Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 09:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
We have before risen a question of CCP removing the ability to eject from T3 while in battle, so that to prevent SP loss.
The answer was this:
CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place
Now, thanks to some guys ho have found it and posted, but here is a three-year old devblog stating the following:
Quote:Ejecting or self-destructing does prevent the penalty, giving players an incentive to abandon ship from time to time.
By this I would like to accuse CCP Masterplan and CCP in general in openly lying to their playerbase with an intention to justify their ill-thought over design changes.
PS. Will this topic be deleted - you are minus 5 accounts. |
ihcn
Life. Universe. Everything. Clockwork Pineapple
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 09:51:00 -
[2] - Quote
This topic just oozes butthurt. |
Goran Konjich
Shiva Furnace
14
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 09:53:00 -
[3] - Quote
was it 2.2B Tengu ? <> |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
65
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 09:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
I didn't know they changed it so you couldn't... that seems somewhat of a dumb idea though. "Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves." |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 09:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Turelus wrote:I didn't know they changed it so you couldn't... that seems somewhat of a dumb idea though. You are not able to eject with some flag now. Meaning if you have been firing on someone - you are toast if get caught. |
Liaria Cullen
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
21
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
They want there to be a risk involved with commiting, now when you rep on a station or gate you're commited, same with engaging in a t3. once you commit it's do or die. Although i agree that turning around and changing a feature like this on a ship that isnt just a risk of isk is perhaps not wise. |
Turelus
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
65
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:05:00 -
[7] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:Turelus wrote:I didn't know they changed it so you couldn't... that seems somewhat of a dumb idea though. You are not able to eject with some flag now. Meaning if you have been firing on someone - you are toast if get caught.
So the changed made because of HighSec suicide ganking, effected something else? I didn't know many people who did eject from T3's but still... I always thought the idea you could was pretty neat. "Don't count on others for help. In the end each of us is in this alone. The survivors are those who know how to look out for themselves." |
Terrorfrodo
GNADE Inc.
267
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:08:00 -
[8] - Quote
Is the guy who wrote the old statement even with the company anymore?
Whatever they intended three years ago, now they clearly intend to not let you eject when weapon-flagged. . |
Thgil Goldcore
Advenus Classem
384
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:08:00 -
[9] - Quote
when fighting a T3, just slow DPS when their tank is broken... wait for them to hop out and then jack their ship. enjoy the profits |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:08:00 -
[10] - Quote
Turelus wrote: So the changed made because of HighSec suicide ganking, effected something else?
It is believe they made it to prevent swapping ship from Orca in PVP. T3 just got kicked by the same change and they go "explaining" in that "not intended" way. |
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
1140
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:10:00 -
[11] - Quote
The change was made because people were parking Orcas at lowsec gates, and scooping T3 ships that were in risk of being lost. |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:11:00 -
[12] - Quote
I agree with CCP on this, if they have the skillpoint penalty then it should be implemented. At the moment its kind of like corporation tax, the companies that know what they are doing can simply avoid it. The previous statement from CCP just sounded like a poor excuse, I hope the penalty is now implemented properly. |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:15:00 -
[13] - Quote
Emu Meo, it would've been fine if they said "we have changed our mind". But no, they tell a fairy-tale of "never intended"!!! |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1413
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:17:00 -
[14] - Quote
This doesn't penalize using T3s. It penalizes PVPing in T3s. If you penalize something, people will do less of it. Ensure penalty for blowing up always results in the sec status loss, and even less people will risk PVPing in their T3s than they did before. This change = less T3s getting blown up. Not good. -áObjects in mirror are redder than they appear. |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
5772
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:17:00 -
[15] - Quote
I was never fast enough to save my SP when I was ganked...
|
|
Terrorfrodo
GNADE Inc.
267
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:19:00 -
[16] - Quote
I like it because I'm tired of all those massive T3-only fleets. Now nerf the insane buffertank of the Proteus and we may see some variety again. . |
pussnheels
The Fiction Factory
751
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:19:00 -
[17] - Quote
what is 4 days extra training to regain that level 5 subsystem worth ? not much if you ask me t3 are already pretty easy to train , and the only downside is their price tag trully if you can not stand the loss in one of your subsystem skills , just do not fly them
I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire |
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
pussenheels, I cannot stand being lied to. |
okst666
GNADE Inc.
181
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
pussnheels wrote:what is 4 days extra training to regain that level 5 subsystem worth ? not much if you ask me t3 are already pretty easy to train , and the only downside is their price tag trully if you can not stand the loss in one of your subsystem skills , just do not fly them
this [X] < Nail here for new monitor |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
Exactly, dont fly them if you cant take the loss, I completely agree. As for the consequence that this now means we wont see 30 man blob fleets of T3 cruisers,,,,, is that meant to be a bad thing? |
|
MisterAl tt1
Pretenders Inc W-Space
13
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:43:00 -
[21] - Quote
Guys, again, I'm not that concerned with the nerf, but with what CCP told about it, which turned out to be not true at all. |
James Amril-Kesh
RAZOR Alliance
1415
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:44:00 -
[22] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote:Exactly, dont fly them if you cant take the loss, I completely agree. Why are you for people not flying and getting stuff blown up?
Emu Meo wrote:As for the consequence that this now means we wont see 30 man blob fleets of T3 cruisers,,,,, is that meant to be a bad thing? No, it won't, because unless your FC happens to be Makalu Zarya your T3 cruisers are actually pretty safe in a blob, and if you were going to die you wouldn't have time to eject with or without the weapons timer changes in Retribution.
It's the solo T3 pilots you'll be seeing less of. -áObjects in mirror are redder than they appear. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
784
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
This is the reason that the tech3 SS skills are only rank 1. They take absolutely no time to train and it isn't a big deal if you lose them.
Hell I have every tech3 SS of all four races trained to 5, and I'm pretty sure the combined training time of ALL OF THEM still wasn't as long as one of the SINGLE higher ranked skills I've maxed out. . |
Archdaimon
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
137
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
I don't mind either way as long as CCP takes balancing into consideration.
Time is the single most valuable source in EVE (and elseweyr) thus skillpoint loss combined with the price of a t3 needs to make it significantly more favourable than say t2's.
They currently are, but nerfing t3's to hard might simply make them unjustifiable compared to their costs.
(And no, look at NoHo's kb, we're not afraid to lose expensive ships!) - I speak from the perspective of a C6 Wormhole Citizen. Take it or leave it - or sing it! |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Emu Meo wrote:Exactly, dont fly them if you cant take the loss, I completely agree. Why are you for people not flying and getting stuff blown up? Emu Meo wrote:As for the consequence that this now means we wont see 30 man blob fleets of T3 cruisers,,,,, is that meant to be a bad thing? No, it won't, because unless your FC happens to be Makalu Zarya your T3 cruisers are actually pretty safe in a blob, and if you were going to die you wouldn't have time to eject with or without the weapons timer changes in Retribution. It's the solo T3 pilots you'll be seeing less of.
I'm very happy with ships getting blown up, but with T3's they were meant to be a highly effective and expensive ships that people would think twice before committing due to the drawback of losing SP. If people don't fly T3's and start flying more reasonable ships such as stabbers and hurricanes through low sec, then possibly we'd actually see a lot more ships getting blown up and more fights to be had. |
Taria Katelo
South West Trading
0
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 10:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:We have before risen a question of CCP removing the ability to eject from T3 while in battle, so that to prevent SP loss. The answer was this: CCP Masterplan wrote: This is not just oddly intentional, it is very intentional. If we didn't want to penalise T3 death, we simply wouldn't have the skillpoint-loss mechanic in the first place
Now, thanks to some guys ho have found it and posted, but here is a three-year old devblog stating the following: Quote:Ejecting or self-destructing does prevent the penalty, giving players an incentive to abandon ship from time to time. By this I would like to accuse CCP Masterplan and CCP in general in openly lying to their playerbase with an intention to justify their ill-thought over design changes. PS. Will this topic be deleted - you are minus 5 accounts.
OMG MINUS 5 ACCOUNTS, OMG.... plz delete this topic just for the fun of it.
btw that devblog never said it was intentional, they just said that its at that time possible to eject from a t3 blabla, that doesnt mean it was intentional, for all you know it could be that they just didnt have the ability yet to prevent it because they had to rework the crimewatch/flag system for it first.
now shut up and get back to WoW |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
784
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
There is a storyline reason behind the sp loss as well. I read awhile back that the tech 3 cruisers and their interface with the capsuleer is vastly different than other ships. Being in one while it blows up causes quite a bit of wear and tear on the pilot due to the strong link between him/her and the tech3 ship. Essentially its a shock to the system, when that link is suddenly broken.
This is why it was said that ejecting allows you to avoid the SP loss, since you are cutting that link on your own prior to the ship blowing up while you are still linked to it.
Nobody at CCP lied about anything in relation to all of this.
3 years ago things were different, and we didn't see the large number of pilots taking advantage of the game mechanics the way that they do now. Namely, I'm talking about the Orca on field tactic mentioned above. Essentially, the tech3 mechanics are an in-direct casualty of a fix that was intended to prevent further exploitation and risk minimization. |
Edward Olmops
Sirius Fleet
29
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:30:00 -
[28] - Quote
Agreed. I saw these camps frequently in LowSec and they were very annoying since 99,9999% risk free although they could use the most expensive ships.
You have a T3 that can instalock frigs, get gang link boni from the Orca which is sitting at 0m to the gate. The T3 can freely engage anything (including kill all frigs). If trouble shows up or he is losing, he'll just store the T3 in the Orca, warp away in the pod. The Orca is neutral and will jump into HighSec if threatened. You have virtually no risk if you do it right. Unless someone gives the Orca a really good bump (and you can't really surprise a vet with that) or someone turns up with kill rights on the Orca pilot (completely unlikely).
So I completely approve the change. Power comes at a cost. |
Sentamon
302
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:51:00 -
[29] - Quote
On the bright side, you can still eject from your T3 right before combat ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
786
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
Sentamon wrote:On the bright side, you can still eject from your T3 right before combat
^^ |
|
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
261
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:54:00 -
[31] - Quote
You accepted the potential loss in sp when you boarded your T3.
|
Shylari Avada
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 11:59:00 -
[32] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:
By this I would like to accuse CCP Masterplan and CCP in general in openly lying to their playerbase with an intention to justify their ill-thought over design changes.
PS. Will this topic be deleted - you are minus 5 accounts.
CCP has a history of making changes that go against their original implementation, when I started playing in 2003, Ghost Training was listed as a feature, then in 2007 they removed this 'feature' and required you to have an active account. Pretty sure that big wall of text (a.k.a. EULA) that you 'accept' after a patch pretty much entitles them to change any aspect of the game they wish, at any time they wish, without needing to specify a reason.
Instead of being a mouthbreathing whiny baby about it, either adapt or **** off. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
Edward Olmops wrote:Agreed. I saw these camps frequently in LowSec and they were very annoying since 99,9999% risk free although they could use the most expensive ships.
You have a T3 that can instalock frigs, get gang link boni from the Orca which is sitting at 0m to the gate. The T3 can freely engage anything (including kill all frigs). If trouble shows up or he is losing, he'll just store the T3 in the Orca, warp away in the pod. The Orca is neutral and will jump into HighSec if threatened. You have virtually no risk if you do it right. Unless someone gives the Orca a really good bump (and you can't really surprise a vet with that) or someone turns up with kill rights on the Orca pilot (completely unlikely).
So I completely approve the change. Power comes at a cost.
That was a flaw in the mechanics wiht the Orca, not with T3's.
However I accept T3's coming with a cost in SP. Just have objections on how this fix is implemented as it affect so much more, such as ejecting to save your pod. It also makes it harder to leave the T3 behind as loot for the winner of the fight. |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:00:00 -
[34] - Quote
Shylari Avada wrote:MisterAl tt1 wrote:
By this I would like to accuse CCP Masterplan and CCP in general in openly lying to their playerbase with an intention to justify their ill-thought over design changes.
PS. Will this topic be deleted - you are minus 5 accounts.
CCP has a history of making changes that go against their original implementation, when I started playing in 2003, Ghost Training was listed as a feature, then in 2007 they removed this 'feature' and required you to have an active account. Pretty sure that big wall of text (a.k.a. EULA) that you 'accept' after a patch pretty much entitles them to change any aspect of the game they wish, at any time they wish, without needing to specify a reason. Instead of being a mouthbreathing whiny baby about it, either adapt or **** off.
Hah. I like how you are very reasonable in your first paragraph, it gives the second paragraph all the more effect. |
JC Anderson
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
786
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:01:00 -
[35] - Quote
Shylari Avada wrote: when I started playing in 2003, Ghost Training was listed as a feature, then in 2007 they removed this 'feature' and required you to have an active account.
Oh god that was the threadnought to end all threadnought's before or after it. |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:03:00 -
[36] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Edward Olmops wrote:Agreed. I saw these camps frequently in LowSec and they were very annoying since 99,9999% risk free although they could use the most expensive ships.
You have a T3 that can instalock frigs, get gang link boni from the Orca which is sitting at 0m to the gate. The T3 can freely engage anything (including kill all frigs). If trouble shows up or he is losing, he'll just store the T3 in the Orca, warp away in the pod. The Orca is neutral and will jump into HighSec if threatened. You have virtually no risk if you do it right. Unless someone gives the Orca a really good bump (and you can't really surprise a vet with that) or someone turns up with kill rights on the Orca pilot (completely unlikely).
So I completely approve the change. Power comes at a cost. That was a flaw in the mechanics wiht the Orca, not with T3's. However I accept T3's coming with a cost in SP. Just have objections on how this fix is implemented as it affect so much more, such as ejecting to save your pod. It also makes it harder to leave the T3 behind as loot for the winner of the fight.
Leaving a T3 behind as loot to the winner? Are you playing eve? |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
3075
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
Taken from the same thread as the quote in the OP.
CCP Masterplan wrote:Sun Win wrote:That's unfortunate, given that when you guys announced Tech 3 on the Dev Blog, you said: Now you've made it so that Tech 3 pilots can't abandon ship. It's not a huge deal, most Tech 3 ships go down fighting. But this was something that you originally included as an interesting gameplay choice that you are now removing. "From time-to-time" is not the same as "In the middle of combat that isn't going your way" If you were suprise-ganked and weren't shooting, you can eject as you wish. But once you make an attack, you are committing yourself, for good or for bad.
|
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:06:00 -
[38] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote:
Leaving a T3 behind as loot to the winner? Are you playing eve?
That's what used to happen when you ejected and bailed out of combat to avoid skill point loss. The winner of the fight got a free t3, if he was quick enough to stop shooting at it. Some of us actually use them in proper fights and don't stick around doing risk free wannabe-pvp.
|
Shylari Avada
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:06:00 -
[39] - Quote
JC Anderson wrote:
Oh god that was the threadnought to end all threadnought's before or after it.
Goes back to the days before Over Forum Moderation, Zymurgist's 'Yellow Pen', CAOD fueling all our drama needs and generally New Eden feeling much larger than it does today.
|
Shylari Avada
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
124
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:09:00 -
[40] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote:Hah. I like how you are very reasonable in your first paragraph, it gives the second paragraph all the more effect.
I've found that a strong dose of logic and reasoning suits well for the first paragraph followed by a strong, threatening and ultimatum based closing sentence will typically alleviate the need to endlessly repeat yourself for pages on end, because the OP is either Illiterate, Incompetent, or just Argumentative for the sake of being Argumentative (which they will claim as 'trololololing').
God forbid wormholers might have to find a way around using 200 anchored t2 large bubbles and interdiction nullified ships as the be all end all for POS defense. |
|
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:10:00 -
[41] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Emu Meo wrote:
Leaving a T3 behind as loot to the winner? Are you playing eve?
That's what used to happen when you ejected and bailed out of combat to avoid skill point loss. The winner of the fight got a free t3, if he was quick enough to stop shooting at it. Some of us actually use them in proper fights and don't stick around doing risk free wannabe-pvp.
Even if giving a Tier 3 to the enemy is simply to circumvent the skill point loss, its still not going to look good when they turn up and kill you in the fleet of tier 3's your group ejected from the night before. At first I thought you were talking about giving the winner a T3 as some kind of gesture of honour. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:16:00 -
[42] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote:Emu Meo wrote:
Leaving a T3 behind as loot to the winner? Are you playing eve?
That's what used to happen when you ejected and bailed out of combat to avoid skill point loss. The winner of the fight got a free t3, if he was quick enough to stop shooting at it. Some of us actually use them in proper fights and don't stick around doing risk free wannabe-pvp. Even if giving a Tier 3 to the enemy is simply to circumvent the skill point loss, its still not going to look good when they turn up and kill you in the fleet of tier 3's your group ejected from the night before. At first I thought you were talking about giving the winner a T3 as some kind of gesture of honour.
Heh, good luck with that. T3's the boats themselves are just as disposable to me as stuff like Drakes are to the nullsec dwellers. I don't care about the isk side one bit, but the time spent training is an entirely other matter. It's also tech 3, not tier 3, not that you seem to understand the issue otherwise either. Forget the scope of low sec scum tossing their shinies safely inside orcas to protect them, and look at how T3's are used elsewhere in places where you have no bail out buttons like that. At times your implant sets and hardwires are worth much more to you than the 1-2B or whatever you pay for the T3 and the fitting.
The ejection trick, once the ship scooping issue is fixed, still came with a loss to you which was the ship. On top of that, like you suggest, the winner of the fight that results in a t3 left behind, gets much more value wise in that t3 than in whatever the loot fairy would've given him. |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:19:00 -
[43] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Emu Meo wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote:Emu Meo wrote:
Leaving a T3 behind as loot to the winner? Are you playing eve?
That's what used to happen when you ejected and bailed out of combat to avoid skill point loss. The winner of the fight got a free t3, if he was quick enough to stop shooting at it. Some of us actually use them in proper fights and don't stick around doing risk free wannabe-pvp. Even if giving a Tier 3 to the enemy is simply to circumvent the skill point loss, its still not going to look good when they turn up and kill you in the fleet of tier 3's your group ejected from the night before. At first I thought you were talking about giving the winner a T3 as some kind of gesture of honour. Heh, good luck with that. T3's the boats themselves are just as disposable to me as stuff like Drakes are to the nullsec dwellers. I don't care about the isk side one bit, but the time spent training is an entirely other matter. It's also tech 3, not tier 3, not that you seem to understand the issue otherwise either. Forget the scope of low sec scum tossing their shinies safely inside orcas to protect them, and look at how T3's are used elsewhere in places where you have no bail out buttons like that. At times your implant sets and hardwires are worth much more to you than the 1-2B or whatever you pay for the T3 and the fitting. The ejection trick, once the ship scooping issue is fixed, still came with a loss to you which was the ship. On top of that, like you suggest, the winner of the fight that results in a t3 left behind, gets much more value wise in that t3 than in whatever the loot fairy would've given him.
I know the loss of isk isn't a major issue for most nullsec alliances, but then also losing a couple of days of training off an already almost maxed out combat pilot surely isn't much of a big deal either. After all, 4 T3's are worth roughly the same as a capital, so losing a large fleet in a null alliance would still be the equivalent of losing capitals.
Also you say T3s are just as disposable to you as drakes are disposable to null sec dwellers, so I take it your a WH inhabitant then. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:23:00 -
[44] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote: I know the loss of isk isn't a major issue for most nullsec alliances, but then also losing a couple of days of training off an already almost maxed out combat pilot surely isn't much of a big deal either. After all, 4 T3's are worth roughly the same as a capital, so losing a large fleet in a null alliance would still be the equivalent of losing capitals.
I'm not a nullsec dweller, but a wormhole dweller. Either way, the fix that I'd have liked for that orca scooping thing would've adressed the actual issue rather than break other things that were about choices. To me it makes sense to leave the both the player about to lose the t3 a choice on whether to bail out and leave the ship to the agressor as a reward, or to stay in and lose the SP with it, both actions have consequences, neither of which are exactly good for the one losing that t3, but one rewarding the winner with a killmail and the loot drops and the other rewarding him with a shiny new boat. Win-win in my books, CCP didn't seem to think so.
That is what I was after. |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:28:00 -
[45] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Emu Meo wrote: I know the loss of isk isn't a major issue for most nullsec alliances, but then also losing a couple of days of training off an already almost maxed out combat pilot surely isn't much of a big deal either. After all, 4 T3's are worth roughly the same as a capital, so losing a large fleet in a null alliance would still be the equivalent of losing capitals.
I'm not a nullsec dweller, but a wormhole dweller. Either way, the fix that I'd have liked for that orca scooping thing would've adressed the actual issue rather than break other things that were about choices. To me it makes sense to leave the both the player about to lose the t3 a choice on whether to bail out and leave the ship to the agressor as a reward, or to stay in and lose the SP with it, both actions have consequences, neither of which are exactly good for the one losing that t3, but one rewarding the winner with a killmail and the loot drops and the other rewarding him with a shiny new boat. Win-win in my books, CCP didn't seem to think so. That is what I was after.
Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP. |
Shylari Avada
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
126
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:32:00 -
[46] - Quote
Emu Meo wrote: Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP.
With the cost of Technetium where it's at, the Tiericide Happening of 2012 making current T2 Ships undesirable, T3's are not only solid bang for the buck, but relatively on par with well fitted HACs now; and often performing greater in the field.
The actual cost of the ship, both in terms of skillpoints and isk is negligible. Introducing more risk will always have more people vocally upset, because the people that can either thrive under the new changes or are excited for them are busy doing other things, like killing ships rather than posting about potentially getting killed.
|
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:41:00 -
[47] - Quote
I think T3s were always meant to be very good bang for the buck even in comparison to their high cost. Even though the cost in isk is high, the utility and specialisation both at the same time is worth much more to most players. Hence the reason why I think the SP penalty need to be implemented. That way T3s can remain efficient killing machines and CCP wont need to nerf them due to the whole of new Eden being swarmed with them. Null sec players dont really care to much for the SP loss, but most other players do and so I think it would beneficially cut the number down. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
109
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:45:00 -
[48] - Quote
Shylari Avada wrote:Emu Meo wrote: Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP.
With the cost of Technetium where it's at, the Tiericide Happening of 2012 making current T2 Ships undesirable, T3's are not only solid bang for the buck, but relatively on par with well fitted HACs now; and often performing greater in the field. The actual cost of the ship, both in terms of skillpoints and isk is negligible. Introducing more risk will always have more people vocally upset, because the people that can either thrive under the new changes or are excited for them are busy doing other things, like killing ships rather than posting about potentially getting killed.
I don't think you can even find a proteus fit so bad that it would be outperformed by the Diemost :P Ditto for Legion vs Zealot, Loki vs Vagabond and Tengu vs whatsitsname. |
Emu Meo
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 12:47:00 -
[49] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote:Shylari Avada wrote:Emu Meo wrote: Yes I guessed you were a WH dweller above in the edit ^^ And looking at your corp name it should have been obvious anyway. T3's are made for WHs and that is where I expect to see them used more reguarly, both in the lore, and in terms of gameplay. But its the null sec and low sec fleets of T3s and solo T3s which I am mainly against. Although I am still in agreement with CCP that T3's pilots should lose the SPs, there is just no really good reason why they should not other than people don't like losing SP.
With the cost of Technetium where it's at, the Tiericide Happening of 2012 making current T2 Ships undesirable, T3's are not only solid bang for the buck, but relatively on par with well fitted HACs now; and often performing greater in the field. The actual cost of the ship, both in terms of skillpoints and isk is negligible. Introducing more risk will always have more people vocally upset, because the people that can either thrive under the new changes or are excited for them are busy doing other things, like killing ships rather than posting about potentially getting killed. I don't think you can even find a proteus fit so bad that it would be outperformed by the Diemost :P Ditto for Legion vs Zealot, Loki vs Vagabond and Tengu vs whatsitsname.
Yes, but with regards to pure isk efficiency you could buy 2/3 hacs for the cost of a T3. |
Schalac
Apocalypse Reign
183
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 13:16:00 -
[50] - Quote
OP wrote:WAAAAHHHHH I can't gank low sec entry gates in my insta lock T3 and eject and scoop to high sec when someone engages me To that I say. SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN!! http://eveboard.com/pilot/Schalac |
|
Karig'Ano Keikira
State War Academy Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 13:39:00 -
[51] - Quote
You lose skill points from dying in a ship that is supposed to cost you SP on dying? Sounds like working as intended.
|
Dach Starwind
Pretenders Inc W-Space
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 19:56:00 -
[52] - Quote
Karig'Ano Keikira wrote:You lose skill points from dying in a ship that is supposed to cost you SP on dying? Sounds like working as intended.
Sounds like lazy coding or cutting features because of coding difficulties. Sounds like contradicting dev blogs - valuable source of information. Sounds like removing one of ways to save pod because of exploit. Sounds like I want to hear dev answer about it. |
I'm Down
Macabre Votum Against ALL Authorities
140
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 20:04:00 -
[53] - Quote
It has very little to do with orcas. It has more to do with Ghost Heavy Interdictors and Carriers where a player would cyno in a carrier, Jump into his HIC, then lock his carrier to prevent someone else from boarding it. With a group of people, you can get the benefit of 2 ships at once while gaining more and more hics whenever you please by trading out 1 carrier. Was a pretty horrible exploit of mechanics where this was never the intention of either ship. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
113
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 20:07:00 -
[54] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:It has very little to do with orcas. It has more to do with Ghost Heavy Interdictors and Carriers where a player would cyno in a carrier, Jump into his HIC, then lock his carrier to prevent someone else from boarding it. With a group of people, you can get the benefit of 2 ships at once while gaining more and more hics whenever you please by trading out 1 carrier. Was a pretty horrible exploit of mechanics where this was never the intention of either ship.
Yes, but wouldn't it make sense to prevent these exploits rather than mess with things that have much wider impact? |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
657
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 20:13:00 -
[55] - Quote
You might have a point about the ~CCP IS LYING~ thing if CCP Masterplan was the one who wrote that 3 year old devblog. As it stands, given the insane shake-up CCP has gone through between that old devblog and now, there's a very good chance that anyone responsible for the old "design choice" of T3 ejection isn't even around anymore (the dev who wrote the blog isn't - click his name and see).
I guess maybe CCP Masterplan could come out and amend his statement or tell us what the deal is with that old reasoning (i.e. was it documented well enough internally for anyone to have reasonably known about it today), but why bother? The change is staying the same, and it's pretty clear you're more upset about the change itself than a contradiction between a 3 year old devblog and a recent one. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Zelda Wei
New Horizon Trade Exchange
186
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:20:00 -
[56] - Quote
The FP is NOT evidence of lying, lying requires intent, no intent proven Accusing CCP of lying without evidence is it'self dishonest and uncivil
OP should be banned for lying himself and being a whiney brat. |
Pohbis
118
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:30:00 -
[57] - Quote
CCP claiming something is a feature, until it's a bug, is nothing new.
At least they seem more prone to admitting something really isn't intended, but they don't have a mechanic to fix it, these days - instead of going all "ghost training" on us |
Fryhilda
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
28
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:31:00 -
[58] - Quote
You may de-aggress for 60 seconds and eject to save your precious SP. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
780
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:32:00 -
[59] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:Taken from the same thread as the quote in the OP. CCP Masterplan wrote:Sun Win wrote:That's unfortunate, given that when you guys announced Tech 3 on the Dev Blog, you said: Now you've made it so that Tech 3 pilots can't abandon ship. It's not a huge deal, most Tech 3 ships go down fighting. But this was something that you originally included as an interesting gameplay choice that you are now removing. "From time-to-time" is not the same as "In the middle of combat that isn't going your way" If you were suprise-ganked and weren't shooting, you can eject as you wish. But once you make an attack, you are committing yourself, for good or for bad.
QFT!!!!
Op.... grow up.... CCP didn't LIE... and you should man up and delete your childish rabble rousing topic... |
Casirio
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
167
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:38:00 -
[60] - Quote
Archdaimon wrote:I don't mind either way as long as CCP takes balancing into consideration.
Time is the single most valuable source in EVE (and elseweyr) thus skillpoint loss combined with the price of a t3 needs to make it significantly more favourable than say t2's.
They currently are, but nerfing t3's to hard might simply make them unjustifiable compared to their costs.
(And no, look at NoHo's kb, we're not afraid to lose expensive ships!)
yeah my problem is CCP running around saying t3's need the nerf bat.. when the price tag is so high (SP.) They need to balance/buff t2 cruisers (especially with the t1 buff, t2 in between t1 and t3 cruisers dont look so good at the moment.) |
|
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
639
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:39:00 -
[61] - Quote
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:
Op.... grow up.... CCP didn't LIE... and you should man up and delete your childish rabble rousing topic...
This wont happen. As long as ships cost isk, and ships can die, and isk can be lost, somone will always be there to sound the siren on the Waaaaaambulance. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? |
Shmoogle Kuni Osukami
Celestial Serenity Incorporated
2
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:55:00 -
[62] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:but here is a three-year old devblog
A lot can change in 3 years.
|
Kagumichan
Deorbit Burners Session Change In Progress Alliance
12
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 21:59:00 -
[63] - Quote
Do not fly a ship you cannot afford to lose, Eve rule number 1. That applies to skills too, not just isk. The skill loss on T3's was designed so they would happen. The big expensive awesome ship is designed to have a drawback adding an element of risk to piloting it. People were ejecting before it popped, which removed that risk element, so CCP have fixed that and put the risk back in. |
Ayn Randy
the unified Negative Ten.
24
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 22:05:00 -
[64] - Quote
So ive had this happen to me once or twice where a pilot ejects and warps off leaving the ship and saving his Pod/Skillpoints...
Everyone screams stop shooting and we get a free tech 3 :) |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
26
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 22:08:00 -
[65] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Emu Meo wrote:Exactly, dont fly them if you cant take the loss, I completely agree. Why are you for people not flying and getting stuff blown up? Emu Meo wrote:As for the consequence that this now means we wont see 30 man blob fleets of T3 cruisers,,,,, is that meant to be a bad thing? No, it won't, because unless your FC happens to be Makalu Zarya your T3 cruisers are actually pretty safe in a blob, and if you were going to die you wouldn't have time to eject with or without the weapons timer changes in Retribution. It's the solo T3 pilots you'll be seeing less of.
Much of this. But then we have to start explaining to some people when you get volleyed in some fleet battle it's not about 1 or 2 k dmg incoming but more of 20K+ so this changes absolutely nothing for T3 fleets and the fact T3 fleet pilots are used to loose that SP and prepared to do it again.
Now for the solo guy James is absolutely right, many players new they could avoid the SP loss and at some point even if they haven't lost one yet this announcement might have an effect on their future ship choices, which is silly you tell me, but this is more like to happen. |
Verushka Atreides
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.05 22:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
There is more impact to this then just the sp loss in T3's.
For W-space, we don't have the convenience of simply getting podded and waking up in an ultra safe station 2 jumps away.
Being able to eject and get your pod out of a conflict is pretty damn important.
But no, no foresight was put into the implications this change would have on wspace. Given that we use T3's extensively, are the supplier of the materials to make T3's (which inevitably will be less popular now thus dropping in value) and have the most to lose of anyone by being podded.
This was a direct nerf to Wormholes.
|
Shylari Avada
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
132
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 11:16:00 -
[67] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote: I don't think you can even find a proteus fit so bad that it would be outperformed by the Diemost :P Ditto for Legion vs Zealot, Loki vs Vagabond and Tengu vs whatsitsname.
I wasn't so much comparing the effectiveness of T3s vs. HACs but moreso the new revamped T1 cruisers that are almost better in every way with a worse resist profile (30m fitted vs a 200-300m fitted) than HACs which with the new tiericide changes will hopefully getting love in the not so distant future. T3's while I enjoy flying them, can compliment HAC doctrines well, but only in limited niche roles.
In NullSec with no learning implants, losing a SS skill level doesn't bother me at all; I imagine most Wormhole Dwellers feel the same, and if you're living in Empire space, complaining about skill point loss in your +5 clone, I don't think anyone gives a toss about your opinion.
Verushka Atreides wrote:There is more impact to this then just the sp loss in T3's.
For W-space, we don't have the convenience of simply getting podded and waking up in an ultra safe station 2 jumps away. Being able to eject and get your pod out of a conflict is pretty damn important.
This is what happens when changes are implemented with no regard to how it affects other areas of game play. The only thing you can really do to prevent it is to shoot down bad ideas on features and discussions and talk to your favorite devs on Twitter (which seems to be a better and more interactive field for constructive feedback).
The second part of that typically requires you to be more knowledgeable than an actual dev, in a polite manner without sounding like a raging idiot, so 90% of the people here should probably not try it- but if you can back up your argument with game knowledge, mechanics and sound reasoning the devs are pretty receptive to your ideas.
Sergeant Acht Scultz wrote:Now for the solo guy James is absolutely right, many players new they could avoid the SP loss and at some point even if they haven't lost one yet this announcement might have an effect on their future ship choices, which is silly you tell me, but this is more like to happen.
This isn't a solo game.
If that's the playstyle you enjoy, by all means have at it. Just stop crying and whining all over the damn place when you are having a difficult time fighting 'ze blob'. Regardless of how you choose to play, the skill point loss is level across the board, and the only people actually slighted by this are Wormhole Dwellers. |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
117
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 11:21:00 -
[68] - Quote
Shylari Avada wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote: I don't think you can even find a proteus fit so bad that it would be outperformed by the Diemost :P Ditto for Legion vs Zealot, Loki vs Vagabond and Tengu vs whatsitsname.
I wasn't so much comparing the effectiveness of T3s vs. HACs but moreso the new revamped T1 cruisers that are almost better in every way with a worse resist profile (30m fitted vs a 200-300m fitted) than HACs which with the new tiericide changes will hopefully getting love in the not so distant future. T3's while I enjoy flying them, can compliment HAC doctrines well, but only in limited niche roles. In NullSec with no learning implants, losing a SS skill level doesn't bother me at all; I imagine most Wormhole Dwellers feel the same, and if you're living in Empire space, complaining about skill point loss in your +5 clone, I don't think anyone gives a toss about your opinion.
Ah that I agree with, was actually looking at Thorax fits just last night and wondering if there'd be a single reason to look at the Deimos anymore. Didn't find any, the Thorax outperforms the Deimos in absolutely everything that matters currently.
It's not really about losing "a" skill level, but multiple ones. T3's are our bread and butter boats here in wormholes and we use them for pvp and pve all the same. All it takes is a little bit of bad luck and you might be looking at what I had just few months back; 3 proteus losses within one week, 2 of which happened just 6 hours apart. I'm fine with the losses, that's not really the issue, but being forced to hold flying them for 1-1-+ weeks just to get efficient with them again? That's just silly.
And yes, even back then I solved the issue by flying Arazus and Astartes for awhile. |
Shylari Avada
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
132
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 11:26:00 -
[69] - Quote
Borlag Crendraven wrote: It's not really about losing "a" skill level, but multiple ones. T3's are our bread and butter boats here in wormholes and we use them for pvp and pve all the same. All it takes is a little bit of bad luck and you might be looking at what I had just few months back; 3 proteus losses within one week, 2 of which happened just 6 hours apart. I'm fine with the losses, that's not really the issue, but being forced to hold flying them for 1-1-+ weeks just to get efficient with them again? That's just silly.
And yes, even back then I solved the issue by flying Arazus and Astartes for awhile.
While I don't currently reside on 'Theorycraft' Mountain, I understand the stress of level 5 subsystems for WH life due to PvE/PvP within a single ship class, but that being said, have SS skills at 4 (for the modicum of time it takes to get them back to 5) only marginally effects the efficiency of the ship. The only exception to this might be the Proteus Engineering SS Skill if you have bad support skills.
|
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
117
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 11:32:00 -
[70] - Quote
Shylari Avada wrote:Borlag Crendraven wrote: It's not really about losing "a" skill level, but multiple ones. T3's are our bread and butter boats here in wormholes and we use them for pvp and pve all the same. All it takes is a little bit of bad luck and you might be looking at what I had just few months back; 3 proteus losses within one week, 2 of which happened just 6 hours apart. I'm fine with the losses, that's not really the issue, but being forced to hold flying them for 1-1-+ weeks just to get efficient with them again? That's just silly.
And yes, even back then I solved the issue by flying Arazus and Astartes for awhile.
While I don't currently reside on 'Theorycraft' Mountain, I understand the stress of level 5 subsystems for WH life due to PvE/PvP within a single ship class, but that being said, have SS skills at 4 (for the modicum of time it takes to get them back to 5) only marginally effects the efficiency of the ship. The only exception to this might be the Proteus Engineering SS Skill if you have bad support skills.
Well, to be honest it's not the proteus that has trouble fitting everything. Unless I'd be going for the troll fit Proteus with 670k ehp neut-proof tank, it'd easily have enough PG to fit mwd, full rack of guns and a t2 plate on top of it. The prolem used to be much bigger with the legion, where max skills and a hardwire was required to even think of fitting those. With the proteus it has been the electronics sub that has caused more issues for us anal retentive guys who rely on 20km+ scram ranges with 3 point strength. |
|
Proletariat Tingtango
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
180
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 11:41:00 -
[71] - Quote
The vision for a game can change over the years, and the desirability of certain mechanics wax and wane internally. This isn't even some phenomenon unique to EVE. Dig up developer blogs and posts over the course of any long running MMO and you'll find a ton of contradictions and hypocrisy.
The bottom line is, minds change and CCP isn't oath-bound to stick to their original plans. Deal with it. T3 fleets freaking sucked anyway.
|
Inquisitor Kitchner
Galaxy Punks Executive Outcomes
580
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 13:21:00 -
[72] - Quote
Proletariat Tingtango wrote: The bottom line is, minds change and CCP isn't oath-bound to stick to their original plans. Deal with it. T3 fleets freaking sucked anyway.
Not empty quoting "If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared." - Niccolo Machiavelli |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5723
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 14:18:00 -
[73] - Quote
"abloobloobloo they took away the ability to put my T3 in an orca in range of a hisec gate whenever the fight isn't 100% in my favor" ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. An idea for improving corp management |
Borlag Crendraven
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
119
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 14:21:00 -
[74] - Quote
Andski wrote:"abloobloobloo they took away the ability to put my T3 in an orca in range of a hisec gate whenever the fight isn't 100% in my favor"
Way to miss the point yet again Andski. If you want to prevent scooping of ships to safety, how about having a timer on the ship itself that prevents scooping for x amount of time when agressed. This wouldn't prevent saving your pod, it wouldn't prevent trying to avoid skillpoint loss at the expense of your opponent getting a free boat. In short, it'd be a win win situation for everyone involved.
I guess that's too much to ask, just like reading comprehension. |
March rabbit
Aliastra
281
|
Posted - 2012.12.06 14:25:00 -
[75] - Quote
MisterAl tt1 wrote:pussenheels, I cannot stand being lied to. you are have never been outside of your basement do you?
Lie-ing is pretty normal in this World (and i mean RL not some online game). Just get used to it and learn to detect. Nothing interesting |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |