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) |
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2931
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:08:31 -
[781] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:Zappity wrote:I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging. I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits. If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed. Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back. It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
Zifrian
Distortion. Amplified.
1756
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:10:18 -
[782] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Krystyn wrote:Zappity wrote:I like that Rorquals are going on grid. I bet 90% of miners have never used the fighter mechanics and I hope they are pleasantly surprised. This could be a good first step toward making mining more engaging. I'm betting the over under on Rorquals in belts is going to be in the single digits. If people think there are going to be a mass of rorqual KMs they will be disappointed. Mine will collect dust in the hangar until scan down mining belts come back. It would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with this change. I suggested this earlier as well.
Can't think of what it would be like to mine in a wormhole.
GÇ£Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.GÇ¥ - Dale Carnegie
Industry guy, third-party developer, jack-of-all-trades - master of none
Maximze your Industry Potential! - Download EVE Isk per Hour!
|
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:14:16 -
[783] - Quote
Liang Nuren wrote:All of the buff duration skills make it look like they're going to last significantly longer than module cycle times. That, at least, is at least interesting and good from a gameplay perspective. Fozzie, can you confirm? Also, a specific "Fleet command at 4" number for how long the buffs last would be pretty good. Not saying its because I have FC at 4, but... :P
The only way making the cycle times longer than they're talking about making them now is if they make the pre-or-post-ship-hull-bonused boost effect duration longer as well, yeah. Otherwise, big gaps in coverage.
I believe duration boosting is handled elsewhere, from what I remember in the blog, Leadership/WC/FC only affect the range, so FC 4 would put you at NEAR-max range (so like 56km instead of 58km with otherwise-maxed Command Ship)?
My booster alt is FC 3, so I'm right there just behind ya. :)
Tau Cabalander wrote:I hope the new ship buffs allow all strips to be activated at the same time, plus maintain a tank.
There won't be 3 strip miner ships any longer since they're upping the proc/skiff from 1 to 2, keeping the ret/mack at 2, and reducing the cov/hulk from 3 to 2, so... both strips should be okay, no more triple cap hit from covetor/hulk strip activation.
Tau Cabalander wrote:Pretagos Omilas wrote:-¦ damn it, can any native speaker please tell me if 'affecting' is correct here? Effect is the noun (subject or recipient of the action) Affect is the verb (action). I remember: "The effect" and "To affect".
Yep. For example...
"The November 2016 EVE update is going to affect anyone who uses a fleet booster ship at all, be it combat or mining."
vs.
"I am/am not looking forward to the effects of the November 2016 EVE update on my fleet booster ship(s)." |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6377
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:14:39 -
[784] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:Nope! That local tank is only relevant if you can win the fight against whatever shows up to kill your hilarity-pinata. The first interceptor on scene doesn't have to kill you. He has to hold you on grid while spamming "RORQ TACKLED." A couple dreads and five minutes later and there isn't a local tank strong enough to save you. Or a Titan doomsday, that would be instant death no matter what. Or a half dozen BLOPS. Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting). For what it is worth:
Reworking Capital Ships: And thus it begins!
CCP Larrikin on behalf of Team Five-0 wrote:No capital will have complete electronic warfare immunity
Yes, titans can be tackled by enough Rifters, or jammed by enough Falcons. We've got some interesting mechanics for this and I'll go through them one by one -
Warping: Supercarriers and Titans will have an innate warp strength of around 20 to 50. We haven't locked these numbers in and we'd love to hear from you on what you think is appropriate. Heavy Interdictors with a focus point will work as they do now, as will bubbles. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5888
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:18:16 -
[785] - Quote
I love seeing all of the tears from people that KNEW for years that they were abusing a broken system whose days were numbered and are now threatening to unsubscribe over the most needed balance change since the nerf to (original) AoE doomsdays.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:20:37 -
[786] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Moraguth wrote:[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity. Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.
So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.
They don't eff the usefulness of your boost alts, they force you to actually put them in harm's way. Heaven forbid you actually have to be actively playing to have any impact on other players.
Man... I wish I could have a FAX sitting safe at a friendly POS repping people's shields far away in the system without actually putting it at risk Man... I wish I could have my Dread sitting safe at a friendly POS while still pounding away at a hostile POS in system somewhere without putting it at risk Man... I wish I could have my Rorq sitting safe at a friendly POS vastly increasing the mining yield of every miner in the system without putting it at risk
These are all capital ships which have a big impact on a fleet's performance. Nobody is forcing you to use them, but they are amazing force multipliers. Whether they are killing enemies, repping friendlies, or increasing isk earned, they shouldn't be able to do so from afar where nobody has a chance of stopping them.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:24:52 -
[787] - Quote
Moraguth wrote: So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.
What are you even talking about. I said I would quit if these changes came into effect and they didn't give me my rorqual SP back so I could fly something that wasn't ****. |
Sylvia Kildare
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:26:22 -
[788] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:Sylvia Kildare wrote:*Some players demand off-grid boosting be changed. A loud minority or plurality, but doubtful it was even a majority. Certainly not all. Sure about it? Offgrid boosting was never seen as issue by many because it catered to exactly their paradigm of throwing money / ISK at a game to gain more benefits. Does that make it a better game? I doubt so. Yet I'm not buying the minority bit who demanded ongrid boosting, considering this idea has been toyed with for years now. To be real, it doesn't make any difference if it was a minority or majority. Objectively speaking, offgrid boosting was bad for the game, but good for the bonus crowd. Sometimes you need to **** off people and do something that's better for the game as a whole. This is CCP as it lives and thrives. The ideas usually are in a good direction, the course of implementation is what often makes these ideas seem like a steaming pile of bantha poodoo.
Most people using off-grid links in big nullsec fleet engagements where both sides have them didn't have issues with the current system, most people using off-grid links to boost mining, missioning, or incursioning in highsec didn't have issues with the current system.
The main issues people were having with off-grid links seems to have been in the arena of lowsec PVP. Lowsec CSM candidates in the past few years often speak about feeling left out with CCP paying attention to WH/null/highsec concerns, but this change seems catered to lowsec specifically.
Whether or not it was a majority or minority of the entire playerbase (not just lowsec) wanting these changes may not make a difference in the greater scheme of things and in the end as to whether CCP changes things or not, but since Fozzie did say their 4th dev blog would take into account feedback to this first dev blog and then the 2nd and 3rd ones about mining/combat changes specifically... seems to me that while it's not simple CCP putting out a poll saying "yes/no/maybe later in a different way" to these changes where it can just be like an election, they still do care about players' opinions.
But hell, it's their game, we just pay for it and play in it. If 0% of people wanted a change, they could still make it. :::shrugs:::
Just wanted to respond to a lot of people in this forum thread implying (if not flat out saying) that everyone wanted this, as that's just not true, nothing to do with for CCP's benefit.
GeeBee wrote:Just Remove boosts, this is the solution that should have been done years ago.
Boosts cause a severe issues in gameplay balance, are a necessary for large fleets and cause complete upsets in small gang warfare. They have done nothing positive for gameplay in the recent years once the majority of the playerbase had booster alts or skills. This change is long overdue and is a poor attempt at avoiding the refund of SP to the playerbase. Remove the active boost modules w/ related skills and leave only the passive bonuses from mindlinks and skills.
Boosts create imbalance in gameplay and as an overall mechanic is annoying in its current form. the proposed changes make it more annoying, how this is a fix or an improvement is beyond me.
If they did that, they'd better buff the hell out of command ships tank/DPS/application-wise, then... some sort of unholy HAC/Marauder hybrid. I mean... there's 2 or more tech 2 variants of frigs, destroyers, cruisers, and battleships... but just ONE kind of tech 2 battlecruiser, so... if boosts went away, give us better tech 2 battlecruiser action, CCPls! :D |
lord xavier
Hax. The-Culture
124
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:26:43 -
[789] - Quote
Quote:Amarr Effect Generator: +Capacitor, -Speed, -EM Resistances, +Kinetic Resistances Minmatar Effect Generator: -Signature Radius, -Turret Optimal Range, -Explosive Resistances, +Thermal Resistances
This has to be the best part of the entire blog. The minmatar effect is so terrible people will be self-destructing ragnaroks in protest. |
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5888
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:31:52 -
[790] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Moraguth wrote:[quote=GeeBee]Getting people into the game, into the fight, and into the action is better than just having passive alt accounts sitting at a safespot or kiting around the battlefield with impunity. Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.
The Rorqual costs about as much as the Moros.
Both are pathetic ships unless anchored in space for five minutes.
Both are extremely powerful ships if used well.
The difference is that fielding a Moros provides intel to other players that want an expensive killmail that their structure is being shot by an expensive ship. Fielding a Rorqual doesn't feed anyone any intel unless you are an idiot about it.
The Rorqual will remain an excellent ship at its niches - providing incredible support to mining operations deep in your space that you are willing to actively defend, and providing high-risk high-impact support to mining operations you are willing to try to hide from your enemies.
And it will remain useless for some niches too. The Moros is a terrible ship for running level 5 missions (which doesn't make it a bad ship). The Rorqual is a terrible ship for providing support to mining operations on the border of your space.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
|
Pandora Deninard
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
2
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:31:57 -
[791] - Quote
In case CCP is wondering, the change I've heard people asking for since I joined is this:
1) Remove off-grid combat boosts. Keep links exactly as they are, but require the boosting ship to be on-grid so that it can't be abused for lowsec FW fights.
2) Leave mining boosts alone, they're fine off grid.
Not this weird complete kneejerk reaction to re-work the whole system into something completely different. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:33:51 -
[792] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:Moraguth wrote: So just to be clear, you'd quit the game if you were a rorqual pilot who was required to have leadership skills to use their ship? Even though in order to give out the bonuses you have to have leadership skills? That's like saying you'd quit the game if you had to have missile skills to fly your missile boat. I guess you could technically sit in it, but you wouldn't be doing anyone (least of all yourself) any good without the appropriate skills.
What are you even talking about. I said I would quit if these changes came into effect and they didn't give me my rorqual SP back so I could fly something that wasn't ****. To clarify, since you can't read apparently, I wouldn't fly the ship. I would want all that SP back, because it would be useless + wasted SP under this new system. I'm not saying they shouldn't go ahead with these proposed changes, I'm just saying I would want my SP back because it no longer does what I spent months training for it to do.
To be clear, you said
Pandora Deninard wrote:
Unless you're a miner, in which case these changes completely f*** the usefulness of your boost alts. I'd never fly a rorqual if these changes come into play, and if I were a rorqual pilot I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP.
"... and if I were a rorqual pilot, I'd consider quitting if they didn't refund my leadership SP"
But what you said in response was much more clear, although very different.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
183
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:43:31 -
[793] - Quote
These rorqual changes remind me of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in the day when they changed titans to force them on grid to do their doomsday. Before, you could target your doomsday through a cyno (without ever jumping through it) to do a large AOE destroying an entire sub-cap fleet. Then they forced it on grid, so people could actually fight back, react, and have a meaningful engagement. All of these were good changes.
It's time for mining boosts to go through the same growing pains. Your titans of industry will still work, you just have to actually commit them to the field in order to get the commiserate reward.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
5889
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:45:32 -
[794] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:In case CCP is wondering, the change I've heard people asking for since I joined is this:
1) Remove off-grid combat boosts. Keep links exactly as they are, but require the boosting ship to be on-grid so that it can't be abused for lowsec FW fights.
2) Leave mining boosts alone, they're fine off grid.
Not this weird complete kneejerk reaction to re-work the whole system into something completely different.
If you want the power boost provided by a Rorqual, you need to undock and use a Rorqual.
If you can't afford to risk a Rorqual, or you are unwilling to risk one, why should you get the benefits of one?
People risk more expensive ships then the Rorqual every minute. Whether it's a ratting Nyx, a transport Erebus or a driveby doomsday Avatar, people are willing to put their expensive ships at risk to reap the rewards.
If the Rorqual isn't at risk it should have no effect in space, just like a docked up Moros.
I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".
|
Denavit
We are not bad. Just unlucky DARKNESS.
16
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:45:49 -
[795] - Quote
So much tears and peanut brained people. stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus... |
Jon Krab
Federal Defense Union Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:52:24 -
[796] - Quote
Good changes. Off-grid boosts tend to be used by low-skill pilots who have forgotten the challenge and exhilaration of winning fights without the advantage of what is essentially an imperceivable extra pilot on your side.
Also to the people complaining about kiting ships being nerfed with these changes, I have no trouble winning fights in disruption fit ships without using boosts, maybe you guys should get good at the game! |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1889
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:57:04 -
[797] - Quote
Sylvia Kildare wrote:Don't most caps need more than 1 ceptor to tackle 'em (if not a Hictor)? Thought they were baking that into the hulls on kinda a larger scale of ventures having +2 warp core strength. Just make it where Rorqs need 5 or 10 ceptors to tackle them or something, and maybe they'd have a prayer of making it away (and/or shorten the 5 minute mining siege mode timer to 1 minute like bastion like people have been suggesting).
Only supercapitals. |
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1889
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:58:54 -
[798] - Quote
Denavit wrote:So much tears and peanut brained people. stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus...
That's exactly what they're doing: trying to find a new and better way to revamp boosts. When the devs ask for feedback, giving honest feedback is constructive. Telling people not to give that feedback is expressly working against trying to help the devs get the best exchange of ideas possible. |
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 00:59:34 -
[799] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:These rorqual changes remind me of WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY back in the day when they changed titans to force them on grid to do their doomsday. Before, you could target your doomsday through a cyno (without ever jumping through it) to do a large AOE destroying an entire sub-cap fleet. Then they forced it on grid, so people could actually fight back, react, and have a meaningful engagement. All of these were good changes.
It's time for mining boosts to go through the same growing pains. Your titans of industry will still work, you just have to actually commit them to the field in order to get the commiserate reward.
I see what you're getting at but you chose a poor source for your analogy. A rorque is stupifyingly easier to kill than a titan. So while yes for in grid boosting, some serious looks into how the mechanics are actually going to work are needed. And since they have already changed some things since the initial announcement, [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=6614670#post6614670[/url] I have some hope for thhe final product in November.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:03:16 -
[800] - Quote
Drazz Caylen wrote:The only reason to not tank is because you already own the territory and have the bottlenecks secured. At this pint, it's irrelevant if your booster sits in the belt or in the POS.
Blah Blah Blah.....worm holes
|
|
Wednesday Askira
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
4
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:07:55 -
[801] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Thanks for the feedback so far everyone!
A few Q&As based on some stuff I'm seeing come up in the thread:
Q: Will a pilot be affected by his/her own boosts? A: Yes, even if they are not in a fleet
Q: How will Command Bursts interact with crimewatch? A: This is not completely set in stone, and the answer will depend heavily on some performance testing that will happen in the future. The "default" would be no interaction with crimewatch timers (no suspect timers for any command burst activity). We understand that some of you will be disappointed if we end up going with the default, but remember that all of our options here are still significant improvements on the status quo for highsec combat.
Q: If a ship loses armor links, will they explode? A: Nope. If it worked like that jumping out of a Wolf-Rayet would be a deathtrap. If you have less than 20% armor remaining and lose a max-bonused Armor Reinforcement burst effect your armor will be set to 0 but your hull won't be damaged in any way. In some cases there may actually be a deficit of armor that must be repaired through before repairers can start bringing you above 0% again, to prevent exploits. This works exactly the same way as the current mechanics if you offline a layered plating module, or leave a fleet with an armored warfare mindlink effect, or jump out of a wolf-rayet wormhole system.
Q: Why are the ranges so short? Shouldn't they cover an entire grid? A: We want to ensure that there is gameplay involved in piloting and positioning your burst ships, as well as counterplay in splitting up opposing fleets and separating them from their bonuses. We may adjust the ranges based on how playtesting goes, but ideally they should always be small enough that the ranges matter.
Q: Why do the higher level range skills give smaller bonuses per level than the lower level skills? A: This is something we do almost everywhere in EVE. Diminishing returns help ensure that players with lower levels of skillpoints can compete against veterans.
We've also made some initial adjustments to the numbers thanks to some of your feedback so far. We're going to tone down the scan res bonus from info bursts since very high levels of scan res can sometimes become degenerate (instalock camps), and buffing some other aspects of the info boosts to compensate. We're also going to buff the mining links significantly since this transition is going to be especially dramatic for some miners used to the old system. All of these changes have been edited into the dev blog so you can take a look there to see how they fit into the big picture.
Information Command: Sensor Optimization: 18% (+2%) targeting range, 9% (-7%) scan resolution Information Command: Electronic Hardening: 18% (+2%) sensor strength, 9% (+1%) RSD/WD Resistances
Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Field Enhancement: 30% (+2%) increased range Mining Foreman: Mining Laser Optimization: 15% (+3%) reduced cycle time and cap use Mining Foreman: Mining Equipment Preservation: 15% (+3%) reduced mining crystal volitility
T1 Industrial Core (while active): 100% (+50%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range T2 Industrial Core (while active): 200% (+100%) bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
Rorqual: 5% (+1%) bonus to Mining Foreman Burst Strength and Duration per skill level
The problem with mining boosts isn't the numbers. The problem is the fact you guys are still requiring industrial core. Forcing it to be a sitting duck. This new invul shield thing isn't going to save anyone.
Will we not be able to end the cycle early/warp out while it's active? Will mining boosts effect mining drones? Will it effect the rorqual pilots own drones? |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:09:27 -
[802] - Quote
Moraguth wrote:I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all. "making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot.
The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it. |
Moraguth
Ranger Corp Vae. Victis.
184
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:14:10 -
[803] - Quote
Drago Misharie wrote:Moraguth wrote:I'm talking specifically about the line saying it is illogical to have a boosting ship in the belt if you aren't fitted for yield. That's not illogical at all. Yes, you're "solving a self-made problem," also known as, making a well rounded setup. It is in no way illogical to go for a balanced setup (to survive bombing runs) AND have a booster to help with yield. You're saying water is a pointy circle.... it just doesn't make sense at all. "making a well rounded setup." hmmm someone isn't into mining at all, you can't round out a retriever, you have one mid slot. The thing can't tank a npc bs by itself. The only thing that protects it is numbers and dps from drones. Anything with a little bit of alpha is going to dunk everything on the field regardless of how you try to tank it.
Ah, I never use the T1 barges, so fair enough on that point. Even with the remote repping abilities of the orca or rorqual it wouldn't help if you get blown up with one shot. To be fair though, the lack of tank on those ships means you probably shouldn't be using them in such dangerous areas anyway. Or they should be as paranoid as WH people and ready to warp if a mouse farts in the next room.
I got a Feature Added!
Stop calling an Abaddon "abba-dawn". It is "uh-bad-in"
dictionary.com/abaddon
|
Kenneth Fritz
DND Industries FUBAR.
7
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:17:17 -
[804] - Quote
Wednesday Askira wrote:The problem with mining boosts isn't the numbers. The problem is the fact you guys are still requiring industrial core. Forcing it to be a sitting duck. This new invul shield thing isn't going to save anyone. Will we not be able to end the cycle early/warp out while it's active? Will mining boosts effect mining drones? Will it effect the rorqual pilots own drones?
That's not a bad train of thought. Have the panic button last its thirty seconds and burn out as it does now. However, if the roqual is sieged the panic button force cancels the siege and burns out the industrial core. Yes it would be expensive to replace the the indy core but a couple hundred million vs 2.5 billion I know which one I'd take. Especially if you can make your own indy cores. You could recoup the loss fairly quickly under non siege boosts if you didn't already have a back up stashed some where. This also aligns with the unsiege transition time fairly closely.
Who's your end of the world buddy?
|
Flappy Beefcurtains
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:18:42 -
[805] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? [/b][/u]
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.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Requiring an active pilot, positioning themselves properly due to range constraints, dealing with enemy targeting & damage, dealing with ammo etc, VS an offgrid, afk-able setup.
Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use. |
Titus Cole Dooley
19
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:20:08 -
[806] - Quote
The original idea for the Rorqual was to be a ship that was like a mobile mining station. WHY DONT THEY DO THAT!!!. Yes put it out in space, yes make it stay in one spot while in indy core mode. BUT make it like a flying citadel... tethering and all. make it so it has a vulnerability timer when it goes in and out of indy core mode. make it so you have to have it on grid with the miners to get boosts. Then if you wanted to get really crazy give it citadel like defense options. |
Maraner
The Executioners Shadow Cartel
363
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:22:08 -
[807] - Quote
Flappy Beefcurtains wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? [/b][/u]
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.
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Requiring an active pilot, positioning themselves properly due to range constraints, dealing with enemy targeting & damage, dealing with ammo etc, VS an offgrid, afk-able setup. Please consider a full refund of the leadership skills due to this severe and drastic alteration of the current method. This is a drastic enough change to merit it. I applaud the removal of off grid boosting, but not at the cost of several million SP that I will no longer use.
Agree. I have multiple toons trained up to use all links, now pretty much redundant. SP refund to those that request it please. |
Akoha Uisen
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:23:25 -
[808] - Quote
I am an industrialist who has 10 accounts. I have 1 rorqual pilot, 9 barge pilots, and several of my characters can fly a freighter. All of my characters can build capital ship parts. When I log into EVE, I go to work... and it is hard work. I sit down and I crank out a capital ship in about 10 hours of mining with 10 accounts active running that whole time. My room heats up to about 95 degrees from my graphics card and CPU (which are both CLC cooled) pumping heat into my room. There are times when I am sweating from mining, because it gets that hot. Some days, I feel like I'm literally in the salt mines over here.
I pour my heart into this profession that I love. I simply do not understand why it is imperative that off-grid boosting for the rorqual be taken away. Every hour, with 10 accounts and max rorqual boosts I can churn about 250-300m in minerals out. To put that into perspective, an afk ishtar running anomalies can make 60mil an hour easy, and with 10 accounts, can rackshaw up about 600mil isk in LIQUID isk. That is not mineral that has to be turned into something or shipped to its destination to be sold. That doesn't include index job costs, or production costs.
The fact is, I cant kill anyone with a mining laser. As hard as I try, they just dont let me activate on enemy ships. Perhaps if they did I could see where an on-grid boosting requirement would make sense. But this change really does not make sense. It seems to me like this is all motivated by the desire to have dank rorqual frags, and I can assure you if these changes go through my rorqual (and probably a lot of others as well) will be reprocessed and the parts used to make something else.
I'm not upset at the changes because my rorqual is going to die, to be honest I can build a new one in around 2 days plus build time, what frustrates me is that these changes are just going to make my job a lot harder. It will take me twice as long to do what I do now and it will be way more of a headache than I want to bother with. I already have to go mine up heavy water for my rorqual boosts. Now I am going to have produce ammo, monitor boosting effects, build the boosting charges, etc for my rorqual to boost with, while then subjecting it to extreme peril for no additional bonus than what I have now.
What is the actual impact of the changes that are recommended right now? Well, it's pretty simple. Everything that has been announced is only going to serve to make the job that I do even harder. Everyone I play with says to me repeatedly, "How can you do that... mining is so boring... I'd go crazy. I hate it. Mining almost made me quit the game" So I ask you, why? Why is this necessary? I already make less income per hour than most other activities in the game with a similar number of accounts, it just doesn't make any sense.
Oh, and for clarity, while all of the "income" math above is theoretical, I don't actually make that in liquid isk. Because most of what I do is steeply discounted to my corp, used to build large projects, or given away... Like my free T1 ship (of any hull size) program for my corporation. I'm not in this to make the ISK in the game. I'm in this to give my friends the materials they need to get back into the fight. In other words, I am a tried and true industrialist.
So, I ask you again, why do you insist on making this harder with no gain to an industrial pilot?
I have a few suggestions on how this can be done differently:
1. Remove industrial boosts from the game. They already offer no PVP advantage, and the changes to boosting is being balanced for a PVP purpose, not a PVE purpose. In their place do one of the following things:
A. Give us new skills for miners to train that focus on cycle time, efficiency of cap usage, and yield. or B. Roll the current maximum boosted amount calculations into the ship bonuses themselves.
2. If the Rorqual needs a new niche role to give it more flavor, give the rorqual a new hold, one for compressed minerals. Give the rorqual a new ability mineral compression , and a special hanger that has an exceptionally large volume but can accomodate only compressed minerals.
3. Remove industrial boosts from the game. Create a new mining industrial array named something fancy that the porpoise, orca or rorqual can dock with, which provides system wide boosts equivalent to 50% of current (with the previous 50% boosting amount being rolled into either A or B above) but has a reinforcement timer if attacked. Make this array be visible on the overview and in space. The rorqual cannot be removed until the reinforcement timer has been resolved. If the array is destroyed, the rorqual is destroyed.
Also, as cute as the PANIC button is, the PANIC button is basically just ULTIMATE ECM 2K16. I know how much Fozzie hates ECM. Why are we making ships invulnerable for set periods of time? Thats not exactly engaging gameplay. |
Drago Misharie
Leeroy Jenkin's Slaughterhouse Dreamcatchers.
18
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:26:39 -
[809] - Quote
Denavit wrote:So much tears and peanut brained people. stop crying guys, be constructive and find new ways to do things, cheezzus... Like reprocess Rorqs and sell the skill points, got it
Thank you |
Arakoinae Veldor
Aphelion Monks
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.31 01:27:53 -
[810] - Quote
Does this mean we have to actually manually activate the booster every 1 or 2 minutes when mining, It wont be continuous? What a pain that would be. |
|
|
|
|
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 |