Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Vas Vadum
PH0ENIX COMPANY Tribal Band
51
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 12:51:00 -
[361] - Quote
Noriko Mai wrote:It looks like they are avoiding the real problems and fix everything around the broken things. I don't understand this... There a obvious things broken as hell and they do stuff like this... But what do you expect from a company that is unable to to unify the description of a few ships for YEARS.
It's because they don't know how or lack the skill to fix these problems at the current time. At least that's my guess. So they go about changing other things to make it look like they are doing work while they sit there twiddling their thumbs wondering how to fix the issues that plague the game. I mean they did an epic update, and now they are going back to doing dumb useless things. |
Psychotic Psychosis
Beanbag. Tribal Band
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 12:55:00 -
[362] - Quote
Vas Vadum wrote:Noriko Mai wrote:It looks like they are avoiding the real problems and fix everything around the broken things. I don't understand this... There a obvious things broken as hell and they do stuff like this... But what do you expect from a company that is unable to to unify the description of a few ships for YEARS. It's because they don't know how or lack the skill to fix these problems at the current time. At least that's my guess. So they go about changing other things to make it look like they are doing work while they sit there twiddling their thumbs wondering how to fix the issues that plague the game. I mean they did an epic update, and now they are going back to doing dumb useless things.
I'm pretty sure CCP as a very well established game dev completely has the "skill" to do these sort of changes, i mean they coded a permanent universe to begin with... |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
182
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 13:37:00 -
[363] - Quote
also talking about missile skills.. its a little confusing if you look at the base missile stats before you put them in your ship the stats don't really take into account your missile skills ..
also since missile skills usually add upto 100% range and 50% on other stats like tracking its hard to understand looking at say a Heavy missile in eve what kind of performance you will get from them.
besides making these stats accurate with your skills added in game i would also suggest reducing the skills down to more conservative 5% a level .. and then apply the difference to the missiles themselves this would massively help new players understand what the missiles will actually do without having to load them into a ship or look at eve Hq or something.
You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions. Drone improvements/ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=133767 Electronic Attack Frigate ideas for improvement https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1986048#post1986048 |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
156
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 13:38:00 -
[364] - Quote
How CCP spends subscription money on EvE - renaming things and appealing to the lowest common denominator
If you are going to rename something at least make it sound good |
Mercedes Chance
GDC Enterprises
6
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 13:48:00 -
[365] - Quote
I concur with many others . . . Spaceship Command sounds better and should stay the same. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
190
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 13:57:00 -
[366] - Quote
Also please don't make me train energy grid upgrades lv5 just to fly a HAC its just strange surely you could switch it to lv4 and then add the lost time onto some other skill you could add to its pre-req that's upto a lv4 skill thats relevant to the ship like a navigation skill perhaps the mwd skill to lv3 or 4.
Another thing is since you have the large micro jump drive limited to battleships why don't you do the same thing with AB's and mwd's? more consistency please... also would stop exploitation of over sized props like tengus come to mind. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 16:00:00 -
[367] - Quote
In practice, hull is no more a subcategory of armor than shields is a subcategory of armor, all three are entirely different levels of a ship's defensive abilities and as such we need three clear divisions:
shields - all shield relevant skills
armor - all armor relevant skills
hull - all hull relevant skills.
To further emphasize my point:
1. no module or skill that affects the armor of a ship should have the word 'hull' in it.
2. no module or skill that affects the hull should use the term 'structure' in it's description as you have given it the title "hull" and it should be referenced as such. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 16:30:00 -
[368] - Quote
Please remove the 'daytrading' skill and refund SPs as needed.
Reasoning: Contracts is the branch of EVEs marketplace that adds the scamming intrigue to the game, while the market should be a safe haven for commerce ( I believe this is why you restrict the market to 'original blueprints only').
I know many will disagree with this reasoning and that is fine, it is just my humble opinion.
P.S. My humble opinion is always right, just ask me! |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 16:41:00 -
[369] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:also talking about missile skills.. its a little confusing if you look at the base missile stats before you put them in your ship the stats don't really take into account your missile skills ..
also since missile skills usually add upto 100% range and 50% on other stats like tracking its hard to understand looking at say a Heavy missile in eve what kind of performance you will get from them.
besides making these stats accurate with your skills added in game i would also suggest reducing the skills down to more conservative 5% a level .. and then apply the difference to the missiles themselves this would massively help new players understand what the missiles will actually do without having to load them into a ship or look at eve Hq or something. Adding missile range in km would be nice instead of having to calculate velocity X flight time.
You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions.
also add a new skill called medium assault missiles and they could be a lower damage better tracking version of HAMS. replace RML's with medium assault launchers that way you get better tracking against smaller ships but without the massive loss of dps and ofc using small missiles on a medium sized ship is out of whack really.
If i am misunderstanding your post i apologize in advance but....
The reason skills that affect "missile range" are not dynamically updated to reflect your current skills is because things like ship choice can also affect "missile range" and they don't know what ship, of the 10 missile ships you have, that you intend to fly. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
190
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 17:03:00 -
[370] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Harvey James wrote:also talking about missile skills.. its a little confusing if you look at the base missile stats before you put them in your ship the stats don't really take into account your missile skills ..
also since missile skills usually add upto 100% range and 50% on other stats like tracking its hard to understand looking at say a Heavy missile in eve what kind of performance you will get from them.
besides making these stats accurate with your skills added in game i would also suggest reducing the skills down to more conservative 5% a level .. and then apply the difference to the missiles themselves this would massively help new players understand what the missiles will actually do without having to load them into a ship or look at eve Hq or something. Adding missile range in km would be nice instead of having to calculate velocity X flight time.
You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions.
also add a new skill called medium assault missiles and they could be a lower damage better tracking version of HAMS. replace RML's with medium assault launchers that way you get better tracking against smaller ships but without the massive loss of dps and ofc using small missiles on a medium sized ship is out of whack really. If i am misunderstanding your post i apologize in advance but.... The reason skills that affect "missile range" are not dynamically updated to reflect your current skills is because things like ship choice can also affect "missile range" and they don't know what ship, of the 10 missile ships you have, that you intend to fly.
that doesn't explain why they don't update them with skills... and then when loaded to the ship then they Could update them to the ships bonuses.
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 17:22:00 -
[371] - Quote
Deleted, reason clarified in my next post below. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
190
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 17:26:00 -
[372] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Harvey James wrote:
You shouldn't need 3rd party applications to understand and get accurate figures that the game should be doing already perhaps also the descriptions of missiles in game could be more informative like the ammo for guns now have clear percentage stats on the descriptions.
If i am misunderstanding your post i apologize in advance but.... The reason skills that affect "missile range" are not dynamically updated to reflect your current skills is because things like ship choice can also affect "missile range" and they don't know what ship, of the 10 missile ships you have, that you intend to fly. Quote: that doesn't explain why they don't update them with skills... and then when loaded to the ship then they Could update them to the ships bonuses.
Apologizing again if I'm still missing your point, but..... 1. you state you want a clear understanding of what impact a skill that increases missile range will have on missile range without needing a third party application but even if they give you what you want you will still need to use a third party application to know what range you will ultimately have on any given ship. 2. If you are going to take the time to chose a ship, load it with mods, select your missile launchers and then choose your missiles and THEN check it to see what your missile range ultimately is then your request isnt helping you, you can place your mouse over your loaded missile launcher and there is its range.
My main point being here is that if you look at missiles right now and say you wanted to use them on a caracal you would have to make so many calculations to figure out what you'll get not just range but also tracking etc.. and the point of this thread is too make things much clearer... you seem to not want this for some reason Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 17:29:00 -
[373] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:... you seem to not want this for some reason
Not that i don't want it, it is just that despite reading 3 of your posts now, my thick skull still isn't seeing your point and i will take up no more of your time, cheers!
, Maldiro Selkurk.
On another subject:
+1
....for your signature line (if that is what they are called) where you basically state that T3's should be slammed with the nerf bat, I couldn't agree more that they are seriously OP in their current form. |
Bovaan
Sunset Warriors Legacy Rising
1
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 18:40:00 -
[374] - Quote
Energy Pulse Weapons
Always confused me with pulse lasers. How about "Smartbomb Operation"? And should it be moved from the Engineering group? |
Benjamin Artoriana
The Goat Lords Excavation Inc
7
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 19:10:00 -
[375] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+
Keep Electronics and Engineering names the same... might just be nestalgia but never heard they were a problem... seems quite straightforward to me.
Targeting - Target Acquisition
Multitasking - Advanced Target Acquisition
GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+GÇ+
Or
Targeting - Target Management
Multitasking - Advanced Target Management Something, something, don't be an idiot. Blah, blah, I love EVE and goats. |
Seamus Donohue
Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra
37
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 20:13:00 -
[376] - Quote
Reading through the original post by CCP Ytterbium, I would like to propose the following amendments or reversions:
"CPU Management" and "Power Grid Management" should instead be "CPU Optimization" and "Powergrid Optimization"; optimization, rather than management.
For "Targeting" and "Multitasking", I suggest "Targetlock Optimization" and "Advanced Targetlock Optimization".
The new "Armor" group should be named "Armor and Structure".
"Mechanics" as a skill should be "Structural Integrity".
"Electronic System" as a group should be "Electronic Warfare".
"Ship Modifications" as a group should be split into "Rigging" and "Subsystems".
"Spaceship Command" as a group should retain its' classic name.
---
Everything else looks good to me. I like it. Survivor of Teskanen. -áFan of John Rourke.
I have video tutorials for EVE Online on my YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/SeamusDonohueEVE |
Vas Vadum
PH0ENIX COMPANY Tribal Band
52
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 20:29:00 -
[377] - Quote
Seamus Donohue wrote:Reading through the original post by CCP Ytterbium, I would like to propose the following amendments or reversions:
"CPU Management" and "Power Grid Management" should instead be "CPU Optimization" and "Powergrid Optimization"; optimization, rather than management.
For "Targeting" and "Multitasking", I suggest "Targetlock Optimization" and "Advanced Targetlock Optimization".
The new "Armor" group should be named "Armor and Structure".
"Mechanics" as a skill should be "Structural Integrity".
"Electronic System" as a group should be "Electronic Warfare".
"Ship Modifications" as a group should be split into "Rigging" and "Subsystems".
"Spaceship Command" as a group should retain its' classic name.
---
Everything else looks good to me. I like it.
I actually like some of this, most of it. But I don't like the fact that CCP is dumbing down the game for the idiots or the 12 year olds. They did this with implants, dumbing them down for people when all you had to do was take a minute to read it's info page. I mean, people always open these before buying anyway so what's the point of renaming. I think this is mostly just a delay tactic, to disguise the fact that they can't fix our current problems, so they are gonna work on something pointless to distract us for a while. |
Lord Mandelor
Tengoo Uninstallation Service
179
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 21:01:00 -
[378] - Quote
Here to support glorious Spaceship Command. Knight and Agent of the New Order |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
190
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 22:34:00 -
[379] - Quote
Perhaps you could change the bonus on the following: to 2% damage -Energy turrets -hybrid turrets -projectile turrets -Heavy missiles -heavy assault missiles -rockets -cruise missiles -light missiles -torpedoes
The reason being that at 5% you can't not train them to lv5. at 2% lv5 is more optional and thus making training lv5 unnecessary unless you want to specialize in T2 ammo. Then ofc you need to make T1/faction ammo worth using. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS strain SELKURK
22
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 23:11:00 -
[380] - Quote
Seamus Donohue wrote:Reading through the original post by CCP Ytterbium, I would like to propose the following amendments or reversions:
"CPU Management" and "Power Grid Management" should instead be "CPU Optimization" and "Powergrid Optimization"; optimization, rather than management.
For "Targeting" and "Multitasking", I suggest "Targetlock Optimization" and "Advanced Targetlock Optimization".
The new "Armor" group should be named "Armor and Structure".
"Mechanics" as a skill should be "Structural Integrity".
"Electronic System" as a group should be "Electronic Warfare".
"Ship Modifications" as a group should be split into "Rigging" and "Subsystems".
"Spaceship Command" as a group should retain its' classic name.
---
Everything else looks good to me. I like it.
1. Anything that gets them to not use the term 'management' gets my vote (it is much to vague a term) 2. Targetlock Opt. is to vague, it could just as easily refer to locking time and locking range. 3. Armor and Hull should be separated into to distinct categories, since they are distinct protection levels in actual practice. 4. Mechanics should be called hull integrity, unless they change all references to 'hull' to 'structure' instead, in which case I would support 'structural integrity', in short they need to chose a name and be consistent with its use. |
|
ikisol
Wings of Turul HUN Reloaded
0
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 23:33:00 -
[381] - Quote
please
DO not make WOW out of EVE
no need for DUMB |
Commander Ted
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
774
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 23:46:00 -
[382] - Quote
ikisol wrote:please
DO not make WOW out of EVE
no need for DUMB
becaues dumb is a noun https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=174097 Separate all 4 empires in eve with lowsec. |
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
40
|
Posted - 2013.07.07 23:58:00 -
[383] - Quote
about bloody time.. |
Bru Swillis
Titan Technologies Inc
9
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 03:20:00 -
[384] - Quote
Please just leave well enough alone, please please pretty please cherry on top. Stop changing stuff that works perfectly fine, and that people have been used to for so long. It just causes alot of unnecessary aggrevation . |
Octoven
Phoenix Productions Headshot Gaming
167
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 04:24:00 -
[385] - Quote
There are some issues here that clearly haven't been thought through. I mean to be honest it doesnt make sense to say CPU Management is a pre-res for Targeting (Multiple Targeting). Another issue:
Quote:Armor: is a new skill group, that has all armor skills - the GÇ£mechanicsGÇ¥ skill group has been removed.
Contains the Armor Honeycombing, Armor Resistance Phasing, Capital Remote Armor Repair Systems, Capital Remote Hull Repair Systems, Capital Repair Systems, EM Armor Compensation, Explosive Armor Compensation, Hull Upgrades, Kinetic Armor Compensation, Mechanics, Remote Armor Repair Systems, Remote Hull Repair Systems, Repair Systems and Thermic Armor Compensation skills.
As you can see, having "Mechanics" can mean armor or hull. When you think of the word mechanic, you think of metallic items on a ship that can be fixed or changed. Hull and armor fall under that. Your new proposal puts hull under an Armor category which doesnt make sense.
Quote:Electronic System: is the old GÇ£electronicsGÇ¥ group. Now only contains offense EW related skills.
This change isn't really a change, its redundant. We spaceship pilots KNOW that anything fitted to our ship is a "system" it doesnt need to be re-iterated.
Quote:Engineering: now has all skills related with energy management and fittings in general.
Contains the Advanced Weapon Upgrades, CPU Management, Capital Energy Emission Systems, Electronics Upgrades, Energy Emission Systems, Energy Grid Upgrades, Energy Management, Energy Pulse Weapons, Energy Systems Operation, Nanite Interfacing, Nanite Operation, Power Grid Management, Thermodynamics and Weapon Upgrades skills.
Not sure where to even begin here. A)CPU Management doesnt belong, it is CPU not power and thus is not an engineering skill. CPU Management would be better suited in the Electronics System category. B) It makes no sense referring Nanite control to Neurotoxin Control and leaving Nanite Interfacing and Nanite Operation by its name. If you want to change one, be consistent and change all related. So you would have Neurotoxin Interfacing and Neurotoxin Operation. Be sure to also change the name of the item that these use like Nanite Paste to Neruotoxin Paste. If you do not do these things, you only create confusion where there was clarity before. Personally Id say leave the name for all nanite skills the way they are and save yourself some work.
The Planet Management skill group needs to stay exactly where it is. It makes no sense spreading 5 skills that are only useful for PI over multiple categories not related to each other.
Spaceship Command needs to stay Spaceship Command, not Spaceship Piloting. This is an adult game, not for 6 year olds. Adults understand the concept of what commanding a spaceship means, we don't need to play it down to grammar school grammar.
I like most of the categorizing but as for the 5 major skill renaming, they should stay the same. Leave electronics where it is instead of CPU Management. By doing so, the Electronics skill can be the anchor for the Electronics category. Having Engineering remain the same is the anchor for the Engineering category. It makes zero sense to change the two at all. Let eve players read the descriptions for these skills to better understand what they are. THAT is why the descriptions are there in the first place. The names are to invite a bit of reality to it. Targeting is also fine the way it is; however, you could rename Multitasking to Multiple Targeting or even stick with Advanced Targeting. As I stated with Nanite Control, that too should stay as is. |
Ronny Hugo
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Inc.
4
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 06:12:00 -
[386] - Quote
How can we blame CCP for thinking changing the names and grouping improves the game when everyone in here argues for another change in name and/or grouping as "better"?
And am I really alone in thinking how skills work is the real way skills could be improved? The skills are exactly like other MMORPG's. "Train this skill to get armor HP for your character", everyone trains it because everyone has lots of armor on their ships (even shield-tankers), and the armor HP skill gives armor to ALL ships, so you can not NOT train it. So the only thing it does is to make all the players exactly alike. These skills that give attributes to everything are like giving basket-ball players skills that make everyone five inches taller if they subscribe to a newspaper for a month. The subscription is not pricey enough to make some people not train it, so everyone must train it to be competitive. It does not add to the PVP side if it gives attributes to all ships. Skills that would add to PVP are skills that improve one attribute for one player, and another attribute for the other (you know, the fire-mage gets hotter fire and the ice-mage gets colder ice, not that they both get 5% more HP).
I do realize CCP 10 years ago thought that the skills had to pay off so much you can not NOT train them, because they had the overwhelming feeling that people had no reason to train skills just to get this and that attribute better. But there is no need to have skills EVERYONE must train. There are enough ships and modules and things to do that blanket-skills are not necessary anymore. Instead of having a skill-tree where one leads to more which leads to more. Just have One per module, which leads to sub-skills for different sizes, one skill per ship, which leads to sub-skills for that ship. That still means you could train for two decades and still not have them all, but you wouldn't need to train skills that buff attributes for all ships to be competitive, just your ship. |
Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere
11
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 07:34:00 -
[387] - Quote
Octoven wrote:
... B) It makes no sense referring Nanite control to Neurotoxin Control and leaving Nanite Interfacing and Nanite Operation by its name. If you want to change one, be consistent and change all related. So you would have Neurotoxin Interfacing and Neurotoxin Operation. Be sure to also change the name of the item that these use like Nanite Paste to Neruotoxin Paste. If you do not do these things, you only create confusion where there was clarity before. Personally Id say leave the name for all nanite skills the way they are and save yourself some work.
You have never used combat boosters, dont you? :) Nanite Control: Proficiency at reducing the severity of the side effects experienced upon injection of combat boosters. Neurotoxin Recovery: Proficiency at biofeedback techniques intended to negate the side effects typically experienced upon injection of combat boosters. (has prereq Nanite Control) That's why they'll change Nanite Control to Neurotoxin Control and it makes sense. |
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
169
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 08:08:00 -
[388] - Quote
Spaceship Pilotting is a poor name IMHO, it's inappropriate due to the naval scale of EVE ships, we are commanding a crew, instructing PWOs to determine firing solutions...etc after all. Pilotting is likely to obfuscate that distinction - and might well lead to expectations of joystick flight, target leading and so on which will be difficult to manage.
Missile Launcher Operation should stay too, it is composed of skills which affect missile launchers after all. The use of T2 Torps for example is dependent on the use of a T2 siege launcher, rather than a skill after all.
There are various other changes which also seem counterproductive. |
Eugene Kerner
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
745
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 10:16:00 -
[389] - Quote
So we will pilot something else than spaceships in the future?
"Also, your boobs " -á CCP Eterne, 2012
|
Warde Guildencrantz
TunDraGon Drunk 'n' Disorderly
762
|
Posted - 2013.07.08 10:36:00 -
[390] - Quote
How about
Interstellar Vessel Piloting |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |