Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Ang Min
CPD Adventures Pte. Ltd.
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 12:50:00 -
[271] - Quote
Louis Vitton wrote:I believe that yes there needs to be a fix for the capitals which can travel fit and move freely in low sec but this should not be applied to Jump freighters at all as they can not do this. Adding this spool up timer for a JF makes it a sitting very expensive duck. It means that Jump Freighters can be camped in on low sec stations by 1 battleship.
I think this would cause major economical issues within Eve as the logistics would stop or at least slow down greatly to low and null sec's.
For all capital jump drive capable ships other then Jump freighters i support this idea of a spool up timer but not for Jump Freighters. Agreed! Leave Jump Freighters alone...and Rorquals too for that matter. This timer, if implemented, should only be for offensive cap ship fleets.
Instead of a "spool up timer", which implies you'd have to wait 60 seconds any time you wanted to jump (even if you're leaving from a POS or station), maybe a "jump drive reactivation delay" is better. That way, if you just jumped into a system, you'd have to wait 60 seconds before you could jump to the next. But once the timer expires, then you can jump instantly at any time. (This would also spare the poor cyno pilot from having to hang out for the duration of the spool up.) |
Kwashi
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:21:00 -
[272] - Quote
Glad to see our wormspace-dweller CSM rep standing up against the horrible idea of allowing stargate-type travel into W systems.
In wormspace an attacking force already has the advantage of nigh-on complete surprise. Giving the attacker a numbers and hardware advantage too would make system defense pretty unworkable.
As it stands the vast majority of W systems are held by tiny organizations whose installations are protected by annoyance and apathy alone; remove these barriers and those towers would fall like dominoes. |
Versoth
Hemorrhagic Visions The Falling Darkness
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:23:00 -
[273] - Quote
Sylthi wrote:So....... It has been confirmed there will be no NEW content for 2012, only rehashed old stuff that they SHOULD have gotten right the first time. Check.
Hillmar has now made it his OFFICIAL job to do NOTHING constructive or anything even close to resembling actual WORK on the project that pays his (certainly) ludicrous salary. Double check. (Why doesn't he just go ahead and resign? OH, right, sorry, forgot, he lovvulles the FREE MONEY!!! Triple check.)
After all the pain, trouble, taking away from the REAL Eve, millions of dollars, and massive hurt feelings on all sides, Incarna has been abandoned. (That is what "backburner" MEANS in developer speak people.) Wow. Way to shoot yourself in the foot on that one CCP. People give you HELL about what kind of product you AREN'T providing them, and your response is to say: "Fine. You don't get ANYTHING then if you won't be HONORED to provide us with fellatio when demanded." Again, wow. Nice. Way to be real adult about this.
I honestly didn't think CCP could screw up MORE than it already has. But, once again, they did.
I mean, WTF guys. You're an MMO, and you just PROUDLY announced: "No new content for at LEAST a year." This on TOP of what you ALREADY haven't delivered or, worse yet, have already screwed up beyond all recognition. And, the CSM just applauded you guys for it; and all was smiles and giggles up in Iceland. Are you guys ALL really that detached from reality? Do NONE of you see where this is OBVIOUSLY going?
"No new content for at least a year" are the words and kiss of DEATH in MMO-land for cripes sake!!! Big new SCI-Fi titles VERY RECENTLY came out. You don't think they won't accept your PREVIOUS customers with open arms? CCP has ALWAYS succeeded in spite of itself, largely, because there was no real competition in it's genre. Got news for you CCP: THAT IS CHANGING; FAST. None of your competition has gotten "it" exactly right yet. But, it's GOING to happen. And when it does, you'll have NOTHING to respond with. Part of me thinks you actually KNOW that; and are now simply in the mode of delaying the inevitable as long as possible.
Yeah. I guess I am going to have to face facts that after 8 years I have to find a new hobby. Time to let my accounts expire I guess. Don't want to. I really don't. But, its not like news like this from CCP and the CSM is leaving me many realistic options. I mean, there is no hope coming right from the top all the way down "to the floor" at CCP. And the CSM is just cheering them along all the way. And NO, no one can have my stuff; I'd rather set it all on fire.
What complete and utter betrayal CCP; just when I thought you could sink no lower.
Quadruple check, out.
Can I have your stuff? |
Siiee
Recycled Heroes
8
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:41:00 -
[274] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:In order to support predators, you need prey. In order to support prey, you need abundant food for them to graze upon, enough that the occasional loss to predation is acceptable..
This just doesn't work. If I wanted to shoot at an endless stream of squishy risk-averse targets I would suicide gank stuff in highsec.
Lowsec doesn't need more defenseless PvE targets, it needs more reasons for predators to go there to hunt other predators. Requiring one group of players to go play cannon fodder for another is just.. terrible, for both sides of the equation.
Two step wrote: It took us (and several other entities) a long time to build up our wormholes. It should also take a long time and dedication for someone else to tear them down....
The ability to move unlimited mass through a wormhole turns w-space into a slightly different version of nullsec, and would result in large blobs dominating, which nobody wants.
This. The WH mass thing is just pants on head stupid. Because obviously the answer we need here is to let more blobs in.
WH residents are currently the purest form of people actually living in and developing their space we have. It's difficult to assault a WH home system precisely because they've put time and effort into actually being there. This should be a model for other areas of space, rather than the other way around.
And NPC null stations... really? |
Liranan
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
39
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:54:00 -
[275] - Quote
Versoth wrote:Can I have your stuff?
This stopped being funny when tens of thousands of accounts were cancelled over the MT debacle and CCP admitted to being in dire straights. http://www.youtube.com/user/zeitgeistmovie?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/23/Lio3n66bwOo This ****'s got to go - Jacque Fresco |
Numance
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 13:56:00 -
[276] - Quote
yes for outpost dustruction would (will) be awesome but you can't "destroy" stuff in it, would make 0.0 much less attractive (and we dont need that...) and would turn many player off the game or returning players after some break.... disapointed
the right (and easy) implementation is the one given by Michus Danether earlier in this thread
1. Destructible stations - When a station becomes fully and finally vulnerable, it can be conquered or blown up. If conquered, business as usual, if blown up the station would enter a 'wrecked' state, having no features or function of an outpost.
Every pod pilot and ship inside would remain there, with pilots capable of switching in and out of ships as desired before undocking. After undocking they cannot redock, however they can eject ships that they own from the outpost just like they can at a POS, and scoop their assets from the outpost wreck just like from a POS. The outpost wreck would be indestructible and a new outpost can be constructed in the system at the same planet or another planet.
This solves the problem of asset relocation and pod-pilot moving while still allowing outposts to be permanently destroyed. If an outpost is destroyed while you have a jumpclone in it... I guess it would be destroyed? That's not so bad really. One clone. It could be stored too I guess, but... that's up to CCP. Deathclones would be relocated to a starting NPC station in empire the moment the outpost dies, but you could always change your deathclone to a new station as well.
it would furthemore introduce new "mini games" "gameplay" "profession"
|
Florestan Bronstein
United Highsec Front The 99 Percent
387
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:03:00 -
[277] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Florestan Bronstein wrote:... lots of Goonswarm/TEST propaganda... Yawn... difficult to respond to yet more Goon propaganda, as if the CSM isn't already loaded with it. maybe my points got lost amidst what you call propaganda but they are
(a) the idea of 0.0 as "end-game" is incredibly stupid and mostly used as an excuse to steer newbies away from 0.0; it should be obvious to every player that the whole "character creation, leveling, endgame" model just doesn't apply to EVE. Deriding high-sec as the "newbie environment" of EVE is equally stupid.
(b) the best way to prevent people from becoming disgruntled players who quit the game is to get them into a community where they are welcomed, valued and taught as soon as possible - best within their first few days in EVE. Currently 0.0 alliances excel at providing these environments and can - due to economies of scale - offer a new player experience that smaller entities cannot match. |
Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE Limitless Inc.
224
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:17:00 -
[278] - Quote
mkint wrote:Moatra wrote:Quote:* CCP Dr.EyjoG pointed out that all of the discussions and comments were assuming that the EVE skill point system was in itself correct. He wondered if it might be fruitful to question this assumption.
In the meeting notes, CCP mentioned the possibility that the current Skill system might not be as necessary a feature as has always been assumed. I wholeheartedly agree with this assessment. I have found that the times when I am most likely to get bored with EvE and deactivate my subscription are those times when I find a new aspect of the game that I want to play, but will take months to skill for. I don't mind paying for the skill books to do something, but waiting for skills is very passive and unsatisfying. This is especially true when expecting new players to want to stay in EvE. Real life waiting to play (most aspects of a game) is not a feature, nor a reward. The SP system rewards loyalty (which is good). Asking for SP reimbursements is being a greedy little bastard who doesn't want to be held responsible for the consequences of the decisions they made. EVE has no room for those people, and they need to GTFO. Including the CSM bastards clamoring for more gimme's.
Like this is a signature |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy Important Internet Spaceship League
71
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:29:00 -
[279] - Quote
Sounds like a lot of very important things have been debated and CCP really is working towards a better game in all aspects... Here is my take on the things I care most about:
CSM election : As most CSM members represent large amount of players they deserve a place in the council, but whatever rules are made I hope they will guarantee a CSM made up from a DIVERSITY of players.
Loyalty Program sounds amazing. Bittervets like myself would very much appreciate being appreciated. Plz make sure veteran status cannot be bought with the purchase of a character and keep an eye on illegal account transfers. How about making it a 2 or 3 step program. I'd start the program at about 2-3 years when CCP says most players start losing interest and another step at 5-7 years. Maybe a step in between. Also I think breaks in subscription should not be a deal breaker as long it has been for more than 6 months (I know many army people playing when they can).
Super Capitals : XL guns should simply have their tracking put to 1/3 of what they are. EAF's as capital counters sounds like a desperate attempt bound to fail. Removing immune to Ewar alltogether will make it too easy to criple their lock range and lock speed while swamping them with ecm drones, however removing immunity to being scrambled and replaced with a Warp Core strength of 20 on moms and 50 on titans sounds pretty cool. Using supers to tackle super are mehh for a scissor, paper, rock concept and if HIC's die too fast just allow them to receive remote repairs... Spooling up jump drives will be nice to avoid drive-by hits and emergency insta-exit maneuvers, however plz make sure it will at the same time be possible actually getting your capitals on field before a cynoship has been primaried.
Docking should be allowed for supers, but not with the current docking mechanics. It should be impossible to use capitals in station games but instead have docking mechanics for capitals to follow the same principles as logging off. I hope a rewrite of crimflag is coming soon as neutral reps and boosters are really hindering fun and honest empire wars.
Incursions are great, but damn those guys can make a fortune with a little organization behind them... Looking into isk/LP rewards would be higly recommended
Drone alloy changes sounds very thoughtfull and would likely be for the best. I would keep some alloys dropping as loot containing hi-end minerals still, while replacing all the low-end containing alloys for a bounty.
Moons : Technetium is way too dominant because it's a strong bottleneck on ship construction. Everything to reduce the importance of these moons is welcome. Alchemy, more tech moons and a change to some tech requiring reactions are all 3 good things to look into. People will still fight for sov even without tech being so dominant.
Destructable Outposts : Good idea, however should require sov for at least a month (has to be destroyed from inside) in my opinion. Also it should only result in a station wreck requiring people to build up everything from scratch, but still containing every asset inside. Moving assets or fireselling would in my opinion have a very negative impact...
Station Services in npc nullsec would be epically gratefull. Also not being able to repair any station services for at least 12 hours after cribbling them would be nice to give roaming fleets the ability to leave a mark. Have I-hub upgrades work like station services too for small fleets to have targets... Only problem with all this is big fleets still doing the job better than a small fleet :-(
T1 frigates and cruisers + Tier 1 battlecruisers : Epic... THANK YOU!!
Drake : Sounds good, but plz look into the Hurricane too... That thing has way too much powergrid and cpu
Command Ships and T3 Cruisers : I'm VERY impressed with this solution. Plz tone down T3 cruiser resistance a little as well.
Tier 3 Battlecruisers are very successfull - pretty and fun to fly. But There are many things that need to be adjusted - Not only the Naga and Talos. The Tornados perfectly demonstrate what is wrong. I can live with these ships having the best subcap hi-slot alpha and dps available, half the signature as other battlecruisers, better sensor strength and longer targeting range. But I cannot tolerate these ships being faster than other battlecrusier and even most Heavy Assault Ships while at the same time having a superior improved scan resolution making them react faster than similar classes towards smaller ships where they are designed to combat larger and heavier classes. Plz adjust the velocity and scan resolution to reflect a battlecruiser hull and perhaps look into removing at least 100PG from the Tornado and Naga as they can with a few rigs alone fit the highest tier long range weapons, plenty shield extenders and in some fits use oversized afterburners with good results... I want tier 3 ships to be pretty, functional and effecient but I don't want them to be dominating so much you cannot counter them effectively even with superior numbers of other battlecruisers, tacklers and recons.
Nosferatu : It would be lovely for a Nosferatu to drain the same amount of cap from a target it cost to run it with maxed skills even when target has less cap than yourself, and at full effeciency when target has more cap than you.
Thx for working on improving Eve Online guys...
Pinky Denmark |
Zedah Zoid
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
3
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:40:00 -
[280] - Quote
Two step wrote:Some sort of wormhole stabilizer would just result in groups like AHARM wiping out *all* of the smaller folks living in w-space. Right now, doing that would take a lot of time and effort, but if we could push 50 BSs through every hole, it would be easy. The ability to move unlimited mass through a wormhole turns w-space into a slightly different version of nullsec, and would result in large blobs dominating, which nobody wants.
Thanks so much for pointing this out. This WH stabilizer(either mass or time) idea is terrible and while it might result in a few really big, really glorious life and death fights amongst the big dogs, it would make smaller corps positions completely indefensible. A lot of what makes wormhole space unique is the nature of the wormholes themselves. Not everything must bend to the will of the capsuleer. So no modules to control the wormholes and no modules to turn on local or anything stupid. Just leave space alone and fight and die as her random graces dictate to you. |
|
Victoria Cheeks
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:44:00 -
[281] - Quote
"Missile effects! We loved the anime style missile swarm demo you showed us. Make it happen."
Is that demo published anywhere? Out of curiosity, would love to see as it seems they were so excited. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
1203
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:45:00 -
[282] - Quote
ItGÇÖs (the CSM part of the minutes) basically a manifesto from 0.0 aristocrats wanting their cake and eating it too:
1. cloak detection ships (GÇ£wah we are terrified by AFK cloakers in our ratting systemsGÇ¥)
2. Dockable Super-carriers (GÇ£we want to play docking game with themGÇ¥)
3. Shootable NPC station services (GÇ£we want to trump pvp with numbers - as usual)GÇ¥
4. No targets for small gangs (GÇ£it would be terrible if playing skill actually matteredGÇ¥)
5. FW as a test bed for 0.0 Sov (GÇ£we want them to grind structures tooGÇ¥)
6. GÇ£Spool-upGÇ¥ on jump timer (GÇ£we hate getting ganked by smaller groupsGÇ¥)
7. Infipoints on supercarriers (GÇ£we hate using subcaps because they are killableGÇ¥)
8. Vs Supercapital systems on EAS (GÇ£because the non 0.0 blob game is irrelevantGÇ¥)
9. GÇ£There is huge opposition to removing local chatGÇ¥ (GÇ£itGÇÖll stop our bot scripts workingGÇ¥)
10. GÇ£nobody cares about corp logosGÇ¥ (we donGÇÖt so therefore nobody else doesGÇ¥)
11. GÇ£People would gladly fork out a (MT) fee for alliance logosGÇ¥ (GÇ£I tax my plebs for plexesGÇ¥)
Now into this comes the outpost destruction proposal (which I like of course) but itGÇÖs being suggested partially to leverage ability to mess with NPC stations I think. *shrugs* ah well, let the damn things burn GÇô I donGÇÖt mind the firesale contract idea or the relocation to npc station idea GÇô but it would probably be best to let them be a smoking wreck where the original owners could access their hangers from space.
On FW/Lowsec the CSM is clueless really. What Lowsec needs is more interesting mechanics for pirates and pirate hunters and ideally an expansion of FW that makes it more interesting to a wider range of people. Being able to declare GÇ£againstGÇ¥ a faction or being able to support specific pirate factions against empires would enrich the universe immensely (maybe subdivide all of lowsec into particular conflict zones). Unique resource and capabilities for lowsec? True impact of FW occupation all good. New options equipment/ships built around piracy and anti piracy and lowsec professions. Yes please.
Bah to be honest.
WhatGÇÖs positive about the minutes is that CCP seemed genuinely positive and open to new ideas and they were also coming up with good suggestions.
WhatGÇÖs bad about the minutes is how obvious the CSM has become a vehicle for specific narrow interest groups who know nothing about large parts of the game and care less.
What it shows is that any fringe mentalist voting bloc is an unhealthy thing to dominate a political forum. Eve Online needs a CSM with more balanced opinions and a wider knowledge of the game as a whole.
I think voting reform needs to go up the agenda and we need to find a way to ensure that 0.0 alliance bloc voting is never allowed to dominate the message as much as it has on this CSM in the future.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
1326
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 14:58:00 -
[283] - Quote
Victoria Cheeks wrote:"Missile effects! We loved the anime style missile swarm demo you showed us. Make it happen." Is that demo published anywhere? Out of curiosity, would love to see as it seems they were so excited. No, but we all think this and a few other things we were shown should be the subject of a devblog so Art can get some feedback (and deserved ego-massage) CSM - because I have not yet plumbed the depths of my inherent masochism! CSM 6 Activities Summary | My CSM blog |
Victoria Cheeks
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:00:00 -
[284] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Victoria Cheeks wrote:"Missile effects! We loved the anime style missile swarm demo you showed us. Make it happen." Is that demo published anywhere? Out of curiosity, would love to see as it seems they were so excited. No, but we all think this and a few other things we were shown should be the subject of a devblog so Art can get some feedback (and deserved ego-massage)
ok, cool and thanks for the reply. |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
517
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:00:00 -
[285] - Quote
Julius Foederatus wrote:While I'm glad CCP wants to incentivize FW system capture, some of these ideas are just boneheaded. Militia elections are thoroughly stupid and I would bet whoever came up with that idea has no real FW experience. The only possible way it would not be gamed by other entities is if voting rights were tied into how many VPs were earned through running plexes.
The real problem is that there is a PVE component to FW at all, or that it is so profitable. Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s. Currently this is not the case. We're tired of legions of mission alts that don't contribute anything to FW and just drive the prices down on the things we need to sell in order to finance our PVP.
And lastly, keep alliances the **** out of faction warfare. They have no place whatsoever. Is there anyone in FW who actively wants this? I mean beyond just saying 'meh it'll give me more targets to shoot.' I would bet there isn't much support for this actually in the FW community.
Note that the election mechanic was an idea proposed by CCP, not by CSM. They are aware that it would be a target for metagaming, that is the point of such a system.
Alliances in FW was a *huge* player request at the time FW was released. Aliiances like CVA were mad that they couldn't participate in FW. CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do? |
|
CCP Xhagen
C C P
152
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:05:00 -
[286] - Quote
Razin wrote:What's wrong with the PDF that I can't even search for text in it? There was some formatting :insert technobabble here: going on - I cleaned it up and there is now a searchable version up (and you can select text from it as well!). CCP Xhagen | CSM Project Manager |
|
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
869
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:05:00 -
[287] - Quote
Quote:WhatGÇÖs bad about the minutes is how obvious the CSM has become a vehicle for specific narrow interest groups who know nothing about large parts of the game and care less.
Revenge should not stop at the ship!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
569
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:09:00 -
[288] - Quote
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Victoria Cheeks wrote:"Missile effects! We loved the anime style missile swarm demo you showed us. Make it happen." Is that demo published anywhere? Out of curiosity, would love to see as it seems they were so excited. No, but we all think this and a few other things we were shown should be the subject of a devblog so Art can get some feedback (and deserved ego-massage)
I would love to see this video or images of this as well. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
224
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:11:00 -
[289] - Quote
Two step wrote:Julius Foederatus wrote:While I'm glad CCP wants to incentivize FW system capture, some of these ideas are just boneheaded. Militia elections are thoroughly stupid and I would bet whoever came up with that idea has no real FW experience. The only possible way it would not be gamed by other entities is if voting rights were tied into how many VPs were earned through running plexes.
The real problem is that there is a PVE component to FW at all, or that it is so profitable. Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s. Currently this is not the case. We're tired of legions of mission alts that don't contribute anything to FW and just drive the prices down on the things we need to sell in order to finance our PVP.
And lastly, keep alliances the **** out of faction warfare. They have no place whatsoever. Is there anyone in FW who actively wants this? I mean beyond just saying 'meh it'll give me more targets to shoot.' I would bet there isn't much support for this actually in the FW community. Note that the election mechanic was an idea proposed by CCP, not by CSM. They are aware that it would be a target for metagaming, that is the point of such a system. Alliances in FW was a *huge* player request at the time FW was released. Aliiances like CVA were mad that they couldn't participate in FW.
Actually if you look at the old threads the players were always pretty luke warm to this idea. The CSMs did vote it in but there wasn't much player support in the actual assembly hall threads.
Alliances in FW still has a mixed reception.
But the idea to make FW and sov null sec mechanics similar is just dumb. Did anyone ask why they would want to *decrease* the variety of things to do in eve? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Julius Foederatus
Hyper-Nova
54
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:27:00 -
[290] - Quote
Two step wrote:Julius Foederatus wrote:While I'm glad CCP wants to incentivize FW system capture, some of these ideas are just boneheaded. Militia elections are thoroughly stupid and I would bet whoever came up with that idea has no real FW experience. The only possible way it would not be gamed by other entities is if voting rights were tied into how many VPs were earned through running plexes.
The real problem is that there is a PVE component to FW at all, or that it is so profitable. Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s. Currently this is not the case. We're tired of legions of mission alts that don't contribute anything to FW and just drive the prices down on the things we need to sell in order to finance our PVP.
And lastly, keep alliances the **** out of faction warfare. They have no place whatsoever. Is there anyone in FW who actively wants this? I mean beyond just saying 'meh it'll give me more targets to shoot.' I would bet there isn't much support for this actually in the FW community. Note that the election mechanic was an idea proposed by CCP, not by CSM. They are aware that it would be a target for metagaming, that is the point of such a system. Alliances in FW was a *huge* player request at the time FW was released. Aliiances like CVA were mad that they couldn't participate in FW.
That was what? 3 or 4 years ago? Times change, and I doubt you'd find much support (even less strong support) for alliances in FW amongst the FW community now. The only positive thing that could be taken from it is shared war decs. Everything else is negative.
Also it doesn't matter who came up with the election idea, the idea itself has no relation to what FW is now or what most of us in it believe it should be. |
|
Akara Ito
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:37:00 -
[291] - Quote
Soulpirate wrote:Quote:The CSM and CCP both acknowledged the need to rebalance Drake, which GÇÿdoes everything too too wellGÇÖ. CCP is considering giving it a more offensive role like Raven or Caracal where it would lose the shield resistance bonus and the 5% Kinetic damage bonus and instead gain a rate of fire bonus and a missile velocity bonus. The CSM vehemently approved of this idea. CCP and the CSM also agreed that this possible change to the Drake would help add more uniqueness to the Nighthawk, which is presently overshadowed entirely by the Drake. Boosting the Nighthawk by nerfing the Drake? Huh? What? The Drake " does everything too well"?? Did you guys leave the cap off the whiteout during these meetings? The only thing nerfing the Drake will do is put more people in Tengus, not Nighthawks. If you want to add uniqueness to the Nighthawk, add uniqueness to the Nighthawk. For fun I just did a D-scan in a level 4 mission system. 16 ships(1 Golem, 1 Noctis, 1 shuttle, 13 Tengus) Maybe the Drakes are all blitzing level 5 missions somewhere.
The Drake does everything to well if compared to the other Tier2 BCs, not other caldari ships. In any configuration Drakes will have more range and ehp, and for every range over 30 km, probably more dps as well.
replacing the kinetic bonus with a RoF bonus is a bad idea, with the way dps are calculated 25 % RoF give you a net 33% damage bonus, for all damage types. This part would actually boost the Drake. I'd say replace the kinetic bonus with range. This way its still a caldari style long range turtle but less of a problem to deal with.
Also: docking for supercarrier -> bad focus bubbles for supercarrier -> bad Sov overhaul/more customisation -> good destructible capital docking systems -> awesome (and please do this for all Stations and Outposts in Nullsec)
|
David Magnus
96
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:40:00 -
[292] - Quote
Just wanted to say I read all 44 pages. http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/winterupdate http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/supercaps http://soundcloud.com/davidkmagnus/pandemiclegion |
Rasz Lin
42
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:40:00 -
[293] - Quote
. |
Abbadon Karis
Aperture Harmonics K162
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:46:00 -
[294] - Quote
Zedah Zoid wrote:Two step wrote:Some sort of wormhole stabilizer would just result in groups like AHARM wiping out *all* of the smaller folks living in w-space. Right now, doing that would take a lot of time and effort, but if we could push 50 BSs through every hole, it would be easy. The ability to move unlimited mass through a wormhole turns w-space into a slightly different version of nullsec, and would result in large blobs dominating, which nobody wants. Thanks so much for pointing this out. This WH stabilizer(either mass or time) idea is terrible and while it might result in a few really big, really glorious life and death fights amongst the big dogs, it would make smaller corps positions completely indefensible. A lot of what makes wormhole space unique is the nature of the wormholes themselves. Not everything must bend to the will of the capsuleer. So no modules to control the wormholes and no modules to turn on local or anything stupid. Just leave space alone and fight and die as her random graces dictate to you.
+1 Can't tell it better so just wanna quote these to explanation of why this idea about wh stabilizer could be a very bad move. Rather do something with the actual wh would probably be better then giving this power to the players. Maybe add some more mass/time to specific types of wormholes instead?
Class 7 wormholes for the win! |
Bloodpetal
Mimidae Risk Solutions
296
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:47:00 -
[295] - Quote
CCP Xhagen wrote:Razin wrote:What's wrong with the PDF that I can't even search for text in it? There was some formatting :insert technobabble here: going on - I cleaned it up and there is now a searchable version up (and you can select text from it as well!).
You mean you selected the wrong drop down menu, it's ok.
Mimidae Risk Solutions Recruiting |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
869
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:49:00 -
[296] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Two step wrote:Julius Foederatus wrote:While I'm glad CCP wants to incentivize FW system capture, some of these ideas are just boneheaded. Militia elections are thoroughly stupid and I would bet whoever came up with that idea has no real FW experience. The only possible way it would not be gamed by other entities is if voting rights were tied into how many VPs were earned through running plexes.
The real problem is that there is a PVE component to FW at all, or that it is so profitable. Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s. Currently this is not the case. We're tired of legions of mission alts that don't contribute anything to FW and just drive the prices down on the things we need to sell in order to finance our PVP.
And lastly, keep alliances the **** out of faction warfare. They have no place whatsoever. Is there anyone in FW who actively wants this? I mean beyond just saying 'meh it'll give me more targets to shoot.' I would bet there isn't much support for this actually in the FW community. Note that the election mechanic was an idea proposed by CCP, not by CSM. They are aware that it would be a target for metagaming, that is the point of such a system. Alliances in FW was a *huge* player request at the time FW was released. Aliiances like CVA were mad that they couldn't participate in FW. Actually if you look at the old threads the players were always pretty luke warm to this idea. The CSMs did vote it in but there wasn't much player support in the actual assembly hall threads. Alliances in FW still has a mixed reception. But the idea to make FW and sov null sec mechanics similar is just dumb. Did anyone ask why they would want to *decrease* the variety of things to do in eve?
Oh, I think people would be fine with Alliances entering into FW. They simply don't want existing 0.0 power blochs dominating it with their own personal (non-empire related) agenda.
I think that one prerequisite for an alliance to take part in FW would be that the alliance in question could not have sov in any 0.0 territory, although alt alliances could easily be created. Of course, alt alliances have an interesting way of developing their own agenda's after awhile independent of their original affiliations.
The proposal was to use FW to help develop a more workable SOV system than what we currently have. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. In fact, I view it as a priority that the ability to affect SOV and perhaps the security status of low sec systems in the name of the various empires (and possibly other factions) becomes a realtiy.
Claiming low sec systems should have advantages, having them taken should have disadvantages, and the changes should be fairly significant to the territorial landscape of EVE. Revenge should not stop at the ship!
It's not so much a mission statement,-áit's more like a family motto. |
Zaxix
Black Frog Logistics Red-Frog
21
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:51:00 -
[297] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:Amelia Diamant wrote:Furthermore, JF are not a tool of power projection. They have zero offensive use whatsoever. "Amateurs study tactics. Armchair generals study strategy. Professionals study logistics." GÇö Omar Bradley "The Army marches on its stomach." GÇö Military proverb Now please tell me again how freighters are not a tool of power projection? Where does the a mo come from? Where do the minerals to build thing in nullsec come from? What is the essential component for a strong war machine? That's right: logistics. Freighters jumping through safe systems are the spine of null sec alliances. Yes, logistics is the backbone a fighting force, but it always follows the army, it doesn't move in the vanguard. JF's are never part of a combat force in EVE; they don't drop onto grid during a supercap fight. Moreover, carriers/supers are able to supply their own logistics, jump further and faster, and are capable of defending themselves, defending/supporting others, arming/rearming/changing arms for their fleet members, employing cloaks, and a host of other abilities, none of which can be employed by JF's. The concern expressed by the CSM seems to be limited to the ability of a carrier/super force to project power all the way across the EVE universe in minutes. It does not sound like the issue they're concerned with is moving corp members' crap after the fact. |
mkint
634
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:54:00 -
[298] - Quote
Two step wrote:Julius Foederatus wrote:While I'm glad CCP wants to incentivize FW system capture, some of these ideas are just boneheaded. Militia elections are thoroughly stupid and I would bet whoever came up with that idea has no real FW experience. The only possible way it would not be gamed by other entities is if voting rights were tied into how many VPs were earned through running plexes.
The real problem is that there is a PVE component to FW at all, or that it is so profitable. Killing enemy ships and capturing systems should be worth way more LP than doing a bunch of LVL 4s. Currently this is not the case. We're tired of legions of mission alts that don't contribute anything to FW and just drive the prices down on the things we need to sell in order to finance our PVP.
And lastly, keep alliances the **** out of faction warfare. They have no place whatsoever. Is there anyone in FW who actively wants this? I mean beyond just saying 'meh it'll give me more targets to shoot.' I would bet there isn't much support for this actually in the FW community. Note that the election mechanic was an idea proposed by CCP, not by CSM. They are aware that it would be a target for metagaming, that is the point of such a system. Alliances in FW was a *huge* player request at the time FW was released. Aliiances like CVA were mad that they couldn't participate in FW. As in CCP is working on data that is 4 years out of date. That's encouraging. What business in the world can afford to work off information that's 4 years out of date? Seriously, how is CCP even above water still? |
Slightly Mental
The Exploration and Survey Collective
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:54:00 -
[299] - Quote
Wormholes new ships to tackle wormhole's and flush out cloacked ships would be a great move forward sleeper's attacking pos is also a great idea as that would remove the large % of dead pos out there. but with all this change it could look like the reward of living in a wormhole over time is being lowered.. balance it by letting us mine moons
ships give the Rokh some love bigger drone bay for a start hell even better would be turning it into a drone boat
drake well erm expect tears .. lots of tears with the idea's that was discussed .. but agree change is needed
ecm drones sod it remove all ewar drones... there all broke but boost ewar ships across all factions
bots best way i can think of helping to remove bots is
REWARD PLAYERS WITH TOTAL SHIP REPLACEMENT ON CONFIRMED BOT KILLS *across high/low and null sec yea kind of a free for all but it would soon remove the problem :D |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2012.01.18 15:58:00 -
[300] - Quote
Slightly Mental wrote:Wormholes new ships to tackle wormhole's and flush out cloacked ships would be a great move forward sleeper's attacking pos is also a great idea as that would remove the large % of dead pos out there. but with all this change it could look like the reward of living in a wormhole over time is being lowered.. balance it by letting us mine moons
ships give the Rokh some love bigger drone bay for a start hell even better would be turning it into a drone boat
drake well erm expect tears .. lots of tears with the idea's that was discussed .. but agree change is needed
ecm drones sod it remove all ewar drones... there all broke but boost ewar ships across all factions
bots best way i can think of helping to remove bots is
REWARD PLAYERS WITH TOTAL SHIP REPLACEMENT ON CONFIRMED BOT KILLS *across high/low and null sec yea kind of a free for all but it would soon remove the problem :D
bots - If they can confirm someone is a bot there is banhammer on the way - no need for player to kill them.
Drake - i think drake is so veralite not because of it huge tank, but because it can fit ton of tank/utility in their mid slot. Solution - reduce CPU on drake
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 20 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |