Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
KIller Wabbit
Unleashed' Fury Imminent Threat
922
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:53:07 -
[61] - Quote
So let's raise the return rate on high sec pirating. Null bloc's get their way yet again. |
Edward James Reed
Reed's
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 16:55:35 -
[62] - Quote
+1 for this change.
Also +1 for probe-scan wrecks: if it's in space - it may be scanned. May bring some interesting opportunities. |
Terra Chrall
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
64
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:36:39 -
[63] - Quote
Danmal wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
Up until now, wrecks (other than those belonging to Ship Maintenance Array and X-Large Ship Maintenance Array starbase structures) have all had a uniform 500 hull hitpoints. This makes them very easy to destroy, with no difference between destroying a shuttle wreck and a titan wreck.
We've seen a few requests here and there to tweak this mechanic from players, and recently Endie from the CSM has brought the issue up with us and championed it. We've got a set of changes ready for the February release that should help bring wreck hitpoints into a better state.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks! I find this unnecessary. For player wrecks, the quick destruction of the wreck can be tactically important because they are warp-in points. Hence why reward slow/worse PVPers by giving them more time. Second, I am against applying this to NPC wrecks too. Some diligent PVErs destroy their wrecks in low/null so as to remain anonymous, which becomes a chore when they have a lot of hitpoints. Hence, there is at least as good an argument for not increasing their HP. I am not sure what the argument for increasing NPC wreck HP would be. EDIT: Because of my first point, I suppose this to be the proposal from a group that's bad at PVP pushing their own agenda, am I right? EDIT2: As I am getting madder about this, can you please start impeaching CSM members who clearly push their own agendas rather than the interests of the community. Thank you.
The value of a utility high with a salvager or a few salvage drones in bay just became a new thing and may have just given a new role of salvage ships in fleet ops. It will be interesting to see how this plays out as a change.
Personally I have little skin in the game as I don't destroy wrecks very often. But I like the idea that a wreck is harder to destroy the larger it is, seems very logical. Though in a game logic is not always the best game play given other mechanics and game play. So I am interested to see how this change plays out and not shoot the idea down outright. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
17434
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:36:54 -
[64] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey folks. There's a small change that's currently planned for our February release and we'd like to get your feedback.
Up until now, wrecks (other than those belonging to Ship Maintenance Array and X-Large Ship Maintenance Array starbase structures) have all had a uniform 500 hull hitpoints. This makes them very easy to destroy, with no difference between destroying a shuttle wreck and a titan wreck.
We've seen a few requests here and there to tweak this mechanic from players, and recently Endie from the CSM has brought the issue up with us and championed it. We've got a set of changes ready for the February release that should help bring wreck hitpoints into a better state.
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp Battleship, Large NPC, Officer NPC: 3500 hp Carrier, Dread, Rorqual, Orca, Freighter: 15000 hp Supercarrier, NPC Supercarrier: 25000 hp Titan: 30000 hp
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
Looks good. Ship it.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Talassa Noran
BioMetalFoundry
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:43:43 -
[65] - Quote
it makes sense, but it will just be abused so
-1 |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2545
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:50:43 -
[66] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Asinae Antaelis wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
The current planned numbers are:
Frigate, Rookie Ship, Shuttle, Small NPC: 700 hp Destroyer: 1000 hp Cruiser, Mining Barge, Medium NPC, Generic NPC: 1500 hp Battlecruiser, Industrial: 2500 hp [/b]
The CSM feedback we've received so far has been positive, and we'd like to hear what you all think. Thanks!
Shouldn't this be proportionnal to average hull hitpoint? like 1/2 the ship's hull Cause for frigs, the wreck would have more raw hp than the flying ship... From RL perspective. To sunk a ship today you need to punch hole in this hull, so big, you cannot remove water moving in. In case of EVE armor and hull give you information how much damage you need to do before hole will be 'big enough' to do the job. In both cases rest of the ship is mostly intact.
Do we really know what would happen to a ship in the case of an actual hull breach? Like how much the remains get damage during the pressure equalization between the inner of the ship and the void of space. |
Kaoraku Shayiskhun
The 1st Regiment HUN Reloaded
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 17:54:09 -
[67] - Quote
Reality? When a small ship collition to a capital ship, and the smaller one not blown up? Yeah, that was a really needed REBALANCE, wrecks was pretty OP |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3748
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:03:24 -
[68] - Quote
CCP, the issue of making ganking more profitable is one that needs addressing, I propose, as a way to complete this re-balance: Exploding freight containers. If my ship explodes, so does my freight container, along with all its contents. Make it have a volume that is about 70% of its own volume, as a penalty for using them (that is, you can use this freight container, but you will be carrying less cargo).
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Sipphakta en Gravonere
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
646
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:06:12 -
[69] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Do we really know what would happen to a ship in the case of an actual hull breach? Like how much the remains get damage during the pressure equalization between the inner of the ship and the void of space.
The pressure difference isn't that big of a deal, it's roughly equivalent to the pressure at 10 meters depth in water. |
Insidious
Hax.
17
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:09:59 -
[70] - Quote
excellent idea
hell i would go further and let the capsuler escape be manual release |
|
Messenger Of Truth
Butlerian Crusade
25
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:17:09 -
[71] - Quote
This is a good change overall but does have possibly unintended consequences on the profitability of freighter ganking. The gankers are (broadly-speaking) protected by concord - the very mechanics they subvert! With bumpers and looters in npc corps, its hard to assault their valuable ships.
\I would like to see consequence-free bump tackling changed - you shouldn't be able to tackle in hisec without going suspect or criminal. Likewise, ships involved on looting from gank victims should not be protected by concord.
Still, wreck hp is a good change for the game. |
Dunmer Orion
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:20:01 -
[72] - Quote
Good idea, makes sense to me. Will it affect salvaging times?
-DO |
Aryth
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1895
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:21:15 -
[73] - Quote
Lol. Go for it. This owns.
Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.
Creator of Burn Jita
Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
|
Ruby Gnollo
1
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:35:37 -
[74] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:Scratching my head to understand what problem this change will fix. Or is it merely 'cosmetic'?
Maybe it's because some find too easy to deny loot even when loosing ground by shooting big wrecks |
Chalithra Lathar
Rhongomiant Legion Industries The Explicit Alliance
33
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:52:56 -
[75] - Quote
#WreckLivesMatter |
DirtyGibson Hand
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:53:27 -
[76] - Quote
This is a good post. Good job goodposter. Will you be the champion for scannable wrecks?
Sharps wrote:What about MTUs?
Also, can we probe down wrecks now please?
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
2160
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 18:55:27 -
[77] - Quote
Vincent Athena wrote:CCP, the issue of making ganking more profitable is one that needs addressing, I propose, as a way to complete this re-balance: Exploding freight containers. If my ship explodes, so does my freight container, along with all its contents. Make it have a volume that is about 70% of its own volume, as a penalty for using them (that is, you can use this freight container, but you will be carrying less cargo). No, the game needs more conflict drivers not less. Removing the spoils of victory for out-maneuvering your opponent does not seem to be a good way to incentivize player interaction.
+1 for a good, minor change which should shake things up slightly and one that makes sense. Numbers seem fine. |
MissBolyai
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
151
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:06:45 -
[78] - Quote
Lucas Quaan wrote:MissBolyai wrote:Stupid change
-1 It just became a group task instead. ;) #AMT Do we have a artymach fleet comp? or do I just bring it as a flagship wreck dunker? |
MissBolyai
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
151
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:13:22 -
[79] - Quote
If there's nothing to stop this change, can you at least give us killmails for wrecks now? |
baltec1
Bat Country Pandemic Legion
17242
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:21:26 -
[80] - Quote
KIller Wabbit wrote:So let's raise the return rate on high sec pirating. Null bloc's get their way yet again.
Current chance of being ganked in a freighter stands at less than 0.1%.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
|
Gauis Aldent
Concordiat Spaceship Samurai
8
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:25:46 -
[81] - Quote
Edward James Reed wrote:+1 for this change.
Also +1 for probe-scan wrecks: if it's in space - it may be scanned. May bring some interesting opportunities.
Role bonus for the noctis? :) |
Bisu Deckryder
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
44
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:28:40 -
[82] - Quote
Lamo gankers vs anti gankers is the biggest whine fest in eve. Both sides make the pubbiest null or low sec player looks well rounded |
MarkeeDragon
Merchants Trade Consortium The Last Chancers.
4
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:40:12 -
[83] - Quote
I think this would be a positive change. Will help with griefing a bit. |
Femerov
gaming is not a crime The Volition Cult
3
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:47:33 -
[84] - Quote
does that also mean we are going to get more salvage from the biger wrecks now they have bigger masses ? :) |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
309
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:48:57 -
[85] - Quote
Popping wrecks quickly is a valid assets denial tactic, and should not be changed.
If wrecks are to get more hitpoints based on ship type (which does make sense) then prevent looting a wreck while it is locked, so that looters have first to take care of ships trying to destroy the wreck before taking the loot.
Vote Borat Guereen for CSM XI
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
Freedom fighters, unite with Chao3
|
Sasha Cohenberg
Cohenberg's Ethical Hauling CODE.
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 19:53:32 -
[86] - Quote
As an Ethical Hauler, I'm glad this change is happening. If i ever pick up a scam contract and get ganked, the gankers can no longer pop my wreck containing the contract and deny me my collateral. Now I'll be able to reship and get my wraps from my wrecks upon reshipping at station. Thanks CCP! |
death minner
River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:04:16 -
[87] - Quote
Well, if there are going to be more hit-points, it should be due to more salvageable parts of the ship surviving... |
death minner
River-Rats in space The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:08:00 -
[88] - Quote
Sasha Cohenberg wrote:As an Ethical Hauler, I'm glad this change is happening. If i ever pick up a scam contract and get ganked, the gankers can no longer pop my wreck containing the contract and deny me my collateral. Now I'll be able to reship and get my wraps from my wrecks upon reshipping at station. Thanks CCP!
or their hauler comes in and loots your wreck while you are trying to reship and you still loose out. neut alt transfers content to fleet hangar, or whatever and no one gets killed but the neut
|
Ashla Boga
Pro Synergy
45
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:26:37 -
[89] - Quote
You asked for the feedback from the other thread moved over, so I'll just copy and paste this:
Nyalnara wrote:
Anthar Thebess wrote: Currently we will have fleet warp changes inbound and when FC cannot warp fleet , people waping to wrecks are very important thing, that we need to have.
Which is exactly why we proposed wreck to need potentially more than one salvager cycle to clear.
I'm sorry to say that one cycle salvaging is done because it's a pass/fail mechanic and if they complete in one cycle it's because they have good skills or lots of luck, not because all wrecks just magically are always only one cycle. This would be a sucker punch to real salvagers that do this all the time to just arbitrarily remove the success rate system so the wrecks don't get salvaged as quickly.
As far as the OP and wreck EHP, I've got to say for player wrecks especially every size of wreck being insta-pop isn't a great thing currently. I think it would also hurt gankers to make MTU's unable to tractor from a warp gate in a system or immediately off of stations. I understand that 90% of the time that MTU just gets killed by someone with a halfway decent ship who doesn't mind going suspect, but it's pretty frustrating to see a 30 wreck ball of empty wrecks gathered around one after a gank, knowing it's probably just an alt of one of the gankers. Maybe we could make MTUs go suspect if they pull ganker/ganked wrecks in >:) so players aren't penalized for killing it then.
Also I think it's freaking RIDICULOUS that you can go to salvage an elite cruiser or battleship wreck and only get 1000 isk worth from it sometimes. If they play with sizes they should play with material drop as well. If it costs 200 m, 500m, 1000m to build it, it shouldn't drop 4 metal scraps alone. Just my two cents.
(a) Change the wreck ehps based on size? Yes! (b) Change looting mechanics for MTUs and gankers? Yes! (c) Change base composition of various sized wrecks? Yes!
Wrecks are still only going to last 2 hours even if they are bigger after all.
(P.S. no pun intended - anytime you're dealing with wreck stuff, you should totally come to me first, I'm an expert in the field.... of blue triangles.) |
Shallanna Yassavi
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
76
|
Posted - 2016.02.01 20:34:44 -
[90] - Quote
Can we make the wrecks bumpable? It would leave a way to steal/deny loot.
A signature :o
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |