| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MOOstradamus
   |
Posted - 2004.03.31 14:59:00 -
[1]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 31/03/2004 16:31:27
Click Me:
*EDIT: Finally Ready at 17:30 BST. *
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
Orestes
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 15:06:00 -
[2]
Stickeh
Join the IC! |
Serilla
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 15:35:00 -
[3]
for how long will this be a placeholder? 1 hour, 6 hours? lol
|
Coffin Hauler
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 15:43:00 -
[4]
i still don't get it ... whats the point starting a thread with an 'empty' link ??
Why not posting it when the link works ????
|
Uuldahan
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 15:48:00 -
[5]
 Quote:
i still don't get it ... whats the point starting a thread with an 'empty' link ??
Why not posting it when the link works ????
Good idea, or please tell us when the link is valid. I can't move now 
|
lash
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 16:38:00 -
[6]
ohh colors, nice addition 
--------------
"You ever hear of the Seattle Seven? That was me. And, um, six other guys." |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 16:51:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Admiral IceBlock on 31/03/2004 16:58:52
Quote:
Murphy > If a cruise missile hits your ship and destroys it, It will also destroy the pod, Not giving the person a chance to warp away. Possible solutions might be to make the pod indestructible, unable to warp and unable to be targeted for a set amount of time after the ship has been destroyed (10 or 20 seconds) to give the ship time to explode and give the player a chance to escape. What kind of time frame are we looking at to fix the problem of pods being destroyed with the ships?
the problem here is that when ur ship get destroyed ur pod ejects and the ship fly about 3 secs before it actully explodes. in these 3 secs, the cruise missile hits the ship, do splash dmg, pod get destroyed...
Quote:
kieron > Jul's question: 1) This is true for all ships, but for Battleships in particular, there are some players who feel that the ratio of ship cost/investment to the risk of loosing it in battle is unbalanced. Ships are too easy to kill. It takes a long time to acquire the resources to own a Battleship and only seconds to lose it. If shield, armor and structure were increased in an equal proportion for all ships by a substantial factor, wouldn't this make battles longer, more interesting and potentially provide additional opportunities to use strategy in a battle?
dont increase the battleships hitpoints, just the cruisers and frigates...
"We brake for nobody"
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 17:11:00 -
[8]
Quote:
Hellmar > it's actually not that far off to add SH aviodance as we'll charge for SH use at some point
I'd be interested how much this charge will be and whether or not it's related to ship size.
Quote:
kieron > Jul's question: 1) This is true for all ships, but for Battleships in particular, there are some players who feel that the ratio of ship cost/investment to the risk of loosing it in battle is unbalanced. Ships are too easy to kill. It takes a long time to acquire the resources to own a Battleship and only seconds to lose it. If shield, armor and structure were increased in an equal proportion for all ships by a substantial factor, wouldn't this make battles longer, more interesting and potentially provide additional opportunities to use strategy in a battle?
TomB > Yes we have mentioned this, increasing basic hitpoints of ships
TomB > Since they do not affect the defence as much as capacitor and slot availability does
TomB > I'll keep you posted if we do plan it for player reaction
TomB > We would surely want comments from the community on this
TomB > Any comments here?
TomB > Just shoot them, on with the butter
I'd rather see all ships getting a decent capacitor boost.
I thought this CSM was a lot better than they have been lately and at least they are going to have a look at agent rewards but the market/morphite questions didn't interest me 
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
lash
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 17:27:00 -
[9]
Quote:
kieron > 1. Seven weeks ago, I asked for the removal of morphite from non-DCM ore, and you replied that you had this in so "allowing [smaller corporations] to get a small amount of morph from lower minerals makes them happy". That's like arguing that people should be able to get mega and zyd from Kernite, because not everyone can mine in 0.0.
Easy solution.
Add Mercoxite to all of the main 0.0 regions where bistot and ark are currently at.
Then bump up the percentage that a dmg cloud is formed.
Then just throw in large amounts of mega and zynd (more than any other roid currently produces) into the refine, while keeping the current amount of morphite per refine.
This makes people with dcm skills highly valuable and those people get the adequate reward for the training time that they put into the field.
Also scince mining it is slower, and it is heavyer than the current ores this already makes it harder to get to. Not mentioning the dmg clouds and insta gank npc spawns. Should drive people to actually train for the skill when they know that they will definatly get something good out of it, and not just some mineral they cant sell for another 2 months.
For the current stockpiles, the solution is: release more tech 2 bps that require high amounts of morphite 
Just my oppinion though
--------------
"You ever hear of the Seattle Seven? That was me. And, um, six other guys." |
Xelios
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 18:16:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Xelios on 31/03/2004 18:17:19
Hooray! Another good CSM!
I wouldn't increase the hit points on battleships at all. It may be fairly easy to lose them if you're a noob at pvp, but on the other hand for the poeple losing them most (alliances or larger pvp corps) they're also easy to replace, especially when 90% insurance is only 24 mil or so. Most people who fly battleships into pvp regularly have at least one spare anyway, and if you have a spare bship making that 24 mil for insurance back is just a matter of spending a few hours in a belt.
And thank you MOO for finally bringing up a lot of the small improvements that have been mentioned, all very good ideas =)
|
|
|
ZzeusS
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 18:43:00 -
[11]
Quote:
MOOstradamus > do you really truly promise ??
TomB > no
TomB > i mean yes
rofl
|
kieron
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 19:22:00 -
[12]
For my own part and on behalf of CCP, I would like to thank everyone that participated in CSM 6, not only the delegates, but all the players that participated in the CSM process.
There were some rocky times, but things got better.
Personally, I'm looking forward to the next session. With Shiva in the near future, I forsee a lot of new and exciting things happening in and to EVE.
kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online
|
Riffix
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 19:39:00 -
[13]
Yes, even though we had a rocky start at the beginning I think it started getting real good there at the end once Kieron settled into his new position. It also gave me faith in the system and the fact that devs actually care what the players think. I'm really looking forward to see how the next ones go.
"Lead, follow, or get the #@$@#$ out of the way" |
McWatt
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 21:36:00 -
[14]
Edited by: McWatt on 31/03/2004 21:40:20
Edited by: McWatt on 31/03/2004 21:38:54
* colors are nice.
* good questions.
thanks for the pirate question Mr. M. flexible police response is definetly necessary. though TomB seems to recognize the problem, he has a terrible wrong vision on the urgency of the issue!
i d be gratefull if the reps could keep pushing him on this one!
btw, anyone ever heard of a 40 ships low sec blockade? down to earth, please?
* good answers for once!
special thx to TomB for defending the number of entrances to alliance territory.
"i don t have the time to use the backentrance" was a joke, wasn t it?
* good discussion. the new system seems to be working. very good.
* choice of representatives: no harm meant, but at several points during the chat i had the feeling that the "carebear" side is over represented. (40 pirates claim, entering alliance territory - how about: fight?  , increase of hitpoints - longer fights are good - needs to be balanced against travel time to gate!!!)
* kieron:
Quote:
Personally, I'm looking forward to the next session. With Shiva in the near future, I forsee a lot of new and exciting things happening in and to EVE.
was this sarcasm? or simply some lack of experience with the type of excitement that big patches tend to provoke?
well, as long as you can enjoy it...
|
kieron
|
Posted - 2004.03.31 22:09:00 -
[15]
McWatt, no sarcasm intended, nor am I suffering from a lack of experience with the issues that an implimentation of such scale can bring. I've seen (and worked CS) in more than one game where large scale patches or expansions have had problems.
New places to go, or things to see, new ships to get there with, new content, all this and more is what brings the excitement that I mentioned.
kieron
Community Manager,
EVE Online
|
Mr M
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 02:50:00 -
[16]
Quote:
thanks for the pirate question Mr. M.
Please do remember that in the future if I meet you in my defenseless mammoth. :-)
http://orecalc.evegeek.com | http://www.evegeek.com |
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 05:27:00 -
[17]
I stopped reading this CSM as M00stradamus asked for that "Warp scrambled" indicator.
Like the games needs more stupid and lame radar options in addition to all the map features and local chat.
Why are you asking to make combat so super transparent?
In 1 vs 1 is it pretty obvious who scrambled who and in team warfare the team should be responsible for the intelligence not the developers with that feature.
Going your way I want a "Warp core stab/MWD"-Indicator. So next time someone uses 8 warp core stabs and 3 MWDs I know how many webifiers and jammers to put on that guy.
Sigh.
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Sara Kerrigan
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:14:00 -
[18]
Quote:
I stopped reading this CSM as M00stradamus asked for that "Warp scrambled" indicator.
Like the games needs more stupid and lame radar options in addition to all the map features and local chat.
Why are you asking to make combat so super transparent?
In 1 vs 1 is it pretty obvious who scrambled who and in team warfare the team should be responsible for the intelligence not the developers with that feature.
Going your way I want a "Warp core stab/MWD"-Indicator. So next time someone uses 8 warp core stabs and 3 MWDs I know how many webifiers and jammers to put on that guy.
Sigh.
I'll have to disagree with your opinion on that. When fighting, logs scroll by quickly and it is often impossible to see who is performing different actions against you. I wouldn't mind a small indicator with a name and the proper module symbol to tell me who is performing what action against me--so long as it doesn't take up too much space on my screen.
______________
The Kerrigan Chronicles |
MOOstradamus
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:24:00 -
[19]
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 01/04/2004 07:26:11
Sally: I asked for a 'Warp Scrambled' Indicator on the HUD because there have been numerous calls for it in recent times by a multitude of different people (pirates & miners alike).
Unlike you I am able to understand & appreciate the wishes/requests of others even though a particular issue may have little affect on me or relevance to my playing style, as in this case, or even be something I personally need or support ...
This is what being a CSM representative entails.
Edited - Orestes
MOOrovingian "Following & supporting EVE (since Jan 2001) is like wiping your arse with sandpaper."
|
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:39:00 -
[20]
Quote:
Edited by: MOOstradamus on 01/04/2004 07:26:11
Sally: I asked for a 'Warp Scrambled' Indicator on the HUD because there have been numerous calls for it in recent times by a multitude of different people (pirates & miners alike).
Unlike you, I am able to understand & appreciate the wishes/requests of others even though a particular issue may have little affect on me or relevance to my playing style, as in this case, or even be something I personally need or support ...
This is what being a CSM representative entails.
I have no problem with you representing a bunch of carebears, no matter if they are miners or pirates. That's your job.
People gave you the idea, I dislike it and I was talking about the idea only.
Edited - Orestes
--
Stories: #1
--
|
|
|
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:46:00 -
[21]
Quote:
Quote:
I stopped reading this CSM as M00stradamus asked for that "Warp scrambled" indicator.
Like the games needs more stupid and lame radar options in addition to all the map features and local chat.
Why are you asking to make combat so super transparent?
In 1 vs 1 is it pretty obvious who scrambled who and in team warfare the team should be responsible for the intelligence not the developers with that feature.
Going your way I want a "Warp core stab/MWD"-Indicator. So next time someone uses 8 warp core stabs and 3 MWDs I know how many webifiers and jammers to put on that guy.
Sigh.
I'll have to disagree with your opinion on that. When fighting, logs scroll by quickly and it is often impossible to see who is performing different actions against you. I wouldn't mind a small indicator with a name and the proper module symbol to tell me who is performing what action against me--so long as it doesn't take up too much space on my screen.
I am not against the idea at all, but I am against it as long as the game is full of features which make combat ultra consent.
Giving it a second thought, I don't really care, it doesn't matter in 1 vs 1 and while fighting in teams the majority of the carebears who feel the need for such a thing is going to be owned anyway.
So go and implement it.
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Severus Trajan
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:46:00 -
[22]
OMG! A CSM meeting with a lot of good questions, up front answers, reasonable suggestions being noted by the devs, and no BS banter between questions taking up a lot of time.
*passes out*
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:50:00 -
[23]
frigates/cruisers/industrials should get more HP
battleships should not.
Edited - Orestes
------
ROBBLE ROBBLE |
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:52:00 -
[24]
Best implementation would be a warning in advance:
"Carebear, be warned, Sally is carrying 6 multi ECMs with a duration of 6,5 seconds each and a complete sensor strength of 24. You might get target jammed. Warning, warning, warning!"
Studying battle logs after a fight and combat practice is what the people who ask for that feature need.
Effect radar is something usual in MMORPGs, also the time it will last, but adding a "who is doing it to you" can only happen in the woderful carebear world of EVE.
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Juan Andalusian
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 07:59:00 -
[25]
Sally has a point.
Though i also see M00's point.
But i can see how this will probably be implemented... as CCP have always tried to minimize "twitch" in PvP and PvE.
As for messages scrolling too fast during a fight... heh try playing a MUD for fast message scrolling during PvP.
CSM was nice ... that BS question / suggestion scared me a bit. When will people realise that we need to switch focus from BS to the other classes?
**Pain is meant to be felt** |
Sara Kerrigan
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:04:00 -
[26]
Quote:
I am not against the idea at all, but I am against it as long as the game is full of features which make combat ultra consent.
It has no affect on 'features which make combat ultra consent' though. I'm against combat being consentual, but I do see the usefulness in having a few indicators in combat. It's little different than seeing red blinking brackets on a ship that targets you--it's simply a visual to indicate what is happening.
Some instances I could see this being useful:
1.) You know that PlayerX is target jamming you, so you can notify your wingmen to concentrate fire on him.
2.) You are swarmed by weaker ships and are warp scrambled; useful to know which ones are warp scrambling you so you can kill him and make your escape.
3.) You have been target jammed for a portion of the fight. Once the jammed indicator blinks off, you know you are free to target people again, instead of attempting a lock every second for a few minutes while wondering when you will be free.
______________
The Kerrigan Chronicles |
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:24:00 -
[27]
Quote:
Quote:
I am not against the idea at all, but I am against it as long as the game is full of features which make combat ultra consent.
It has no affect on 'features which make combat ultra consent' though. I'm against combat being consentual, but I do see the usefulness in having a few indicators in combat. It's little different than seeing red blinking brackets on a ship that targets you--it's simply a visual to indicate what is happening.
Some instances I could see this being useful:
1.) You know that PlayerX is target jamming you, so you can notify your wingmen to concentrate fire on him.
2.) You are swarmed by weaker ships and are warp scrambled; useful to know which ones are warp scrambling you so you can kill him and make your escape.
3.) You have been target jammed for a portion of the fight. Once the jammed indicator blinks off, you know you are free to target people again, instead of attempting a lock every second for a few minutes while wondering when you will be free.
It goes in the same direction of ultra-consent PvP for me Sara.
All the instances you named can be solved with good team communication.
<sarcasm>
But hey, if the people need the software to tell them EXACTLY after how many seconds they will be no more warp scramled or target jammed and who the person doing to to them is, then they acutally might start to fight a frigate with 2 cruisers and 1 battleship again.
</sarcasm>
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:27:00 -
[28]
Ah, best thing when the webify / warp jam indicator blinks off is to exit the game.
You will be warped to a safe spot then.
Makes frigate combat where you often leave the warp jamming range in order to dodge missiles absolutly useless.
That's what I call consent.
--
Stories: #1
--
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:39:00 -
[29]
Yeah, logs suck.
If you looked at battle logs you'd think it takes 20 hits to kill a BS 
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Sally
|
Posted - 2004.04.01 08:40:00 -
[30]
Quote:
Yeah, logs suck.
If you looked at battle logs you'd think it takes 20 hits to kill a BS
Make videos then :-).
--
Stories: #1
--
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |