| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Jed Clampett
   |
Posted - 2008.10.17 12:38:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Blitzkrieging Rommel
So your character continues to train on an account you suspended....means your playing without paying. If I am mistaken, then why are peeps complaining about getting rid of ghost training?
Actaully it means you have hit a point of boredom and disgust with training some skill -- but you willing to resume paying and playing later --a ssuming you don't have to pay for that boring wait for major skill to train. We talking only 1 skill level since there are no skill queues.
I don't know if CCP is just greedy about making you pay when you don't feel like playing that toon actively -- or maybe CCP is responding to complaints from people who think they are at disadvantage somehow to people with characters gone inactive.
I do think CCP will find many high level players deciding to just quit now that skilling up a character farther is more expensive.
|
Jed Clampett
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 12:42:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Blitzkrieging Rommel
So your character continues to train on an account you suspended....means your playing without paying. If I am mistaken, then why are peeps complaining about getting rid of ghost training?
Actually it means you have hit a point of boredom and disgust with training some skill -- but you willing to resume paying and playing later...assuming you don't have to pay for that boring wait for a major skill to train. We are talking only 1 skill level since there are no skill queues.
I don't know if CCP is just greedy about making you pay when you don't feel like playing that toon actively -- or maybe CCP is responding to complaints from people who think they are at disadvantage somehow to people with characters gone inactive.
I do think CCP will find many high level players deciding to just quit now that skilling up a character farther is more expensive.
But then again reducing the number of outrageously skilled toons is probably the actual thrust of killing off "ghost training". Losing a few old players is probably viewed as worth it is CCP can have fewer newer player quit in the face of their uberness.
|
Jed Clampett
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 12:48:00 -
[3]
I agree Rach NiKunni is sucking up. (paraphrasing) "No view but the developers view is valid because they own EVE -- and I like their pursuit of WoW players like myself."
But he is right that some people are excessively rude in their phrasing of opinions against the direction of development. Still customers can have valid opinions too.
|
Jed Clampett
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 12:54:00 -
[4]
Looks to me that this release is mainly about implementing all those speed fixes CCP originally claimed couldn't be done or wouldn't make a difference. I can see that would be disruptive to the original winter content. But is very much needed.
LOL -- I don't know for sure but yes I can that maybe the other changes are easy cosmetic changes to disguise the fact that indeed this is mainly a game performance mechanics fix.
Even if it is silly PR I don't have too much problem with it. There would like be a mob scene to a pure fix performance release. Many people are addicted to new features.
I do hope that they don't nerf too much old stuff. I prefer the new stuff to simply be better or truly alternative approach.
|
Jed Clampett
|
Posted - 2008.10.17 13:23:00 -
[5]
Originally by: SFX Bladerunner
HOWEVER:
People seem to feel that a cruiser or even battleship shouldn't be able to keep up with a frigate.. why?
Because in REAL space, it doesn't matter how big your ship is. All that matters is the thrust/mass ratio...
AGILITY however, that is a completely different subject. It WOULD make (some) sense to have bigger ships turn slower.
Actually this is not necessarily true. Lack of air resistance often does not eliminate large mass issues. In the real world engine size (thrust) is occasionally limited by little things like cooling. That is right the more thrust, the bigger the engine, the harder it is to cool. It can also be harder to do precision tooling.
Now when you talk stardrives...well you might start dealing with issues like "why can't stars have unlimited mass?" Because Suzy at around 16 solar masses you start running into conditions where supernova and a resultant black hole or neutron star might form.
So basically the amount of thrust from engines is likely not unlimited nor linear with engine size. Also the price of engines is probably not linear with thrust either. Plus there are like nonlinear (i.e exponentially increasing) powergrid issues.
That may be what T3 turns out to be -- the engines formerly considered too expensive to build and sell for the amount of increased thrust. But now some people are saying they are willing to pay.
First agility would just be ramping up turning thrusters and maybe stiffening structure (the spine or keel in real ocean ships). Hmmm...yes backbone structure may also be a limiting factor on linear speed and sluggishness even given a powerful enough engine.
|
| |
|