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) |
cannahbro
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
6
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:14:43 -
[121] - Quote
Colin Caepernic will not stand for this either!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Vic Vorlon
Aideron Robotics
56
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:14:56 -
[122] - Quote
This looks like really interesting set of changes. It will a dynamic aspect to fleet fights, wherein you'll have to move around to catch boosts during the fight at regular intervals, instead of them just being "always there". Cool stuff, can't wait to try it!
To those complaining about its effect on mining; if mining gets more difficult and less people show up to do it, the price of minerals will increase, making mining a more attractive option. I think mining will just find a new balance and group of people will to do it. |
JetStream Drenard
Black Fox Marauders
84
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:15:43 -
[123] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? Just canceled mine (5)! It is not just this patch, it is every patch and money squeezer since Phoebe. gg |
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down Tactical Narcotics Team
117
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:16:07 -
[124] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:I'm really excited that we're finally this close to such a highly anticipated feature rework! After so many discussions with so many of you about what the new system needs, we're finally almost here. Super links should be stronger than carrier links, carrier links in general should be as strong if not stronger than t3 links (jack of all trades master of none) and I think Command dessie links should (as a dedicated t2 specialist craft) be stronger than t3 links. Also the mod you're replacing the passive titan bonus with, we can't think of any one specific situation where we'd ever swap out a module on our titan for something that is beneficial to the enemy, probably want to go back to the drawing board. Every slot on a titan currently is like, at max value, there aren't any you'd trade from anywhere to anywhere so expecting Titan pilots to want to drop a mod from any slot at all to give a buff to the enemy fleet is silly Overall I like the changes, I just feel theres some spots that could use some help and or dont make sense
I agree why cant things like this just be baked into the hull? Its like the bastion mod on maroders why fit a mod when it should just be part of the ship.
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
35
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:03 -
[125] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal?
I'm not the only one not thrilled with this change if you'd spend 5 seconds looking at other posts and their likes going up. |
Always Shi
t Posting
46
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:27 -
[126] - Quote
CCP Masterplan wrote: After a ship has given a boost to a fleet mate, whatever happens to that source ship after that point has no effect at all on the boost. It can dock, jump out, die, unfit, biomass etc. Boosts become totally independent of the source once activated.
Are you sure that's wise?
Because uncatchable cloaky nullified T3Cs are gonna have tons of fun doing boosting drivebys and being caught way less often than current off-grid boosts. |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:31 -
[127] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change?
Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it.
Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback?
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
CPT Ashen
RONA Corporation Nerfed Alliance Go Away
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:17:52 -
[128] - Quote
Is there truly a reason for the bursts giving a weapons timer?
I'm just thinking about hit and run situations where short warps would leave a booster stuck and unable to escape from hostiles with his group.
~Ash |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
383
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:18:09 -
[129] - Quote
JetStream Drenard wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? Just canceled mine (5)! It is not just this patch, it is every patch and money squeezer since Phoebe. gg Can I have your stuff?
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Lorelei Victoria Gilmore
Gilmore Mining And Manufacturing
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:18:59 -
[130] - Quote
Thank you for the change!
As a fairly new player to FW 1v1 PvP I do understand that someone can have better skills, better modules or better piloting abilities then I do. I can use these things to learn from my mistakes and get better at something I like doing in EVE.
Off-grid links though gave me the feeling that another player who just barely had the upper hand in a fight gained that advantage from one thing only: Paying money for a second account, therefore enabling him to outperform me.
And no, it is not the same if the boost character is piloted. Then it is clear to me that I fought against two players and that's why I lost. |
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights Sacred Empire of Ellyssium
453
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:19:10 -
[131] - Quote
Always Shi wrote:
Are you sure that's wise?
Because uncatchable cloaky nullified T3Cs are gonna have tons of fun doing boosting drivebys and being caught way less often than current off-grid boosts.
That's actually a really good point. Although it'll at least require active piloting by the boost pilot. |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
104
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:19:23 -
[132] - Quote
I'm just wondering if Incursions were taken into account for these features at all. Currently you'd have 1 (vanguards) or 2 command ships sitting offgrid afk; now every FC will have to train into a command ship and boost ongrid which is going to be a pain in the ass -_- (inb4 can't you just run with more logistics?) The efficiency is seriously hampered by either having ongrid boosters or not at all (both are viable ideas of what might happen.) Or just have the booster in fleet and leave fleet when site is about to end (so you don't affect site payouts) in any case there needs more thinking! |
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
35
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:20:08 -
[133] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change? Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it. Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback?
I gave feedback, my feedback is that I and many others DO NOT LIKE this change, it's more than just whiny bitching |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:20:10 -
[134] - Quote
Vic Vorlon wrote:This looks like really interesting set of changes. It will a dynamic aspect to fleet fights, wherein you'll have to move around to catch boosts during the fight at regular intervals, instead of them just being "always there". Cool stuff, can't wait to try it!
Idea: ram the enemy boost ship, if you can't kill it, to get it out of position.
To those complaining about its effect on mining; if mining gets more difficult and less people show up to do it, the price of minerals will increase, making mining a more attractive option. I think mining will just find a new balance and group of people will to do it. That's a surprisingly reasonable outlook for the Comments thread of a Dev Blog.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Ida Aurlien
Cerberus Federation Cede Nullis
79
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:21:13 -
[135] - Quote
Lets look at this your taking the rorqual out of the game as can't use in belts as if it gets pinned down yes it has a bubble to protect it for a few minutes. but it still can't move..and ppl drop lots of ships on it , it becomes a massacre. now links ships are worthless..
Your looking at things to make the game faster at destroying things. But your not looking at the life of the game. Or the cycle
of eve. it takes all aspects of the game to survive, changes are not always good have you looked at if people will accept and use these in field as you hope. If not the manufacturing dies and all cost rise. another way to kill your game |
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:21:37 -
[136] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. OK, this is just bad. You're creating a viable form of counter-play by putting links on-grid. Good. But you're not making neutral bursts gain a suspect timer? That's bad.
In Highsec, in a wardec situation, the hostiles can use a neutral link alt to boost them, leaving the only counter-play against this a suicide gank against that link alt while under fire from the hostiles.
In Lowsec, if you have a neutral giving you boosts and you attack them, you're now under fire from gate and station guns even though the booster is essentially committing an act of aggression against you by boosting those attacking you.
Neutral boosters need to receive a suspect timer.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
424
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:22:21 -
[137] - Quote
Are the command modules "auto-repeat" or do they need to be activated each time like an interdictor bubble? |
TigerXtrm
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:23:00 -
[138] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change? Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it. Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback? I gave feedback, my feedback is that I and many others DO NOT LIKE this change, it's more than just whiny bitching
No, that's exactly what it is until you give a solid reason or two for WHY you don't like it and maybe even propose a change or two. Or is anything involving any kind of effort too much to ask? That would certainly be one reason why you're so angry about this.
My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things!
My Website - Blogs, Livestreams & Forums
|
Shae Tadaruwa
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
922
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:23:02 -
[139] - Quote
From the devblog:
Quote:Fleet boosting should allow counter-play by enemies and involve risk appropriate to its power
Although probing down and catching off-grid boosters under the current system is possible and can be very powerful, it requires support that is not always available to small fleets or solo players. Bringing all fleet-affecting gameplay into visible range ensures that players have the ability to interact with all relevant elements of their opponentGÇÖs fleets.
Under the old fleet hierarchy system, this vulnerability would have become an undue burden on fleet commanders as reshuffling fleet positions as your booster ships die would involve unreasonable micro-management. Under the new Command Burst system fleet, hierarchy no longer matters for boosting, allowing Command Burst redundancy in the same way fleets already build logistics and interdictor redundancy.
What's the counter play in highsec?
So far, it seems this change means no counter play to combat based boosts used by wardeccers or station gamers, but greater risk to mining links, which will be more susceptible to ganks.
I have no problem with greater risk for the mining links, but where's the counter play to the use of combat links in highsec?
Dracvlad - "...Your intel is free intel, all you do is pay for it..." && "...If you warp on the same path as a cloaked ship, you'll make a bookmark at exactly the same spot as the cloaky camper..."
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
424
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:23:44 -
[140] - Quote
Ida Aurlien wrote:Lets look at this your taking the rorqual out of the game as can't use in belts as if it gets pinned down yes it has a bubble to protect it for a few minutes. but it still can't move..and ppl drop lots of ships on it , it becomes a massacre. now links ships are worthless..
Your looking at things to make the game faster at destroying things. But your not looking at the life of the game. Or the cycle
of eve. it takes all aspects of the game to survive, changes are not always good have you looked at if people will accept and use these in field as you hope. If not the manufacturing dies and all cost rise. another way to kill your game
Probably should reserve judgement here until the entirety of the Rorqual changes are posted. You have no idea what other capabilities the ship may receive in terms of combat/defense
|
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
592
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:25:19 -
[141] - Quote
I have no problem with the boost changes. But not refunding SP for skills that no longer perform the same function is a mistake. Anyone and everyone who has ever been in a position to FC a fleet or even small gang trains those skills even though they are fairly sp intensive because even without any kind of links or boosts in system you have benefits to gain for your fleet by doing so. After these changes you will have nothing to gain from them unless you are flying a specific fleet role in a very limited set of ships. The explanation of "similar purpose" goes out the window when the requirements to get benefit from the skills becomes so narrow. CCP has no reason not to refund SP for these fundamentally reworked skills other than an intent to squeeze $ out of potentially 1000's of pilots for skill extractors.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Ducian
Moira. Villore Accords
3
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:25:25 -
[142] - Quote
Yo,
I must first say that I really like these changes...even if I did spend ages training. Links as they stand are bad and this new system sounds much better.
After a first read through and a bit of a think over a beer I would make two changes:
- Reduce the cycle time and duration of the effect. In smaller gang fights 60 seconds can be a long time, perhaps 30 seconds would be better? I don't know if basing the cycle time on the size of the ship (lower cycle time for smaller ships) would work as that might be seen as too much of an advantage.
- Allow effects to only carry in system if you warp without using an acceleration gate. This will keep boosts out of novice sites in faction warfare and actually force people to put their "links" on the field in larger sites rather than just sitting at the acceleration gate boosting people as they pass through. Would also affect missions I guess.
Cheers - Ducian |
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1058
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:25:48 -
[143] - Quote
Triggered Liberal wrote:So RIP my entire community. This seems like a concerted attack on my alliance.
It absolutely is. I actually paid CCP to do this just because I hate you specifically. It was pretty cheap, really. Couple of six packs of beer and they were all in.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2779
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:26:03 -
[144] - Quote
Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)?
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
307
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:26:41 -
[145] - Quote
Draconas109 wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? I'm not the only one not thrilled with this change if you'd spend 5 seconds looking at other posts and their likes going up. Because Forum Likes are how we judge good or bad ideas, right? Using a populist approach like that sure worked wonders for Sony Online Entertainment with their still massively successful game Planetside 2.
Oh wait...
Sarcasm aside, how many times have we seen people initially freak out in the Comments thread on the DevBlog and then those same people are playing the game months later, still bitching but not having left like they swore they were going to?
**** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
Off-grid boosting was becoming a problem, and in the best case it represented yet another requirement for dedicated afk alts in order to be competetive. Is that really good design? Is that really the best way for people to have FUN in a game? Not being able to know if the small gang that your small gang just engaged with might have a fully tricked out Command Ship running Mindlink-buffed Warfare Links sitting in a safe?
Let's not forget how many times in that DevBlog CCP reiterated that they are going to be changing aspects of that design proposal based on all the player feedback they get. If you don't like the changes, post suggestions for how you'd like them to work and stop just threatening to drop your subscription.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
35
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:27:25 -
[146] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:TigerXtrm wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there.
me? I throw $30 a month at this, I can take it back.
$30 isn't much, but im just one guy and an alt, how many alts do you think would just cease to exist over this change? Well don't let the door hit your sorry *ss on the way out. Making such a childish threat because a stupid game mechanic is finally being changed to what it should always have been is just sad. God forbid boosting actually has risk attached to it. Adapt or die. EVE will survive without you and it will survive without the others just like you. But we all know you won't actually leave so how about you just shut up or post some actual feedback? I gave feedback, my feedback is that I and many others DO NOT LIKE this change, it's more than just whiny bitching No, that's exactly what it is until you give a solid reason or two for WHY you don't like it and maybe even propose a change or two. Or is anything involving any kind of effort too much to ask? That would certainly be one reason why you're so angry about this.
1. it's been in the game for how long? 2. if it's not broke, why change it 3. if it has to change, why add mining boosts to it? with being near a citadel, you have to still pay attention or die as you're not tethered, putting a rorqual in a null belt is just guaranteed death 4. in the name of jesus tap dancing ******* christ, why is there an ammo requirement taped to it?
how's that for reasons? |
Vidork Drako
EVE University Ivy League
1
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:29:09 -
[147] - Quote
Winter Archipelago wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote: Another question : Q : I see you gave a weapon timer to booster, will they also receive a suspect time ?
Nope, just a weapons timer. OK, this is just bad. You're creating a viable form of counter-play by putting links on-grid. Good. But you're not making neutral bursts gain a suspect timer? That's bad. In Highsec, in a wardec situation, the hostiles can use a neutral link alt to boost them, leaving the only counter-play against this a suicide gank against that link alt while under fire from the hostiles. In Lowsec, if you have a neutral giving you boosts and you attack them, you're now under fire from gate and station guns even though the booster is essentially committing an act of aggression against you by boosting those attacking you. Neutral boosters need to receive a suspect timer.
That was my main concern about links .. and this is why I asked the question. Booster on Grid should get a suspect timer by boosting out of corp members who are fighting in wardec as logi does. Period. Not giving a booster that timer is a non sense. Or .. explain us why you didnt see it that way CCP :) |
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
593
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:29:31 -
[148] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)?
The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? It would also mean you can forget about any kind of kite meta because unless your boost ship is attached to your hip and able to keep up with you, your bonuses are gonna drop before you have a chance to get back into boost range.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
384
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:30:17 -
[149] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Arrendis
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1835
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:30:17 -
[150] - Quote
Steroidastroid Ormand wrote:I can repeat that 150km should be the minimum range, IMHO...
But can you justify why you should be able to have a ship in a central position able to apply boosts to two ships 300km apart? Not why it's convenient to only need that one ship doing it, mind you, but why it's preferable for people to be able to do that, rather than having boosters in among the ships they're boosting? |
|
|
|
|
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 |