|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 53 post(s) |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1212
|
Posted - 2013.05.27 20:33:00 -
[1] - Quote
Had a rat spawn on me upon failure in a Central Guristas Sparking Transmitter site. I bug reported that one.
A different point regarding the GST and that style of site - please, please do away with the giant infernal death glow thing. The structures and spinning doodads are fine, though they can screw you over if the can spews out the other side of the structure, but the infernal death glow thing makes it extremely difficult to even see the cans at all, which is the "wrong" kind of difficulty in my opinion.
http://i.imgur.com/FhZOW4A.png Picture to illustrate what I mean. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1222
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 02:55:00 -
[2] - Quote
Naomi Hale wrote:Ali Aras wrote:I understand that people are mad about that, but I feel that that's something for them to get over and start treating like a challenge. If loot values are still too low, they can be tweaked a bit. EVE isn't supposed to be easy. Not trolling, Genuinely curious. Aren't you, as a CSM, supposed to represent the people? That statement seems counterintuitive. Yes, I'm here to represent the players. Of course, I'm allowed to think for myself as well, and I rather liked the notion of things that you actually have to cooperate with others to leverage to their fullest potential. So, if (as in this case) I believe people are being spoiled little whiners, stamping their feet and demanding ALL THE THINGS, I'm going to tell them as much.
I sincerely hope that CCP doesn't abandon the original intent of the can spray and that future iterations on this feature bring back sites that really do require cooperation. Multiplayer hacking to release multiple can sprays and the like, perhaps.
Johan Toralen wrote:Yea i don't get it. Among the very few positive voices two CSM members. Looks like brown nosing to me. If anything CSM should be even mnore mad then regular players since they wern't consulted on the exploration changes. The conduct is noted and taken into consideration for the next election.
There is no big enough for this post. Practically every part of it is wrong. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1223
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:03:00 -
[3] - Quote
Flamespar wrote:It would be great if each time you destroyed a system core, you were given the choice to go a level deeper into the system, or to jettison the accessed cargo. Each time you enter a deeper level it becomes more complex and difficult, yet the potential rewards become greater. Of course the risk of failure should also escalate with every additional level.
Now this, I like. This seems like a Good IdeaGäó. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:08:00 -
[4] - Quote
Flamespar wrote:OMG. CSM agreeing with my post.
Body shutting down .. can't cope with positivity on EVE forums
Obviously, we're brownnosing.
I mean I don't know how that actually works here, but it's obvious. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 03:36:00 -
[5] - Quote
"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.
Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 04:18:00 -
[6] - Quote
Telrei wrote:mynnna wrote:"It's always been this way, so it always should be that way" makes things pretty boring.
Also, every single one of the ways you suggested to make it "multiplayer" just makes it "multi-account". Any of them could be multiboxed. The unique thing about the spray is that multiboxing it and being better off than having a genuine second person would be rather difficult. That's a good thing, because cooperation isn't cooperation when it involves your alts. Ok... Then I propose that we make all complexes have this new anti-multibox feature as well. Why should it be mandatory that all Hacking and Arch sites be shielded from multiboxers when I can run a 10/10 multibox and get 1-2b+ "You can't run a 10/10 that easily multi-boxed" Then make the high level hacking sites as difficult to run multi-boxed without this new gimmick Maybe they'll get to that someday.
Telrei wrote:Why are you and some of the other CSM so intent on making sure that Hacking and Arch sites MUST require two+ people to run when I can run a 5/10-6/10 complex solo and more than likely make as much isk if not more.... They don't require 2+ people to run. They require 2+ people to loot all the cans, but since the loot is balanced for two, that's fine. If one person is running it, they still get their fair share.
And, comparing these things to 5/10 or 6/10s is apples and oranges and you know it. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1226
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 04:41:00 -
[7] - Quote
Telrei wrote:I don't usually like to double post but it just came to me....
This is the emergency nerf....
Someone suddenly realized that if you added the new mini-game people would go after EVERY hacking site in the game to try it out....
The entire market would be flooded with the onset of new and old people who never gave a hoot about hacking or just did it from time to time and now suddenly enmass are trying it...
Rather then pulling the plug this late in the iteration you needed a balance....
You knew that most people run hacking/arch sites solo so you added the can spew in to make sure that the VAST amount of people who used to run hacking would still stay away... As I have said before if I try and get someone to help they will say don't waste your time on that hacking site come mine/plex/mission. et....
You keep the solo players in check because most will stop running and the market will remain unflooded....
Well played... you have succeeded on this until the next iteration where the can spew is magically gone and replaced with one if not multiple of the ideas listed that will take much much longer to code and balance....
You, uh, do realize that CCP went ahead and made the cans so slow that a reasonably capable player can get nearly all of them now, right? I mean, it kinda pokes a hole in your theory there...
Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1227
|
Posted - 2013.05.30 14:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
Palal wrote:blink alt wrote:CCP Bayesian wrote:MainDrain wrote:Is this some sort of confirmation that the bonuses will be present on the T2 Cov ops hulls?? Yup. T1 will have a +5 Strength bonus and T2 +10. Will the t3 scanning sub system get +10 too? ^^^ +1 Please make the T3's viable.. Played several null sec sites just now before singularity went offline. I was able to finish 2 and several I couldn't finish. Using the T1 module and hacking:4 & arch:4. So I'm not terrible. PRO TIP: You're goning to want cargo hold extenders on your ships! Nothing worse than grabbing cans and not having enough room!
Cross-quoting from the other thread.
However, I feel that T3 subs should have a different bonus (if they get a bonus), perhaps to coherence, so that it's a choice rather than clearly better... especially as T3 is not intended to be "clearly better" than T2 anyway!
However, since a strength bonus is effectively a coherence bonus (by letting you kill defensive modules faster), a coherence bonus would have to be rather large to be competitive... Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
|
|