can't refit, except they matter even more when you have no replacements.
The small depth of tactical decisions, amplified by the removal of cost associated with changing your modules, in no way is worth the complete neutering of all the strategic decisions involved in picking your fit in the first place.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2171
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:00:46 -
[8] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here.
Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what at's stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules.
Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense.
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
2171
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:06:47 -
[9] - Quote
Rossi Tenmar wrote:Was really hoping for a slight increase of the current capital jumprange If you think combat capital jump range will ever be increased, you're dreaming.
Nut up and train shield already.
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
2171
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 13:23:28 -
[10] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Having watched CCP Dev's mirror talk to themselves loudly at Vega's as they try in vain to convince themselves that what there about is there way of preserving EVE for the future, That there is room full of players providing back ground noise only encourages them to continue along this path and reminds me of Nero and his fiddle backed up by the crackle flames and collapsing buildings.
Player Risk Aversion will prevent engagement with this pitiful train of thought CCP is currently peddling already players are scrabbling around selling off Supers at EVE base prices simply to recover at least a percentage of invested ISK.
Here's a slightly better proposal, an arranged disposal fleet, jumped into an announced system, Titans, Supers, Dreads and Carriers unfitted by the hundreds simply for players to come in and blow them up, A petition then to CCP to create another memorial of wrecks, Suggestions welcome as to what too call it. The game already has self destruct. We don't need to waste developer time on this.
Also, if anyone is seriously trying to recoup the pitiful amount of ISK involved in owning a supercapital ship because of a handful of vague presentations and devblogs, then I weep for both their grey matter and their inability to pay attention in gs_isk.
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
2176
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:13:40 -
[11] - Quote
Tiberizzle wrote:Querns wrote:Tiberizzle wrote:Yes, the vast strategic depth of waiting to see who can hold off committing longer so you can refit in your staging at the last moment for the advantage surely drowns the insignificant detail of actually familiarizing oneself with the full range of a ship's capabilities and dynamically optimizing the loadout for the situation. You still need to familiarize yourself with the full range of a ship's capabilities to make any strategic decisions, so I fail to see the difference here. Also, this "holding off commitment" thing is a valid strategic decision. It's not one you always get the luxury to make, depending on what's at stake. Infinite tactical reconfiguration is a choice you ALWAYS have the luxury to make, as long as you obey some simple range control rules. Eve should have the ability to claim a strategic victory. Getting countered strategically isn't bad, as long as valid counterplay is possible in as many scenarios as possible. (Obviously, this isn't the case all the time.) Strategy should be a valid "force multiplier" in both offense and defense. e: "what at's" is not right, not even a little Jockeying for the static hull / fitting advantage can easily devolve into a stalemate which produces no content with or without a time constraint. Quite often the contesting force doesn't want the objective, they want to force a feed. They won't contest the objective for the objective's sake but instead wait until the defenders commit and they can reship or refit a hard counter, or out of spite when the defenders stand down. The defenders can't contest the objective without feeding until the aggressors get tired of waiting to be fed. In pretty much all cases, the window of contestability leaves AMPLE room on the table for this stalemate to continue for hours (POS self-repair) or indefinitely (current fuzziesov node mechanics). This isn't what I'd consider meaningful strategic depth or an engaging interaction for anyone involved. One guy, the FC, has to familiarize them self with the full range of the ship's capabilities to call for refits before committing to static fits. In the case of combat refitting, everyone has to familiarize themselves with some useful range of the ship's capabilities to approximate an optimal fit for their ship within the constraints imposed by being shot at. It emphasizes individual pilot skill and defuses the static fitting advantage stalemate. In some cases you can even refit to minimize a reshipped hull advantage.
I've got little sympathy for people who try to bait fights out by contesting a sov/pos objective with no intention of actually completing the contest. If there's a strategic advantage available for the defenders, who have much more at stake than the attackers, gained by abusing the intentions of the attackers, then the defenders have every right to seize it. Demoralizing the enemy and discouraging them from fighting at all is a perfectly valid strategy!
I'd agree more with the "skill" angle if refitting had some sort of cost that limited the amount of times it could be done or the efficacy of doing it. (I'm not going to bother spitballing potential "costs.")
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
2176
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 14:18:57 -
[12] - Quote
MtyRoyal wrote:"The incredibly talented and endlessly creative players of EVE Online have taken combat refitting to its extremes. "
So I don't get your aim here. You appear to be punishing the GÇÿTalentedGÇÖ and GÇÿCreativeGÇÖ to enhance the mediocre. IsnGÇÖt refitting with a combat timer just part of mastering the gameplay? That fact that so many caps get killed already shows that players are already compensating for the refitting on their own. IGÇÖd say kill this change. This is a sound business decision. "Talented" and "creative" players pay much less subscription fees than those who are less "talented" and "creative."
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
2183
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:15:23 -
[13] - Quote
Ardden wrote:So when a drone/fighter dock to "re-arm" do they repair as well or is that still "target-rep-send it on its way"? It looks like fighters become more like ammo than a drone. Damage is expressed as a reduction in the count of fighters rather than damage done to a drone.
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
2184
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:48:43 -
[14] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus? Ideally, the replacement will be a super-cool bonus for intelligent, attractive people.
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
2184
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 15:57:53 -
[15] - Quote
xttz wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:What bonus is the Hel going to get to replace its now-useless repping bonus? +5% ship-spinning speed per level. Capsuleers don't know bout my nanohel
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
2185
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:20:31 -
[16] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:CCP Lebowski wrote:Smertyukovitch wrote:So this is how i see things: over time you CCP nerfed EHP of super-capitals, their effectiveness against sub-capitals. Then last year you've decided to kill them completely and introduced jump fatigue, separated them from sov system, removed fighter assistance. Now you're going to reduce effectiveness against sub-capitals even further, nerf EHP even more, remove e-war immunity. And for what? So that we could shoot at some "epic" structures for like 3 hours in a week? In a massive slow defenceless bricks? With DPS limits to those structures that could be reached by couple dozen cheap, agile and fast cruisers? Why would someone even want to own a super-capital?
And i'm not even talking about WH residents that currently use dreads for ratting, they will really "enjoy" all this.
Please consider that you are drawing a lot of assumptions based on the principles we've laid out at Vegas without knowing any of the hard numbers. This may the unavoidable consequence of revealing the basic principles of a design before the specifics, but that is hopefully offset by the amount of valuable discussion on the core principles and mechanics that is now taking place. Just remember, a sizeable process of planning, feedback and iteration is still to come so please be patient and stay tuned, we really appreciate your assistance in making the capital rework as awesome as we can for all involved So explain how taking away what was left of the carriers usefulness and replacing it with new drone buff helps me look at my skill book cost and time invested in training leave the billions wasted out all together and I am still upset. So after a long day of work I log in to play a game. I want to move my carrier and some ships to the next region where my mates are moving to. I also want to keep fatigue down in case I need to join a defense fleet and use a jump bridge. So I check Dolan and have four carrier jumps. Spend 50 minutes a jump in a station or cloaked in space "playing a game" . So I just wasted a evening playing due to fatigue. Missed a fleet because I am cloaked in space for fifty minutes with time to think about why I wasted almost 500 days of skills and billions of risk for what looks like it will be even less useful in the spring. Now tell me with a straight face you are making this game more enjoyable to play? Really Carriers can take gates now.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2185
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:21:25 -
[17] - Quote
Smertyukovitch wrote:The key point of all i'm saying is that risk \ profit ballance should work both ways. Building something big, costly and demanding should give players some advantages.
How can you look at the history of Eve and say this with a straight face?
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
2186
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:32:40 -
[18] - Quote
afkalt wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:knobber Jobbler wrote:2. With the talk on reduction of hit points on Supers and Titans, don't you think people will be even more risk adverse with capitals? That people will only commit them to the field if they have a guaranteed chance of not losing any?
A question for (all of) you: Do you think that being able to deploy with a guarantee that you won't lose anything is healthy/good for the game? Not even high-sec makes that promise. No, but that's what people have been used to for years. They'll be less happy about this, than phoebe. Good riddance.
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
2186
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:33:53 -
[19] - Quote
The Mach wrote:Swinging the NERFBAT at NullSec and WormHole ISK making with the Dread nerf isnt a good idea. You are devaluing two of the largest regions of space. Here are my Issues, some in question form"
- -Why make dreads the "Gun" platform if you're nerfing their guns to the point where a carrier is probably more effective at doing damage?
- -Highsec incursions have devalued Nullsec space.
- -What is the point of owning a Citadel or contributing to one If the average nullsec player is risking more for less reward than just hanging out in HighSec?
Please look at the value of each type of space (High, Low, Null, WormHole).. I think CCP has lost sight of this slightly but this is a great opportunity to fix it. If I'm willing to Risk a $5,000,0000,000 ISK Dread than I ought to be able to make more than a highsec incursion.. I just hope someone who can understand reads this... Please tell us where you're doing PVE in nullsec with dreads.
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
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 16:39:33 -
[20] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) Do they not have scouts and webs where you live?
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
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:17:39 -
[21] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:loquacious7 wrote:Querns wrote:Carriers can take gates now. I said I wanted to use the carrier and ships not watch them burn ;) Do they not have scouts and webs where you live? My old "suitcase" carrier did not need them. Was part of my point. Maybe I should gank miners and freighters in high sec to prove my point :) Then the nerfs are working as intended. Suitcase carriers were a truculent cancer and Eve is truly better for their death. Consider putting down stakes, building something, and fighting for it instead of being the Eve equivalent of a vulture.
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
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:26:17 -
[22] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Oskolda Eriker wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:
capitals were never meant to be able to do pve
capitals escalation? isnt it? capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Agreed -- it's time for CCP to admit their failure of design and remove all loot from capital-escalation-spawned rats.
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
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:34:35 -
[23] - Quote
Baki Yuku wrote:"We're considering adding a weapons timer to triage & siege modes...but we'd like your feedback on that."
Big fat no to that from me. Why? Because FAX machines will be the new combat triage and for them to have any chance of surriving on a battlefield instead of just being expensive throwaways they need the ability to refit. 30 Seconds being locked out from refitting due to weapon timer from repairing your fleet is planty enough. To refit you'll have to stop repping for 30 sec and be able to surrive 30sec in your current fit. (If what was said about weapons timer being reduced to 30sec is true).
We can fix this counter-intuitive mechanic by making siege/triage apply a 5 minute weapons timer (or one equal to whatever siege/triage length is.)
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
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:50:14 -
[24] - Quote
loquacious7 wrote:EvilweaselSA wrote:Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:I am concerned about the carriers, this is basically removing them from any PvE roles many carrier pilots use them for. Carriers are a significant source of income for many pilots. Many of whom use carriers for ratting so they can then afford to go out and PvP.
This seems to be a massive nerf in this area. Removing a carriers ability to field any of the basic drones and only able to use fighters, drastically hampers then in anoms where frigates take forever to target and nearly as long to kill. Using fighters in anoms is something that most carrier pilots hate, much less with them being more like ammo now rather than something that could be repaired if damaged. new carrier fighters don't need target locks read the blog before weeping over your lost ratting carriers You do not use fighters to rat, read the entire statement before flaming someone for commenting. He was referring to your bit about frigate targeting times.
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
2187
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 17:51:46 -
[25] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once.
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
2188
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:01:02 -
[26] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Querns wrote:Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. Uhm... that's exactly what they did. The only place you can find them is when doing cap escalations. They don't appear in any other site. They appear in nearly all C6 sites.
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
2188
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:03:08 -
[27] - Quote
Delt0r Garsk wrote:Querns wrote:Jack Hayson wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:capital escalations were CCP's attempt at preventing people from using capitals. it didn't really work out. Just out of curiosity: where does that myth actually come from? I mean, it's obviously wrong because the Sleepless Guardians wouldn't drop loot if they were just there to prevent you from warping in caps, so why do people keep saying that? Effort savings, most likely. It's a lot easier to re-use an existing NPC than to design a new one with a separate loot table. They probably didn't expect players to be able to survive six to eight Sleepless Guardians at once. A standard carrier or dread fit is out of the box able to more or less, if we ignore the neuts. When things have gone a bit sideways (refitted), our hero dreads have been cap stable perma reapping. Its not that much damage. It is the neuts that get you. And all cap pilots know that cap is life. Well, obviously, we know that now. CCP may have thought differently in 2009.
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
2190
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:10:20 -
[28] - Quote
Lelira Cirim wrote: Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.
I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post.
"Auxiliary" is, really, the perfect word for this sort of ship line. Auxiliaries, in war-time, refer to noncombatants whose primary role is to tend to wounded and dead soldiers. In naval parlance, it refers to a vessel with a supporting role, which is not armed for combat. It makes a lot more sense than "logistics," which typically refers to moving goods, troops, or equipment, not healing. "Logistics" is what Jump Freighters do.
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
2193
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:29:41 -
[29] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:Querns wrote:They appear in nearly all C6 sites. Oh, right. I forgot about russian farmer space. Some of those C6 sites have way more dps than escalation waves. Are you suggesting that those sites were not meant to be flown then? They weren't meant to be run with capitals in them, no. Or, it was meant to be discouraged. I wasn't even playing Eve in 2009, so I can speculate at best.
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
2194
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 18:40:33 -
[30] - Quote
nospet wrote:One big issue I am concerned about is:
With new scramble strengths and Capital Warp Disruptors & Scramblers where does this leave heavy interdictors?
Heavy interdictors were newly re-balanced and this seems like it is going to take them out of use almost entirely.
Bubbles are pretty good at tackling lots of things at once. Capital Warp Disruptors will likely be single-target devices.
According to updates.eveonline.com, hictor points are due for a balance pass soon. I don't actually know what that will entail, but I feel like it's a decent chance that they'll be adjusted to match the state of capitals at the time.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2194
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:07:12 -
[31] - Quote
Captain StringfellowHawk wrote:Junot Nevone wrote:What about the rorqual? I was really hoping it was "capital" enough to get some attention. It has beem over three years now since a dev told us change was coming. CCP plans on removing the Rorqual from the game. That's why it was not part of the Capital Balance. This is also why they removed the compression BPCs that were unique to the Rorqual, then they removed compression from being unique and gave it to all areas of space, regardless of skills. Then they made the clone bay useless by letting everyone get clones regardless of Standings. The writing is on the wall for the Rorquak, CCP plans on deleting it, just doesn't know how to openly say so. This is why they repeatedly state they don't know how to approach it. They "it" is actually the pilots who use them. Give it until summer and CCP will finally break the news that they will be removing it from the game. It's roles will be replaced by a service module or new anchorable in the Citadel system that will provide system wide boosts equal to the Rorqual or better. This will help get rid of the Rorqual and make the Industrial crowd want to get Citadels built in the systems they are in. It's coming.. Or some form of this... You watch. System wide mining booster module thing will come and that will be the final bullet for the Rorqual. Frankly, aside from the bit where I would prefer the rorqual to be repurposed rather than eliminated, I'm on board with your "doomsday" scenario. Right now, mining relies far too much on boosts to be effective. Miners produce more than twice the amount of ore/ice/gas per cycle when they have mining boosts. Bake the cycle reduction and capacitor use boosts into the mining modules, and either remove all mining boosts or relegate them to utility things like laser range.
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
2196
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 19:36:25 -
[32] - Quote
Mai Ling Ravencroft wrote:Moac Tor wrote:CCP Masterplan wrote:Yes that is an option. One possibility that has been raised is that on patch day, any carrier with a triage module fitted will be turned in to a force aux. But this is still very much something we want to get your input on before we nail down the final plan.
Let people build them from scratch. Ships are always being rebalanced or changing roles, and so their is no precedence for converting once ship into another. Carriers are still going to be useful ships. I've seen example of where CCP has changed skills to a completely different and useless role from their originally intended purpose and their was no reimbursement or replacement for those. Manufacturers should be the first ones to build and seed new items onto the market. This is not realistic, what you propose is a 4-5 day window where there are NO capital class remote reps. It takes 4-5 days to produce these (basic cap production times), during which time all Citadels and capitals would be completely vulnerable to attack. Having the ability for carrier to fit a triage to them on patch day means you have dedicated pilots, who likely wanted to be cap logi, available. This also means that only those who can fly them, get them. You can't apply remote repair modules to Citadels. They self-repair after defenders clear the field of incoming damage.
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
2196
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 20:30:21 -
[33] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:How about adding a new class of weapons, which are designed to be used by sub-capitals, against capital ships only?
These anti-cap-ship weapons would be ineffective against sub-cap ships, and consume a lot of power - perhaps even draining the ship's capacitor completely after each round of shots - thus, making ships which are equipped for anti-cap-ship work much more vulnerable to counter-attack by normally-fitted sub-cap ships.
There could be such weapons for each class of sub-cap ships, even down to the lowly frigs. This would allow even relative noobs to seriously participate in taking down a super-cap. Note: I'm not suggesting that a single frig should be able to take down a Titan, but, perhaps a hundred of them should be able to do so, if specifically equipped with anti-cap-ship weapons.
This would also give capital ships more reason to fit those new anti-sub-cap weapons, and makes sub-cap support for caps even more essential.. Most ships can already be fitted with modules that kill capital ships, though you'll need to train skills in the Gunnery and Missiles skill groups to use them.
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
2196
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 21:05:35 -
[34] - Quote
Velarra wrote:I read that you intend to decouple the camera from a ship the deploys fighters/bombers/drones etc mmm? If you mess too much with the camera controls and how they pan & move the players' viewpoint for this feature, and start making people sick and nauseous....Caps will not be all that appealing for everyone debating whether or not to train for them who may or may not be rather motion sickness susceptible. In general, you really should keep the 180 rule ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/180-degree_rule ) in mind, and hopefully the lessons CCP is learning while developing VR games for the occulus VR toys. Primarily as constant and repeated camera movements that disorient the viewer, eventually make people sick. I believe that the new camera views were optional. Useful, perhaps, but not required.
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
2197
|
Posted - 2015.10.25 22:39:51 -
[35] - Quote
Galphii wrote:If XL citadels are allowed in Highsec, capitals will need to be able to go into HS as well to knock 'em down. Otherwise corps can just build XL's and never have to worry about anyone else getting enough battleships together to destroy one. XL's will eventually blot out the stars, given enough time. An XL citadel has a DPS cap of 60,000. That's 40 battleships worth of DPS, or six dreadnoughts. Hardly insurmountable.
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
2204
|
Posted - 2015.10.26 14:53:37 -
[36] - Quote
Tappits wrote:fenistil wrote:Dear CCP, these changes seem exciting, escpecially the Titan related changes and how you handle fighters. There is ONE BIG THING, that was not addressed:
- Jump portal generators
One of the major differences between the small and the big guys is the ability of being able to bridge your forces. Or being able to help your logistics efforts by bridge-ing. The reason is simple: a Titan is a good 100+fit+character. Let's say, to get your hands on a Titan, one needs ~200bill ISK. You can see how that could be problematic to small entities. With the changes of SOV and power projection, we can see the rise of small empires, eg. in Fountain, but really all over the map. Request:Please make use of Jump Portal Generators available for those who has no access to hundreds of billions, either on a dedicated platform or maybe on the proposed new Force Aux capitals. I can imagine simple limitations to it so that Titan bridges also have a place: eg. limiting the amount of fuel it's platform can store, the size of force it can project can easily be limited. This Titan bridge for bigger, more established entities has a place. Thanks! Do you know how the first alliance made the first titan? They worked hard. they did not beg CCP to change the game to let them do something others can do without all the hard work. I, too, fetishize BoB.
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
2223
|
Posted - 2015.10.28 18:38:43 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Querns wrote:Lelira Cirim wrote: Meanwhile, it seemed like our esteemed CCP presenter was wounded when the audience asked for a better name than Force Auxiliary. Since we logi are anything but Auxiliary.
I'm donning my unnecessary etymology hat for this post. "Auxiliary" is, really, the perfect word for this sort of ship line. Auxiliaries, in war-time, refer to noncombatants whose primary role is to tend to wounded and dead soldiers. In naval parlance, it refers to a vessel with a supporting role, which is not armed for combat. It makes a lot more sense than "logistics," which typically refers to moving goods, troops, or equipment, not healing. "Logistics" is what Jump Freighters do. Awesome post. CCP Antiquarian would be so proud! The internal name for quite a while was 'Tenders', i.e. - All of which are technically 'Auxiliary' ships. However... Chicken Tenders... Yeah, when I think of "tenders" I think of the train car that holds its fuel (coal, oil) and the water that fuel turns into steam to drive the engine. It is technically the lifeblood OF the train, but it's still a bit of a stretch. "Auxiliary" specifically evokes a "mental flavor" of a thing that tends to damaged things.
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
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:23:39 -
[38] - Quote
xttz wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Capital Local Reps will be re-balanced based on the new HP and change in capital RR mechanics, along with having Meta, T2 and Faction variations introduced. I'd like to take this opportunity to say two things:
- Capital ancillary armor repairer
- Capital ancillary shield booster
I anxiously await the upcoming dominance of the Mjolnir Rage Citadel Torpedo, CASB Phoenix. The Leviathan can come too, I guess.
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
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 13:28:31 -
[39] - Quote
Also, a rename for capital-sized missiles might be in order. "Citadel" meaning both these and the structure seems inappropriate in TYOOL 2016.
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
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 14:27:42 -
[40] - Quote
Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin.
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
2224
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 15:20:04 -
[41] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. It created a smaller threat range radius, but really mostly it just changed the names on the overviews. The point remains valid, it is STILL all about the batphones, just now different people have different speed dial settings than they used to. I think if you stay out of Placid and Aridia, you do alright.
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
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:01:37 -
[42] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Quote: Many groups can field 20 or 30 dreads and as many carriers but most won't without having a group who can field a hundred of each on standby because that is what your enemy is doing. When supers and titans come into play, a group who only has 2 or 3 titans and a few supers is loathe to field them because there is always the very real threat you will get 3rd partied by one of the elite groups (who oddly enough won't fight each other, because they want the guaranteed "We Win" of superior numbers and firepower) and get dunked. So where in this plan is the part where smaller groups can compete, without having to rely on someone else to fight for them? As long as that is how Eve fights (subcap and capital) are fought - It will never be a place for small (<1000) unaligned groups.
I think the current plan is to introduce some sort of "jump fatigue" to limit the ability for folks to "third party" on fights in whose game they have no skin. Yeah cause that has worked so well so far, hasn't it. Tell me, when did Goons become part of Darwinism? Everyone knows Goons will 3rd party any fight they think will get them some jollies - Ask Faulty about his little effort the other night, 43 (to guard 4 Darwinism dreads) vs 8 There could have actually been some content there - Except for Goons turning up the only way they know how - Extreme force with overwhelming numbers. I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals?
Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account.
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
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:20:47 -
[43] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Just to clarify - It removes a carriers identity completely - A carrier is a suitcase, it is a remote repping tool, it is an anom runner, it is a DPS dealer. With these changes, it becomes an overly complicated mess of fielding multiple flights of disposable fighters, while losing most of its other abilities. So basically - A carrier becomes a giant Domi but with far more micro management and cost involved. Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.
Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.
And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?
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
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:28:39 -
[44] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: Each Capital has a unique place in a Capital Group, but these changes as outlined leave the Carrier a 'poor mans' Super Carrier, which I find unacceptable for many reasons; one of which unnecessarily encourages an exodus of pilots from the Carrier into the Super Carrier, and will start an Arms Race.
To put it bluntly, where the hell have you been? Eve has been an arms race to acquire as many supercapital ships as possible as long as supercapitals have been in the game.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:40:31 -
[45] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:I said "limit," not "eliminate." Would you have preferred 200 supercapitals?
Also, I'm unfamiliar with this engagement. Where did it occur? If it was close to our space, then I can hardly garner any sympathy for failing to take that into account. Ask Faulty, I can assure you it was nowhere near Dek. Shame your not involved with your alliance enough to know who they are helping. But then keeping tabs on the biggest blob on TQ would be a challenge, even for an active player. Oh as for the Supers, yeah we've had PL on our doorstep for months - They are quite proficient at killing a lone procurer with 3 supers and a titan (just a tiny bit of overkill from the bored blob elitists). Seeing gate camping supers and titans was common place for a few months there. Knowing you can't be contested leads to some doing the absurd. That's not a location.
I am part of a very large alliance, which is part of a very large coalition. I don't keep tabs on the activities of every pilot. That would be a fool's game. Portions of the alliance also operate under OPSEC, so I may not even have access to know what they're doing. Not to mention that I have no idea who "Faulty" is.
Delegation is a hell of a drug.
Regarding supercapitals, their main weakness, as a player without the means to counter them, is that the hulls can't easily be passed from player to player. Put known supercapital pilots and cynoing hotdroppers on your watchlist and track them using locators.
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
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 16:58:44 -
[46] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.
How can you accelerate from maximum?
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
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:15:12 -
[47] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: With respect, I think you've not read this in the right way. It was not a statement made because I am unaware of that reality, it is meant to point to the fact that what is already the case will only accelerate.
How can you accelerate from maximum? Unless someone's handing out Super Carriers (sign me up); even we aren't 'pushing' Capswarm into Super Carriers, and as far as I can see, there are many Capswarm Carrier pilots (as an example, I don't know about other organizations), who have not and were not planning to move to a Super Carrier. And even if not us specifically, there are other burgeoning entities that will add to the Arms Race precisely because of the total evisceration of Carriers. Adding them equals the acceleration. Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel it could get much worse. I don't want to see Carriers turning into World of Warships style progressive tech tree, where you only use it because it's what you can use, and the minute your can move past it you do, or bypass it entirely - not by choice, but because the ship no longer holds any value and isn't worth retaining. Unless the focus is simply 'low cost alternative', which I find abhorrent. You can only "encourage" folks so much, frankly. We do what we can. The fact remains that supercarriers should be purchased as early, as quickly, and as often as possible.
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
2225
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:17:01 -
[48] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:As Carriers will not probably need: DCUs; RRs; or perhaps even Cap Tfrs...
As they won't need to target things, however, cloaks are very viable.
Why not let them have an otherwise possibly underused local defence weapon against the 'smaller' things - like giving them Turrets and Launcher slots that can fit HAWs?
Or perhaps Capital Smarties? There will be fighter squadrons that will be better at shooting subcapital ships.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 17:21:59 -
[49] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:As an organizational consideration, yes I can only agree.
On a individual level consideration, what I'm trying to highlight, is if anyone personally was still on the fence about whether to go Super Carrier or stay in a Carrier, the currently proposed changes to Carrier (as is) will definitely tip the scales on that consideration in favor of a Super Carrier. What's the problem with this?
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
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:00:54 -
[50] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"?
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
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 18:18:24 -
[51] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:In my estimation, having ships that are only 'temporarily' valuable and as such disposable, is not good for EVE as a game nor for the players - players who one day might get to join a Goonswarm or Pandemic Legion or NCdock and find themselves wanting to fly a Carrier. Each ship should have a unique place among its peers in my opinion.
Funny, this passage accurately describes the Burst and the Scythe. Would you consider the Burst and Scythe to be "not good for EVE as a game nor for the players"? I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet. But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals. There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed. Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better). This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative. If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be? I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation.
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
2226
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:02:57 -
[52] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: I can say that because there have been times that the use of such ships was appealing specifically because the goal was ISK efficiency in a tactical engagement.
At the Capital level ISK efficiency might be less a consideration vs. Force projection, Area Denial through hard-tanking enemy subcap fleets, and Damage output abilities.
If you're gonna swing the hammer, then swing it son
Tends to be how Capitals are used, so long as there is a counter-counter drop available. But again, how is asking me this 'feedback' to Capital changes?
So the only difference is the amount of ISK at stake?
Again, fail to see how that is relevant.
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
2227
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 19:16:30 -
[53] - Quote
159Pinky wrote:While you are at it: are you looking into cyno's as well?
Maybe it's worth adding a certain mass cap to what one cyno ( ship module, not pos mod ) can handle. That would be largely ineffective; the pilots that do jump to the cynosural field can simply light additional cynosural fields.
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
2229
|
Posted - 2015.10.30 23:31:51 -
[54] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote: Carriers aren't suitcases any more. (Thank goodness.) You may want to look up the new Jump Fatigue feature that was added recently.
Its remote repping role is being divorced and put into a new hull. This isn't the first time carriers have had this happen to them; they used to do everything they did pre-Phoebe AND had the roles of Jump Freighters too. Really, carriers would hardly be carriers if they weren't having their former abilities spun off into new ship lines.
And, as far as the carrier becoming a dedicated drone ship, what exactly is the problem?
Damn you mean the week I just spent moving ships to Khanid, in a SUITCASE carrier - Isn't what I was doing? Some of us have no choice but to live with fatigue and do things the old fashioned way. Can't afford to fire sale everything when moving so have to do it the only other way I can. Of course it means not actually playing the game for a week. Fatigue is just plain bad as is the extent of jump range nerfs but CCP don't care about the individual or smaller group, it is all about the game breaking blobs. Again, CCP not considering the smaller groups - removing the RR role from carriers simply makes smaller groups less effective in battle. No problem with it being nothing more than a drone boat, except it removes a lot of its usefulness for anyone not in Goons or PL.. When ignoring and boring your enemy to death is your only option to get them to leave (or be forced to pay them as PL tried to inflict on at least one small alliance in Querious recently) It doesn't make for interesting game play. CCP is handing the elitists a win win with these changes. and judging by some of the Dev responses here - They know that is what they are doing.. CCP Larrikin is no true Aussie, his forefathers would hang their heads in shame. (if your not an Aussie you will not understand my last comment - Hopefully he will) Your problem is that you move. Don't do that. Or, do it much less often. Adding fatigue to carriers makes it more punishing to live as a vulture bent only on destruction. This is something which the game cannot support, in the long term. Sure, we in Goonswarm Federation and our allies are known for our capacity for destruction, but we balance this with a healthy ecosystem at home that exports as much as it imports.
You are aware that Force Auxiliaries can still be used to do triage and general-purpose remote repair, yes? If your argument is that you can't bring a single carrier as a jack-of-all-trades force multiplier, then I have little sympathy. Just like choking back the ability to refit during combat, forcing proper strategic decisions by asking one to choose between different levels of capital-based damage and capital-based remote repair is good for Eve.
It's not 2012 any more. We've moved on. So should you.
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
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 09:50:17 -
[55] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Querns wrote:Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote: I don't know that I can agree with that assessment, Burst and Scythes are perfectly good and viable fleet ships. Would you want to try to 5 man gang in one? Probably not if you could use something else. But they are not invaluable, given the right circumstances and possible counter to another sub-capital fleet.
But the discussion isn't focused on subcapitals, but Capitals.
There are 4 combat Capitals, with one questionable Capital newly proposed, currently each one is unique in one way or another. That uniqueness among peers is being removed.
Instead we will be getting T1 Dread and T2 'Special Snowflake' Dread (Titan), T1 Carrier (gutted) and T2 'Super' Carrier (but a hell of a lot better).
This 'tech tree' progression style is concerning, but again, my main issue is towards how the Carrier is getting shafted, and has nothing that leaves it as a unique and interesting option. Becoming nothing more than a poor mans Super Carrier and a bargain basement 'low cost' alternative.
If you disagree with me Querns, it's cool - but I don't know what benefit having a debate about it in a feedback thread will be?
I don't know how you can say that with a straight face and consider the Burst vs Scalpel and Scythe vs Scimitar to not be the same conversation. Ok.. NP, give super carriers the same role as carriers, no extras no special effects, just multiple flights of disposable fighters - Then your comparison becomes valid - How much outcry would there be if a Super carrier became nothing more than a glorified drone boat, a T2 carrier. The current proposal turns what is now a valid (affordable) ship with multiple roles in a fleet, into a drone boat with less ehp and far less chance of survival (disposable) in a fight. While at the same time turning Supers into more of a Super than they are now. There is no comparison. I guess you missed the part where supercarriers were losing their RR ability too.
In the scythe vs. scimitar comparison, the scimitar gains its remote tracking link ability in the jump to T2. This doesn't make the scythe useless; it provides slightly less functionality for a lower cost and lower training time. So, too, with carriers vs. supercarriers.
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
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 13:05:23 -
[56] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:CCP creating new content for the Blobs at the expense of everyone else.
What's stopping you from using the new capital ships? It's not money; money has been trivial to earn in this game for years. The "Blobs" aren't particularly richer than the average player.
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
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 14:57:06 -
[57] - Quote
iwannadig wrote:CCP, do you plan to introduce warp scramble resistance instead on just integers? Because this is the only attribute that have to be countered with large blob, but not specialized modules or ships. Interdictors of both flavors will still be able to tackle things with warp scramble resistance, all on their lonesome.
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
2230
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 15:00:54 -
[58] - Quote
Sepheria O'Mally wrote: If you want to complain about the lack of real fights, either accept the truth that jump fatigue is a game killing disease, or accept that this is what happens when you protect the little guys from being randomly attacked by third parties. There is absolutely no reason to take the multiple days worth of travel, so caps can then get into a fight, and then take even more days of travel, with no purpose.
Jump Fatigue is only a disease if you insist on cargo culting most alliances circa 2012. If you actually try to build something and own a region of space, it's pretty cool. Eve can easily suffer the loss of those who cling to such an outmoded play style.
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
2231
|
Posted - 2015.10.31 23:22:50 -
[59] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Blob F1 moron mentality - Duh just bring more than them. If "A Titan" can kill a Fax, they really have no place in the game. Sadly though, you are right in part. CCP has once again designed a meta to suit X+X blob fleets - The more of X you bring the faster you win. Fuk the smaller groups - Who the hell are they to think they deserve a place in capital warfare - Everyone should be in a mega group. Particularly - Everyone should be in the biggest one on TQ, problem solved. They've stated over and over in this thread how good this new meta will be for them - Why not just join them and be done with it. The biggest group dominates every time they decide to deploy, has worked so well for Eve up till now, why change it. -- - -- - -- - -- One thing has me thinking though - A carrier and dread can dock in any citadel but supers and titans can't - The new FAX is as big as a titan, so presumably will only be able to dock in the same place as a titan - Would this in any way restrict who could own a FAX considering the cost of the Xlarge Citadel will restrict its use to only the largest richest groups. - -- - -- - -- - -- - CCP Larrikin - Curious too, earlier in this thread I asked a question which you didn't so much answer as sidestep. Think you might have an answer or is it too early in development to know. How many ships will ONE Fax be able to rep - Or to make it easier for you. Will the meta now be, titans, supers, dreads (maybe) and Fax. If one Fax is unable to protect X amount of ships on its own - All your doing is removing carriers and replacing them with a less desirable option. If titan X is called primary by opposing titans (using DD's) Quote:CCP Larrakin said - Titans, while they have Force Auxiliary support - How many Fax will be needed to keep it alive, is it one, ten, 50, (or my guess - we don't know, yet) Have Devs considered, this will only benefit the larger rich groups while at the same time hurt smaller groups? Your reality sounds terrifying. I can't imagine what it'd be like to live in constant fear of F1 BLOBER bogeymen, despite jump fatigue and aegis sov making it largely impossible for the bogeymen to actually hurt you in a meaningful way.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2233
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:06:23 -
[60] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:No, some of us have moved on.. The biggest hold outs are still not even trying. You as a member of this group should be aware of the implications your group poses to the health of the game but insist on ignoring them. The over sized coalition meta did die out a few years ago. Time to get up to date.
Your capacity for destruction is only available because you still live in 2012 - Biggest blob wins. If Goons were ever to man up and let their pets fend for themselves Eve would be a very different / Better game. You won't, simply because you would actually have to play the game then and god forbid, Goons ever risk anything.
Your economy is based solely on market denial - You put nothing into the game you can't profit from - What are the stockpiles of ice, ore, goo, etc worth today? I can tell you what they were worth in 2012 if you like, I'd imagine it is quite a bit more now.
And yes, I am unable to move to a new alliance or play the way I choose because a few mega groups abuse game mechanics to suit themselves. So CCP changes things - That end up affecting smaller groups more than the ones who created the problems to start with.
So what your saying is - Goons and pets can do whatever wherever they like but the rest of us just have to stay put. Roger got it.
PS; Goons don't have allies - They have pets and without the Goon network and isk to prop them up most would lose their space in a matter of weeks, if not months. (well maybe not now we have sov lasers, they just suck)
On topic - CCP is making changes that specifically suit the large dominating groups, again to the detriment of smaller groups.
NB; Don't bother trying to talk Goons + pets up, I spent my time in that shitfight and left, having learned the worst aspects of online gaming can all be in one place. How is "my group" bad for the health of the game? Also, how is banding groups of people together for mutual defense and prosperity bad?
Last time I checked, the double whammy of Phoebe and Aegis forced us to cede five regions and consolidate our holdings. This is definitive proof that CCP has taken measures to "beat back the blob," as it were. Hell, half of Delve is sitting ownerless; why not take a chunk and try to build something?
I also don't get the whole "goons should reset their allies" meme. How does that help the game?
No one has been able to give me a sane answer for any of this. Goodness knows I've been asking. My current theory is that folks who play Eve can't get off unless they own sov in Pure Blind or something.
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
2235
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:07:40 -
[61] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:afkalt wrote:Why are you hell bent on comparing things to the meta which CCP are firmly on record as wanting to nuke from orbit? That's like holding a candle for AoE doomsdays. These changes will do nothing but strengthen the position of those who created this situation. BTW, AoE doomsdays (in slightly different form) are coming back. I agree the current meta is bad but it is not the ships fault it is the large dominating groups who use them to extreme. These changes only give them more choices on how they drop their unassailable force, on the same groups who can't defend against them now. I'm not against change, I'm against change that further increases the divide between the blobs and everyone else. There are options that could make capital warfare a thing for the average sized group - None of this fits that requirement. Look at the goals of the sov changes - Smaller groups would be able to take and hold sov.. Sure they can - As long as they have blues out the wazoo. Capital balancing is another, here we go again, what part of the game am I removed from this time, because I don't want to join one of the few large blobs. It's adorable that you keep trying to salvage the jack-of-all-trades contemporary carrier mechanics, when they're the single best tool that the "blob" has.
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
2235
|
Posted - 2015.11.01 12:57:58 -
[62] - Quote
Ralitge boyter wrote:First of all, why now that I finally have trained all missile and gunnery skills to 5 do you plan on introducing new gunnery and missile skills after all these years Nah I'll survive its just more stuff to rain on this character I am not so sure giving capitals more content is the solution to the broken game that is 0.0 warfare. The big problem is the huge armies of capitals that the power blocks can bring to bear on any would be opponent. The N+1 tactic will not be removed, the only thing is that it will give the mathematicians of EVE a week or two of entertainment as they workout which components make up the most powerful blob now that we have a few more variables. Capital warfare is broken, 0.0 is broken and neither will be fixed by the currently proposed changes. The problem is that CCP has allowed a handful of people to get so very powerful within the game that short of them leaving the game there is no way to stop them from ruining the game for most of us. The huge power blocks make for a boring game play where most end up just picking up the scraps that are left to them after the big boys have taken everything else. Every step CCP has taken to try and reduce their power is countered by a step like this to give them more power then ever before... At the moment all I see here is the power blocks demanding CCP puts in more content for their members, not looking at game play not looking at the possible results in the game just looking at making the handful of uber powerful players and their armies happy and allowing them to consolidate their current positions even further. These capital changes are pointless as the power blocks have the resources to adopt everyone else is left in the dust again... Why not create stacking penalties for number of damage sources? Say if a certain number of guns shoot at a small ship the incoming projectiles have a chance of taking each other out before they hit. This makes bigger ships weaker against smaller once and reduces the constant N+1 game play requiring ever larger ships. It makes fighting much more affordable and fun as well as keeping the big blocks happy because their numbers still make a difference, just not in such a big way. Capitals where a bad idea from the start, they have failed since their introduction and for a large part have led to the current stale boring 0.0 game play we see all over new eden. I strongly oppose the current proposed changes but know that they are going to make it in anyway, I hope that CCP will finally accept that their game is broken and that as long as they keep on doing what those that are the cause of the break demand from them there is no fixing it. How do the big blocs ruin the game for the "rest of us"? Last time I checked, we don't bother you folks down in the South much at all. Is it, like, a morale issue or something? I'm honestly straining to understand here.
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
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 03:07:03 -
[63] - Quote
The trick to triage (and siege) is to make smart strategic decisions and use them either when the risk of dying is low or easily mitigated, or when the cost of dying is overshadowed by the gain.
It's okay for a ship to be situationally useful.
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
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 11:38:59 -
[64] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality.
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
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 12:00:51 -
[65] - Quote
marly cortez wrote:Reading on through the Thread seems a lot of Players have concerns regarding the changes to Capital ship roles and the introduction of yet another Capital type, again with a complete library of additional roles.....A lot of sterling ideas put forwards in the thread so far to adapt changes brought about to a class of ships already rendered utterly useless by CCP themselves. Just seems to a lot of us that poorly thought through changes will not disguise earlier poorly thought through iterations and rule changes.
All of this is worthwhile reading however it does pose a thought between those of us looking at the long term future of a game we have supported for years, What of the players simple request that CCP actually fix the multitude of broken and incomplete items currently embedded in the game, and why having found that changes they themselves have brought into the game environment spun off as features that have had such a detrimental effect on player game satisfaction do CCP still persist along this course of myopic game changes rather than understand what really brings new players into the game and holds there interest over many years.
I know self denial seems to be the in thing among management teams these days but it must be obvious to even the most hardened Silo dweller by now that recent iterations and rule changes have not been in the best interests of many players who have bypassed the Jaw box that is supposed to represent them and simply voted with the most effective tool they have at there disposal, there feet, in large numbers.
Changes to these focused areas of game play are not going to reverse that aspect in any way even though the noisy few that engage with them seem to find these changes so interesting it will not solve the overall problem currently facing the game no matter how much you tinker with it in this manner. Your argument may gain some more traction if you actually describe what vaunted game features merit more importance than this. Talking in vague terms then trusting your audience to understand your particular vignette implicitly doesn't work.
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
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 13:44:02 -
[66] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality. Care to explain or just leave it at your "you know nothing john snow" shenanigans ? I thought it was fairly obvious, but, sure, I can explain it.
We've long since divested our alliance income away from moongoo. To be fair, losing it would be a decent blow to our pocket books, but we have much more effective income streams now.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
2238
|
Posted - 2015.11.02 15:48:06 -
[67] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:Querns wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
This is all setting up the stage. I suspect that winter 2016, moonmining is going to get hit. The the AFK money printing mashine they base their power on.
First they make shure that supers and titans are easier to kill by smaller forces. Then they pull the plug on easy money to replace those supers and titans as fast as they fall.
Then they let attrition do its thing.
This is adorable. It's like the community is permanently 2-3 years behind actual reality. Care to explain or just leave it at your "you know nothing john snow" shenanigans ? I thought it was fairly obvious, but, sure, I can explain it. We've long since divested our alliance income away from moongoo. To be fair, losing it would be a decent blow to our pocket books, but we have much more effective income streams now. I think the better question would be - would it make you move/redraw borders/coalition members? I suspect the answer, certainly in the short term, would likely be "no". Which leads to two questions (neither of which I expect you to answer - with the greatest of respect, you'd be mad to answer even if you could) 1) In the longer term, would T2 item cost pressure/the possibility of a market being cornered by nomads provoke such a move (I suspect unlikely, you likely have enough market clout to weather that) Which leads to 2) What would it take to move/redefine coalition members? If anyone can answer #2 with a viable suggestion then they win the game (and probably get offered a job). Thing is, though, I don't believe there is an answer to #2 because of the logistical challenges presented. The upheaval required in the meta to make you guys (for example, not specifically you, it applies everywhere) up sticks and move from Dek would have to be...basically biblical. Thus more likely, is the possibility of resetting standings - but again there is no good reason for that. You're tightly coupled, it would be like ripping out stitches - you'd need a real powerful reason to do so. Could such a reason be created? Absolutely. Could such a reason be created, without murdering the game....? Well that is the trillion isk question, is it not? Edit: I feel I should add that I hold no ill will to large groups. They make perfect sense, I'm neither bitter nor resentful, I have respect for what has been achieved by all of them - over all of the years. The post is mainly a "what if/what would it take" to change the meta, rather than any criticism. As for #1, the cost of T2 goods is fairly immaterial. Most of our doctrines are T1 ships. Since Technetium was nerfed, the ability to cartel moongoo like the olden days is fairly impossible. Even we, with our vast range of available moongoos, have to import the R32s and R8s that we can't mine in our space. I am probably misunderstanding the question, but T2 prices just aren't that big of a deal. T2 prices being high does affect our bottom line, but we've been forecasting a moongoo nerf for years now. Hell, we led the last major nerf to Technetium! Suffice it to say that our finance team is ready, willing, prepared to have moongoo nerfed. I should know, I'm on that team.
As for #2, we redefine coalition members fairly often -- it usually happens at the end of a war or other defensive campaign. We use paps and other metrics to redefine spoils, and in some cases, accept or expel member alliances. The standards are pretty lax, however -- you have to be a monumental screwup to actually get expelled from the Imperium. (Insert list of expelled alliances here for amusement.) Sometimes folks leave of their own volition and with our blessing; see [J4LP].
If by "redefine," you mean "expel member alliances simply for the sake of reducing our own power," then that's trickier. Even when we do end up losing member alliances (such as Fatal Ascension,) a large number of the constituents of the alliance bowing out end up being absorbed by the rest of the Imperium's remaining alliances.
Ironically, a part of why reductions in size don't work in practice is the availability of virtually risk-free, unlimited PVE in the form of L4s (both highsec and nullsec,) highsec incursions, and capital escalations in wormholes. There's definitely an upper bound to the amount of PVE and Industry available in any given area of space, and thanks to Phoebe and Aegis, there's definitely an upper bound to the amount of space that any one entity can hold without driving their logisticians and leadership to suicide. However, thanks to external, anonymous forms of PVE, a "blow-off valve" definitely exists to allow an organization to scale to any size. Frankly, Goonswarm Federation and the rest of the Imperium member alliances are fairly novel in that they actually bother to do PVE in their space in the first place.
I don't understand what "move" means -- are you suggesting that it matters which particular spit of sand we call home?
As for "redrawing borders," this already happens. Remember how we used to control Cloud Ring, Fountain, Delve, Querious, and Period Basis?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
|