Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Hong Hu
Licence To Kill Mercenary Coalition
27
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:50:35 -
[391] - Quote
Clifffitir Awik wrote:I dont get why you are changing a system of boosts that works quite well the way it is now. Not to mention industrial pilots have been saying NOPE to rorqs in belts forever. Way to take a page outta SOEs "how to kill a game" book.
Its not to late CCP. You can save yourselves from being the next SOE and eve being the next SWG. Listen to the people who actually use the system you are about to change.
Pity there's not a down-vote butan. |
Drigo Segvian
Black Fox Marauders
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:51:28 -
[392] - Quote
Aliana Heartborne wrote:Guess im done playing in november then. ah well, atleast i got to help new miners for 3 years before CCP wanted to ruin it, thanks.
Can I have your stuff ? |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
715
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:52:56 -
[393] - Quote
Golek Gaterau wrote:Also if a boost can become a negative number when the boost ends needs further clarification (armor boost cycle ends in 5% armor of a given fleet memberd ship, what happens?). I would suggest leaving the ship with either 1 HP in shield or armour depending on the type of command link used. Having ships explode because they lost the boost would be silly.
Also if a ship is on 1HP out of a maximum of let's say 10,000 HP for instance and it gets the command burst applied (for simplicity's sake let's say 20% increase in HP), then will it suddenly gain 2,000 HP?
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed Agony Empire
4267
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:53:59 -
[394] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Dunk Dinkle wrote:Overall, it's a good plan to get ships providing boosts into the fight.
I do hope you reconsider how you are handling Wing Command and Fleet Command skills.
Fleet Command is a 12x skill and required months of training. For a slight range increase of bursts, it's not an equitable trade-off for the sunk skill points.
For those of us that have Wing Command and Fleet Command on our mains, not low SP link alts, I hope you consider an alternative plan on how to handle these skills in the transition.
Thanks! The way I look at is this: why would I train from FC IV to FC V for a mere 4% more boost range. They need to adjust Fleet Command to 10-15% more range per level to make it really rewarding, without becoming mandatory.
I generally believe in diminishing returns, so the 6%, 5%, 4% seem reasonable modifiers for Leadership, Wing Command, and Fleet Command.
However, a 14x skill providing a marginal increase in area of effect seems rather..... weak. Fleet command is currently important because each level allows you to transfer boosts to an entire extra wing of pilots. I don't foresee the extra 4% range nearly as valuable. |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
435
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:54:09 -
[395] - Quote
Aliana Heartborne wrote:Guess im done playing in november then. ah well, atleast i got to help new miners for 3 years before CCP wanted to ruin it, thanks. Yeah, cause afk boosting was the only way to help newbie miners... -.- /sarcasm
The tears from miners in this thread has been delicious.
|
Geogeno
League of the Old World Worlds United Fedo Force
9
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:56:46 -
[396] - Quote
It's just embarrassing that is thought in almost all changes only to the PVP fraction. But what do the PVP Fighter if they get no ships or equipment. I would say suck on your finger and look stupid out of the laundry. The miners will be taken everything and get horny the PVP everything so it makes no sense, this game what else I find very well continue to play. I think I speak because many people from the soul. CCP can turn off in my opinion the same server when they do something like this new Mining Boost things. |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
716
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 22:57:00 -
[397] - Quote
Maekchu wrote:Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers. I am guessing this is to prevent Orca pilots getting suspect timers. Perhaps we could just exclude mining links from giving the suspect timer. It seems wrong for something that powerful to be protected by concord.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Pirokobo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
30
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:03:18 -
[398] - Quote
Question #1:
Will the Porpoise be using the Echelon hull?
Question #2:
Do you honestly expect anyone to use the Rorqual the way you are suggesting it be used? |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:04:25 -
[399] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Maekchu wrote:Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers. I am guessing this is to prevent Orca pilots getting suspect timers. Perhaps we could just exclude mining links from giving the suspect timer. It seems wrong for something that powerful to be protected by concord. You should never be allowed to get someone CONCORDOKKEN for a passive action.
Are the boosts maintained on system change? That would also be "fun". |
Maekchu
Gunpoint Diplomacy
436
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:09:19 -
[400] - Quote
Geogeno wrote:But what do the PVP Fighter if they get no ships or equipment. Then we would make miner alts and rejoice about the increased profits gained from mining, since all the miners/industrialists who have no idea about economy has left.
I never understood, how the part of the community that specialize in mining/industry does not understand opportunity cost or simple cost calculations, leaving many items with negative profit margins.
But alas, there will always be miners around, since some are not baddies and will learn to work with on-grid boosts.
|
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:09:55 -
[401] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Airi Cho wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone. TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar That can be done by wings as well. Squads are must-have for organized bomb runs, among other things.
Maybe eliminate squads but remove the 5-wing limit, then. Add as many wings as you want to fleet (or within reason... 10? 20?), then you can use them like the old squads or you can use them like current wings, either way.
FC -> 1 to X WCs -> various wing members... make a logi wing, ewar wing, ceptor wing, DPS wing, etc. etc. or a wing for every 8-10 bombers in a bomber fleet.
And I'm assuming a WC (or SC) with no members underneath will still get boosts under this new system. That's gonna be nice.
edit: also, to people speculating that the new command burst specialist skill is new and will have to be trained from scratch... could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they're just going to rename Warfare Link Specialist to that.
Warfare Link Specialist is the skill for using command processors in your midslots to increase your warfare links fit in the highslots, and since that's going away, being replaced by rigs to add more of the new ammo/script-loaded burst highslot modules.... then pretty clearly that skill will be reused for the new purpose. |
Lord Mudeki
The Cuckoo Collective Dot Dot Dot
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:10:27 -
[402] - Quote
Darek Castigatus wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote: It's not a question of being able to fly the ships but even if it were just because you had leadership V that doesn't mean you can fly a command ship. But more importantly someone who trained a skill that required no specific ship or module shouldn't be forced to fly a specific ship/module to get use out of a skill they trained without those restrictions. A person doesn't just train basic leadership skills so they can be a link pilot flying a t3 cruiser they train them so they can command small gangs and fleets and get bonuses no matter what ship they are flying. This change says "well, if you want to get anything out of the skills that you've already devoted time training then you will be a boost ship" or "you can pay us to extract your skills and you can put the sp towards something that you'll actually use."
If you can't figure out the analogy that's your intellectual deficiency and not my fault but I'll break it down for you anyway. Player plays monthly fee which allows them to train a skill. (Consumer buys a guy that drives just fine and runs on gas like any other)
After making your purchase CCP says sorry but that skill doesn't do that any more. (Consumer is told they can't buy gas anymore)
CCP says BUT if you fly fleet boost focused ships and used fleet boost modules you'll still get use of your skills (Car dealer says, you can drive your care on these special roads and it'll work just fine)
CCP says you can always buy extractors from us and redistribute your sp (Car dealer say, you can by this special upgrade and drive wherever you want)
Understand now? They sell you a product, then decide after the fact that the product you paid for is no longer going to perform the task that you intended it for when you paid for it. They then try to upsell you more products just so you can get the same benefit from your purchase that you already paid for. More commonly referred to as a scam.
Honestly it really doesn't effect me that much. I started training my link alt to be ongrid combat links back when the command dessi's were released because their creation was an obvious move in the direction of on grid links. It wasn't a matter of if boosts were going on grid it was just when. I extracted my leadership skills from my main and injected the sp into my combat links alt. So again, I planned ahead and don't really have anything to lose w these changes. That still doesn't make their approach to the skills and potential profit from extractors less shady.
Passive bonuses that apply all the time with no effort involved in applying them are exactly what CCP is trying to get rid of with these changes, its something thats been widely disliked for a long time by both players and devs. Yes that going to change how the skills apply in the game but guess what, you're not entitled to have your skills remain a certain way just because its what they were like when you trained them. Should I complain that theres no longer just one skill for flying Battlecruisers despite it being that way when I trained for them? Should I complain that a lot of my skills have had their prerequisites reduced since I trained them, making them easier to get for others than they were for me? And yes CCP are pushing skill extractors as a solution. Why? because thats what they were designed to do, to allow people to take skill points they either no longer want or no longer use and put them somewhere else. Yes they cost money but guess what again, CCP is a business not a charity and a business that doesnt try to make money is a business that doesnt last very long. I honestly struggle to see whats in any way shady about pushing a product that function as a direct address to an issue your customers have raised. Finally I understood your analogy perfectly well, i just thought it was shite and being jaw droppingly condescending about it doesn't make me think its any less shite.
Yea theyre in it to make money but only reason they added thing like skill extractors is to compensate for all of the lost income from accounts being unsubbed because of sh*t changes like which will no doubt cause a lot more accounts to go unsubbed between now and November which will cause them to try and find other ways to make up that lost income otherwise will have to start laying people off and/or pull the plug on the game when they start losing to much money thanks to people with your mindset that people who don't pvp don't belong in EvE |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
175
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:13:16 -
[403] - Quote
Gneeznow wrote:I've 10 million SP in leadership and I really like these changes. You know why? because I always give my boosts on the field in a BC or Command Destroyer anyway rather than sit in a safe spot.
From my eveboard " -+ 14 Leadership skills trained, for a total of 15,872,000 skillpoints."
And I support this change for the exact same reason. cheers.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
716
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:14:25 -
[404] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Maekchu wrote:Was wondering about something, since I recall that Fozzie wrote that people will only get weapon timers and no suspect timers.
Let's say you have two corps at war in highsec. Since the boosts are quite strong (which is fine), I suppose people will use neutral boosting alts in order to boost their fleet when fighting war targets. Since the alt is most likely in an NPC corp, and does not seem to get a suspect timer when providing boost, this means you get a 99% safe booster, that is only vulnerable to suicide ganking (which realistically won't be dealt with).
Is this working as intended?
The easy fix is just to have people get suspect timers as logi does. I was just wondering, since it has been stated that people won't get suspect timers. I am guessing this is to prevent Orca pilots getting suspect timers. Perhaps we could just exclude mining links from giving the suspect timer. It seems wrong for something that powerful to be protected by concord. You should never be allowed to get someone CONCORDOKKEN for a passive action. Otherwise CCP would have to record the pilot that applied every boost ("ownership"). Simpler to not do that, and not have consequences to code for. Are the boosts maintained on system change? That would also be "fun" with boost ownership. Who said anything about being CONCORDOKKEN'd for a passive action. All we are suggesting is that combat based boosts give the boosting ship a suspect timer so that people can shoot it.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Rikki Bigg
EVE University Ivy League
10
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:23:27 -
[405] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:No. The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.
I most strenuously disagree. (My opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EVE University)
We have, over the last several years, encouraged our members to train Leadership V, through program incentives at many of our different campuses. Leadership in this exmaple is mainly used to let boosts pass through to the squad members. This way in a larger fleet, that E-Uni might field from time to time, we have adequate members able to let the fleet boosters influence everyone.
While I am grateful that the days of forming fleets in alliance with : x L5/4/4/4/4 will no longer be needed, I have a big issue; you are removing the passive benefits of Leadership and the four combat and fifth mining warfare skills.
Currently, the skill is a sp sink, but one that has useful side effects so it is not completely pointless without a ship running links.
After the change, you are making it so that someone that has invested 256000 skill points for leadership V, and up to 512000 skill points for each of Mining Foreman, Armored Warfare, Information Warfare, Siege Warfare, and Skirmish Warfare; potentially up to 2.8 million skill points for a player that never planned on running an active link. That does not even consider players that might have trained a few levels in Wing Command, or even bit the bullet and trained Wing Command to V and then Fleet Command to II or III.
We have encouraged new players, in order to be more useful to the group (ie their friends) to invest 618040sp (using the L5/4/4/4/4 example from earlier) and now are explaining that it is a sunk cost, and useless unless they invest more.
Which leads to the essence of my disagreement; your changes, as written here, are bad game design.
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed? Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts.
This might impact the same type of gameplay in your mind, but you are putting the cart before the horse.
You have a skill that lets you [verb] a thing, be it a ship, a module, a jump clone, or a corporation. Then you create a secondary skill that improves upon the initial skill, and you make the initial skill the prerequisite.
This is the way every skill in EVE Online currently works. Some of the prerequisites seem to be there to gate skills (like Cloaking needing CPU Management V) but even in those cases the prerequisite skills provide a benefit that stands on its own.
The entry leadership skills, that many people have already sunk skill points into , are being changed so that they offer zero tangible benefit (heck even training Science to V gives you 5% copy speed) unless you invest even more skill points into supplementary skills.
This I have a problem with. |
Silven Rubis
Gemini Talon Curatores Veritatis Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:34:22 -
[406] - Quote
Rikki Bigg wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:No. The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.
I most strenuously disagree. (My opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of EVE University) We have, over the last several years, encouraged our members to train Leadership V, through program incentives at many of our different campuses. Leadership in this exmaple is mainly used to let boosts pass through to the squad members. This way in a larger fleet, that E-Uni might field from time to time, we have adequate members able to let the fleet boosters influence everyone. While I am grateful that the days of forming fleets in alliance with : x L5/4/4/4/4 will no longer be needed, I have a big issue; you are removing the passive benefits of Leadership and the four combat and fifth mining warfare skills. Currently, the skill is a sp sink, but one that has useful side effects so it is not completely pointless without a ship running links. After the change, you are making it so that someone that has invested 256000 skill points for leadership V, and up to 512000 skill points for each of Mining Foreman, Armored Warfare, Information Warfare, Siege Warfare, and Skirmish Warfare; potentially up to 2.8 million skill points for a player that never planned on running an active link. That does not even consider players that might have trained a few levels in Wing Command, or even bit the bullet and trained Wing Command to V and then Fleet Command to II or III. We have encouraged new players, in order to be more useful to the group (ie their friends) to invest 618040sp (using the L5/4/4/4/4 example from earlier) and now are explaining that it is a sunk cost, and useless unless they invest more. Which leads to the essence of my disagreement; your changes, as written here, are bad game design. CCP Fozzie wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:So, skill bonuses completely removed? Yes. All passive fleet boosts are being removed including the ones from the skills. The skills will now be 100% dedicated to improving your Command Bursts. This might impact the same type of gameplay in your mind, but you are putting the cart before the horse. You have a skill that lets you [verb] a thing, be it a ship, a module, a jump clone, or a corporation. Then you create a secondary skill that improves upon the initial skill, and you make the initial skill the prerequisite. This is the way every skill in EVE Online currently works. Some of the prerequisites seem to be there to gate skills (like Cloaking needing CPU Management V) but even in those cases the prerequisite skills provide a benefit that stands on its own. The entry leadership skills, that many people have already sunk skill points into , are being changed so that they offer zero tangible benefit (heck even training Science to V gives you 5% copy speed) unless you invest even more skill points into supplementary skills. This I have a problem with.
word+1 y rigth
|
eVRiAL
Annapolis Tactical
15
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:37:47 -
[407] - Quote
So now fleet boosts are boosted in CCP way: 15km range and 10 new stupid mods and scripts, revamped skills (FC5 for fools).
Huydo wrote:It seems this game really wants that we get rid of it...n++ |
Rovinia
Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE
553
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:40:29 -
[408] - Quote
Thanks Team Five 0 for finally getting rid of this outdated game mechanic.
And thanks to Fozzie and Phantom once more for taking (or tanking) the Nerdrage |
Daugan
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
24
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:46:05 -
[409] - Quote
Please take your hands off my faithful rorqual, she does not need to be another failed content generator for you to :shobon: about. |
UnholyGreed
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:55:28 -
[410] - Quote
60k active player - You guys need to adapt 50k active player - You guys need to adapt 40k active player - You guys need to adapt 20k active player - You guys need to adapt 1k active player - can we borrow some money we need to pay this light bill
Dear CCP, Please uninstall all your Devs and start again fresh. Keep "fixing" things that dont need to be fixed while ignoring huge problems that have been around forever, sounds like a good business model. |
|
Desiderya
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Wrecking Machine.
1122
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 23:57:55 -
[411] - Quote
Hm, beloved Fozzie,
The ranges on the modules seem very restrictive, especially for smaller, mobile gangs. Would it be possible to include a falloff range for these modules to provide some extra range at reduced efficiency? As it stands now, the smaller the gang is the more it will focus anchor hugging, especially for CDs. This will hit static logi/anchor fleets much less than already more challenging skirmishing fleets. Alternatively it may be beneficial for the smaller ships to provide the boosts in faster bursts - if you miss a beat oyu can more readily return to refresh the boost - to keep it in line with the less static nature of skirmishing vs typical fleet engagements.
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
176
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:00:03 -
[412] - Quote
On a nearly unrelated tangent:
Since we're going to remove skills that just let you have more numbers of people in a fleet, perhaps we could do a similar thing with other skills? Corp Management (number of members) for instance? Maybe even the Trade (buy/sell order limits) or contracting skills too?
They seem like such silly and arbitrary limits. They could be replaced with other relevant skills that add to the gameplay instead of becoming mandatory just to participate in the game. Much like the learning skills of old, there are many skills that need their own version of Tiericide.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Maxwell Hisscock
Bound And Determined Mordus Angels
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:02:14 -
[413] - Quote
Short version is pvp is everything ...screw everyone else. fly multi-billion isk ships in tight fleets so a pvp addict can fly a hic and bubble everyone? no thanks. 8 days till account dump. nerf that |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:03:15 -
[414] - Quote
Milla Goodpussy wrote:Its too easy to kill a rorqual on grid.. especially with the use of cloaky campers in the system (which will spot the anon/belts) which simply could tell a friend to (drop drag bubble aligned to the station/citadel). needless to say the hotdroppers will easily jump in and tackle the ship with what ever they have so its dead in the water, meanwhile the pilot in a panick could hit is "captain savior mod" which locks him and all his miner buddies (ones who could have reshipped but no they're stuck like chuck as well) into place to provide even more supper for the ganking beasties....
Maybe the PANIC BUTTON should only freeze and immunize the Rorqual itself... maybe all the industrial ships in fleet and in range should instead be flung outwards away from the Rorqual at insane speeds like siege dreadnaughts being POS bowled? Hey, once they come to rest off-grid (yes, send them 10s of 1000s of km away!), they can warp to safety/go reship to something useful to come back and defend the Rorqual once its panic button timer ends. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:12:40 -
[415] - Quote
Cerulean Ice wrote:Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer? It isn't pvp related in the slightest.
Will the orca be receiving some sort of agility boost, or will a fleet require multiple orcas to boost more than one mining squad? Mining fleets don't operate in one location like pvp fleets do. Any more than ten miners per belt results in horribly inefficient cycles from all the double lasering.
Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing.
I agree, scripts would be better than ammo. Highslot scripts, it should be a thing!
Marauders activating bastion mode aren't necessarily engaged in PVP, either, but they still get a weapons timer (whether they're PVPing, ratting, or hell... tractoring/salvaging). |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3474
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:15:49 -
[416] - Quote
UnholyGreed wrote:60k active player - You guys need to adapt 50k active player - You guys need to adapt 40k active player - You guys need to adapt 20k active player - You guys need to adapt 1k active player - can we borrow some money we need to pay this light bill
Dear CCP, Please uninstall all your Devs and start again fresh. Keep "fixing" things that dont need to be fixed while ignoring huge problems that have been around forever, sounds like a good business model.
This IS one of those huge problems that has been around forever.
Id prefer they were removed completely but this is a good ******* change, a long time coming. And yes i trained a whole char for these passive boosts.
Two things however;
1- ammo? I don't get this. You've made it such that the need for ammo isn't that taxing for the booster, but why do it at all? Why not just scripts?
2- using a booster on wartargets/criminals/outlaws/limited engagements/suspects most definitely needs to make the booster suspect at least.
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
336
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 00:16:25 -
[417] - Quote
A Temp Close while I muck out the stable. Please enjoy this short video while you wait: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s6bv4yayOk
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
I do not respond to Evemails.
|
Mafone
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:09:01 -
[418] - Quote
OK First off off grid boosts needed nerfed - they were op.
However have a number of problems with this as suggested@
Firstly the command processors becoming rigs is a nerf to Command ships - instead of the present up to 7 links per ship they get 4 and have to be ongrid. (they can only fit 2 rigs) A T1 BC can now get the same number ie 4 (links - it has 3 rig slots to T2s 2) if not the same effect multipliers. Also notice from the figures given that you have not only nerfed range (needed - ongrid is good) but also amount of boost and duration (not good).
Your figures state for example: Max skirmish boosts will be Reduces signature radius -32.34% at present at a range of 50km for 1 min - I am presently sitting my booster in a Slepneir getting - 34.5% sig radius reduction with much longer duration/range. Similarely Armored Warfare passive defence is being nerfed from system wide enduring boost of 25.88% to short range short timed 21.56%
As I said there does need to be some work done to remove off grid boosts (and I say that from someone who flys boosts a lot) but Nerfing range, duration and effect for something that people have put a lot of skill points and time into needs much more thought. As well as making Fleet command Skill needed to get max boost range skills from something that lets face it was only needed by FC's for large alliances where fleets approach the max number of players to something more needed as a 12x skill is not cool.
My suggestion would be: 1) Make all boosts on grid - 50-70km range or so with skills might work. Needs to be large enough to allow logistics to be at range and still get boosts.
2) Command Ships need to at least be able to fit 3 links as a base possibly with 3 Rig slots to allow some variations on the present max multi link ships obviously fitting should be nerfed by the command processors as presently to nerf max tank etc.
3) Links should definately NOT be nerfed in all 3 of range, duration and amount. Yes make gameplay more active and ongrid but the boosts should be increased over the present amounts with max skills - oh and all this is gonna cost you in ammo costs that you don't have now -
4) Leadership skills need some love in this - after all why would someone train them now apart for boosting toons. Small gangs and kitchen sink fleets (which may presently may not have dedicated command ships of any sort) just got significantly nerfed as the passive bonuses do not apply - so this favours larger more organised fleets who lets face it already have max leadership skills/ppl - and makes small gangs much more vulnerable unless they bring command ships etc. I think some sort of balance is required in this perhaps making leadership 5 necessary for squad command, and providing some sort of low level boost as at present.
TBH i think it will be hard to not present this as a nerf to high skill players - yes they do get perhaps better gameplay but for much less reward - as someone who has nearly 2 years of skill training invested in leadership between my toons this needs much more work and as they say the devil is in the detail - much more of which is needed and needs to be tweaked.
I hope this is constructive |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
176
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:17:02 -
[419] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:Cerulean Ice wrote:Why does the mining burst trigger a weapons timer? It isn't pvp related in the slightest.
Will the orca be receiving some sort of agility boost, or will a fleet require multiple orcas to boost more than one mining squad? Mining fleets don't operate in one location like pvp fleets do. Any more than ten miners per belt results in horribly inefficient cycles from all the double lasering.
Why ammo for the boost modules instead of just scripts? They function as scripted modules, so they should actually be scripted modules instead of some weird ammo script hybrid. It makes no sense to have these modules only boost so many times before a reload when the script type isn't changing. I agree, scripts would be better than ammo. Highslot scripts, it should be a thing! Marauders activating bastion mode aren't necessarily engaged in PVP, either, but they still get a weapons timer (whether they're PVPing, ratting, or hell... tractoring/salvaging).
I think it has less to do with being an offensive action, and more about you don't want people to be able to abuse the docking/refitting/tethering mechanics? When you have a weapons timer you can't do any/all of those (i think?).
You don't want people to engage Bastion mode, soak up a bunch of damage, and be able to dock whenever they want (even if they never fired a single shot). Along similar lines, you don't want someone to be able to throw out a bunch of bonuses and then be able to go dock, or refit off a carrier, or anything like that.
As for the ammo thing, I think people are making a bigger deal about this than will be warranted. I'm willing to bet that for 99% (made up statistics are fun) of the cases, there will be no functional difference between having ammo or scripts or anything they could make up. Ammo probably works better for some weird legacy code reason and I'm cool with just leaving it at that. Not that my way of thinking is right and yours is wrong, it's pure opinion, and i'm just throwing mine out there too.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Mackenzie Hawkwood
Event Horizon Expeditionaries Apocalypse Now.
54
|
Posted - 2016.08.30 01:23:07 -
[420] - Quote
Clifffitir Awik wrote:I dont get why you are changing a system of boosts that works quite well the way it is now. Not to mention industrial pilots have been saying NOPE to rorqs in belts forever. Way to take a page outta SOEs "how to kill a game" book.
Its not to late CCP. You can save yourselves from being the next SOE and eve being the next SWG. Listen to the people who actually use the system you are about to change.
Why a switch on/off?
Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying.
In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless.
Simple as that. - Kina Ayami
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |