|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
94
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:10:00 -
[1] - Quote
Sensible changes. Happy you listened to the voices of sensible moderation. Kick the hell out of force projection if that is what you really want to do, but no point is slaughtering the logistics grind on the same altar.
For all those getting Al Sharpton-angry that CCP reversed course a bit by not hitting logistics with the same hammer intended to pound combat capital projection into the ground, oh well. You need to engage the part of your brain that isn;t entirely focused on how you can kill a random dude and call it PVP. Bigger issues were at play. The potential damage to import/export and markets in general wasn't necessary in order to deal with force projection. Maybe someday it can all be included, but until CCP makes dramatic changes in other areas, it just isn't required right now. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
94
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Querns wrote:Mixed feelings on this.
* I am really happy that non-combatant hauling ships are getting the 90% fatigue reduction -- that is something I had been pushing for and I'm happy you guys saw the light on that. Maybe extend this to mining ships, too? * Pretty sad to see JFs getting 10LY range. Their 5LY range allowed for some meaningful ability to disrupt incoming logistics. 10LY eliminates a lot of possibilities here. * Rorquals not getting the 10LY treatment is a little weird. Care to elaborate on why only JFs get the extra range? I agree with this. Bumping jump freighters to 10 enables a heck of a lot of room for selling your garbage to Jita, but I get the issue of multiple cyno alts and stuff.
why should anyone be happy with EVE becoming anymore a Game of Alts than it already is. And that is all the 5 LY range was going to result in. We should want a game that isn't about having 7 accounts with 10 cyno alts and a bunch of niche characters that get logged in and out.
Totally understand the desire to "disrupt incoming logistics", which more often than not translates into nothing more than "gank a freighter" rather than actual interdiction of logistics. I'd be pretty surprised if many kills related to logistics had anything at all to do with disrupting logistics. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
94
|
Posted - 2014.10.09 19:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Lallante wrote:Most of these changes look "ok". The main one however: Quote:GÇóJump freighter max range will be bumped up to 10LY, and they will keep the 90% fatigue-distance reduction. This represents a slight range reduction compared to TQ, so some cynos will need to be repositioned, but otherwise leaves them largely alone. Completely undoes a lot of the good that the original changes promised. AFK remote empires online goes from "completely untenable" to "business as usual" in one single change. I would be interested in why CCP felt it necessary to completely neuter this change. I get that 5LY was too punitive, but 10LY with 90% fatigue reduction is practically business as usual. Please could CCP consider dropping the 90% fatigue reduction from Jump Freighters as the tradeoff for this change. Force players to make a meaningful choice!
Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 00:11:00 -
[4] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
We would like nullsec to transition to a new status quo over time in as orderly a manner as possible, and maintaining as much of its current population as possible (or increasing it, obviously), while still actually achieving the new status quo. We're of the opinion that if we push the 5LY range through now, we'll lose a lot of nullsec players while they try to reach a new equilibrium, and it's possible that it would significantly reduce the carrying capacity of nullsec overall, which is not an outcome we'd be happy with.
Based on the proposed changes, it would not seem like any of the issues related to this thought process were even considered before the devblog was released. You can't tell me it took the player base, the CSM or even Manny to determine that there might be tangential consequences related to these changes that would affect the broad markets or the carrying capacity of nullsec as it currently exists.
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 01:51:00 -
[5] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Lallante wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Sure, because Jump Freighters are what holds empires together. If the troops can't hold the space or the moons because of the "force projection" nerfs then it wont matter if a jump freighter can more easily pick up anything ie trade goods, ships/mods, moongoo, etc. Its both. Unnerffing JFs just means the status quo for logistics is preserved and nullsec industry will never develop. Why bother building in nullsec when you can JF from Jita in safety? Existence of Jump Freighters isn't the reason why null industry is not developing. So, being able to effortlessly jump all the materials you need from high sec into null sec has nothing to do with the fact that local null sec production never took off? Do you actually believe what you write, or just propaganda?
I'm pretty sure Greyscale made it clear that nullsec industrial production is not capable of supporting itself at the level even they would desire without a reasonable logistics capability. I believe he mentioned the carrying capacity of null. Look it up, both his reference and its meaning.
Beyond even that, nullsec should never get to the point of complete self sufficiency. There will always be a reliance in resources from nullsec in hisec production. Likewise, there should always be a need for certain resources or products from hisec. To completely detach the two would be silly. But as it stands today, the reliance on each other is good for both and these changes would have stressed that reliance beyond a point the game is ready for. It will come. Now just wasn't the logical time. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 01:59:00 -
[6] - Quote
Lallante wrote:I still wonder if Greyscale got forced to make this JF change by someone higher up in CCP. It really doesnt fit with the rest of his vision at all and does substantially reduce the impact of the changes taken as a whole. In some of his replies he sounds pretty remorseful at having to compromise on this.
It does fit with his vision, because if he and they follow through on their vision this will be a temporary reversal. But what it does tell you is that he jumped his time frame. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
97
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 02:11:00 -
[7] - Quote
Medalyn Isis wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:
We would like nullsec to transition to a new status quo over time in as orderly a manner as possible, and maintaining as much of its current population as possible (or increasing it, obviously), while still actually achieving the new status quo. We're of the opinion that if we push the 5LY range through now, we'll lose a lot of nullsec players while they try to reach a new equilibrium, and it's possible that it would significantly reduce the carrying capacity of nullsec overall, which is not an outcome we'd be happy with.
Based on the proposed changes, it would not seem like any of the issues related to this thought process were even considered before the devblog was released. You can't tell me it took the player base, the CSM or even Manny to determine that there might be tangential consequences related to these changes that would affect the broad markets or the carrying capacity of nullsec as it currently exists. The only thing he underestimated were the amount of null bear tears. That is the only reason the changes aren't being implemented right now.
The changes that needed to be made now are being made now. Nerfing "force projection" into the turf. That was the big issue. JF's were not a significant part of that equation compared to capitals, titan bridges, and jump bridges. The time will come for JF's when they get their vision together and closer to deployment, JF's will get their due. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
98
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 03:10:00 -
[8] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:http://i.imgur.com/iJj6K92.png
Nothing wrong with this picture at all
I do wish they would have setup more of a racetrack pattern. And what's up with the northern sector? Entirely underserved. More bridges please. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
98
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 03:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ele Rebellion wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: We don't like repeating decimals.
What about Pi? It doesn't repeat.
The Pi doesn't apply. Greyscale was fairly clear. Not like he said they don't like decimals at all |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
98
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 04:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:
Grath is spot on. Greyscale, I ask you a simple question here. Do you think this will change the current status quo of logistics in Eve? Does reeling back capital projection alone promote content in nullsec without also finally cutting the umbilical cord to Jita nullsec currently relies on? Its a bit of a post, but if you could take the time to read it, I'd appreciate it.
1. At the moment, there is little to no point in me sourcing, producing or converting nullsec materials locally. It's far more time and energy efficient to continue to import and export out of Jita through a JF cyno chain.
2. Alliance mates who run moon goo POS networks across 6 different regions maintain those POS with relative ease through a similar JF network, importing and exporting out of Jita. The logistics capability to import a large proportion of a major powerbloc's war materiel needs as well as then exporting out a heafty chunk of the wealth of nullsec moon goo is done by less than a dozen players, in relative safety and with no real need of support from our alliance mates.
3. Our greatest threat comes from being ganked moving our goo through several high sec jumps to Jita. At no point throughout the extraction process from null sec are we currently at threat. The process takes about 40min total to complete.
4. Our enemies use similar processes and there is therefore no reasonable way for us to disrupt their industrial capability or harass their war logistics through asymmetric warfare or conducting raids through their territory.
Your original changes would have forced a complete rethink on this. We were in the process of going back to the drawing board on how to completely revolutionise our organisation. Everything from localised production, getting more people involved with logistics, communal sharing of corporation JFs, assigning responsibility for FCs to perfect raiding and blockading theories, hell, even looking at recruitment of carebears to prop up the corps pvp-centric demographic was on the table.
Well thought out and something that I think is the future of the game as CCP moves through its development cycle. But let me ask you a question: What is stopping you from moving forward and getting ahead of the curve? Why wait until CCP forces your hand? So many of the things you were planning on doing can still be done. Get those non-PVP players to come join you and start contributing effort locally. Why wait when you can be the forerunner. It's not as if any of those ideas will put you at a disadvantage, even if others maintain the status quo. |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
99
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 04:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
Gorgof Intake wrote:KayleInara wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: From the bowels of Dek to empire and back every day with no penalty at all, every day, in T1 haulers, still faster than ceptors
I'm pretty sure that the penalty for taking a T1 hauler from the bowels of Dek to empire and back is that you never actually get there due to your T1 hauler getting exploded somewhere along the way. Two weeks ago I JC'd a cyno alt to an old JC I had down in Delve from when I was last down there 6 mths or more ago. I put it in a t1 hauler with a cyno still on it, full of expanded cargo hold lows. I set its autopilot through nullsec all the way to a station in Cobalt Edge- 90 odd jumps or something like that. I hit autopilot and went to work. Was going to be interesting to see how far it got before it was podded. I came home to find it sitting there off station unable to dock. I forgot it had been kicked from corp and was in a noob corp. So in other words, Null Sec is currently that empty and devoid of content that one can autopilot a t1 hauler 90jumps from Delve to Cobalt Edge through the late Euro and the entire US prime and come back to it in the middle of the AUtz and find it not destroyed. It had taken armor dmg so I imagine that the worst that had happened to it was rat spawns had nibbled on it as it slowboated towards a gate.
So you're saying you autopiloted through how many Eastern regions held by the passive (logged off) oversight of N3PL and filled with renters who probably docked up or logged off every time your T1 hauler alt slowboated his way deeper and deeper into BOTland? Fascinating. I'm not sure the jump freighter change has much of anything to do with that. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
101
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 14:35:00 -
[12] - Quote
Kalissis wrote:Querns wrote:Kalissis wrote: You are ignoring so many facts in your calculation. T1 industies can be learned in no time while interceptors can take up to 23d on a fresh char. Smartbombing incoming Interceptors is very well possible, look at how rens pirates perfected smart bombing back then, a focused group will kill every interceptor crossing. Well timed bombing runs will kill your interceptors too. Insta locking is possible in some cases (wrong inti fit/****** skills). So there is a lot of risk involed, and I bet ppl find even more ways. Fact is you can keep ppl away from any risk using Industials and JB/Titans while going gate to gate involes risk, more attention from the player and a way bigger footprint (even on the ingame MAP).
You're ignoring that bubbles stop T1 industrials cold, while being literally ignored by an interceptor. Constructing a complicated vignette to try and prove an edge case is a pretty sure sign that you're out of ideas, and are only arguing because someone you don't like disagrees with you. I called you out on at least 4 risks for interceptors beeing used and you are ignoring 2 of them. Also no how are you going to bubble Titan to Titan jumping, tell me? FACT1: T1 industies can be learned in no time while interceptors can take up to 23d on a fresh char. FACT2: Smartbombing incoming Interceptors is very well possible, look at how rens pirates perfected smart bombing back then, a focused group will kill every interceptor crossing. -> Need warp offs, more time involed!FACT3: Well timed bombing runs will kill your interceptors too. FACT4: Wrong inti Fit -> caught FACT5: Bad skills -> caught FACT6: Pilot error -> caught FACT7: Bigger footprint -> intel! Now you dont need to use JBs but yes it will be faster not only on fleet ops but if you want to go in your NULL imperium from A->B. And I'm fully aware that you need to take 1 jump over to the next system (in best case) to get to the next JB, still no intercepter can make 12-40jumps while you only take 2 JB and 1 system gate.
1) T1 Indies will be killed by any gate camp in between any known jump bridge connection. 2) Smartbombing may get some, but they sure as hell aren't killing every interceptor. And smartbombing will also be a thing against indies at jump bridge connections 3) Well timed bombing runs will be much more effective at known jump bridge connectins than trying to catch small sig ceptors
I don't care for the change to industrials, but stop making it seem like T1 or T2 industrials are somehow invulnerable when using jump bridges. it just sounds dumb knowing how routes do get camped |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
101
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 14:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
Kalissis wrote:Querns wrote:Kalissis wrote:[quote=Querns]
The only complicated thing here is that you are complete ignorant of FACTS. I'm not biased or have any hatred towards you or your group, your playstyle is not affecting me at all. But facts are facts and you are not even trying to argument them because you dont have any, because there are none against. Your facts are equally applicable to T1 industrials. Interceptors take 10d to train (racial frigate: 3d, evasive maneuvering 5: 7d) -- low training time, check. Smartbombing kills T1 industrials, check. Well timed bombing runs kill T1 industrials, check. Wrong T1 industrial fit = caught, check. Bad skills -> caught? T1 industrial, checkaroonie. Pilot error -> caught? You better believe T1 industrials get a check here. Bigger footprint? Logging on 16 titan pilots to bridge industrials around ISN'T a big footprint? Contact lists exist. T1 industrial footprint? Check. You can't selectively apply your "facts" to interceptors and not allow them to touch T1 industrials too. All the risks do not apply if you are using titans, and even when you are using JBs they dont! Because a fleet cant camp JB as effective as gates (GUNS ON POSES!)!!! So now argument again that it applies, it does not!
Can't even believe someone gave you likes for this comment. At least 2 more idiots out there.
A Fleet can't camp a JB as effectively as gates. Yeah, which is why they split jump bridge connections to separate systems so whatever goes through a JB has to go through a gate to get to the next one. Either understand or be quiet because now you just sound silly. And for the record, I don't think opening up the potential for indies should be a thing. But man, please stop your horribad logic trip. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
101
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 14:45:00 -
[14] - Quote
JimmieTwoTimes wrote:So what is going to be the standard convoluted CCP explanation as to why JF's can go further distances with less fatigue than all the other capitals?
Or are you just giving up on even trying to make any sense at all these days?
You a roleplayer? You want some lore written? Will that make your immersion easier? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
104
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 15:06:00 -
[15] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:
Can't even believe someone gave you likes for this comment. At least 2 more idiots out there.
Dont be surprised about it - you show a very clear disrespect of other peoples opinion. Name calling just dumped you down into kindergarden again. Too bad there isnt a dislike button yet
Sorry bro, I have a clear disrespect for other people's stupidity, not their opinions. Valid opinions are good. Invalid, unsubstantiated opinions should be removed by moderators to save the rest of us from the nonsense. Until they are, they get the reaction they do. And not one person would give a shite if they got disliked. Not on these forums, filled with the nonsense and idiocy that seems to permeate any potentially valid discussion.
EVE-O forums: 30% people who know what they are talking about, 20% people who obtained their knowledge from reading the forums, and 50% who don't know a damn thing about what they are talking about. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
104
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 15:25:00 -
[16] - Quote
Querns wrote:I miss you, Dinsdale. Please come back to us. These half-hearted attempts at tinfoil do not compare to your mastery.
RIP Dinsdale Pirannha, it's been nearly a month since you posted.
I'm pretty sure that nerfing JF's into the ground was the last nail in the coffin of hisec industry. Reversing the nerf would undoubtedly also be the last nail in the coffin of hisec industry. I'm pretty sure the middle ground would also be the last nail in the coffin. There ya go, I channeled him for you. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
105
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 15:35:00 -
[17] - Quote
Kiwinoob wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Querns wrote:I miss you, Dinsdale. Please come back to us. These half-hearted attempts at tinfoil do not compare to your mastery.
RIP Dinsdale Pirannha, it's been nearly a month since you posted. I'm pretty sure that nerfing JF's into the ground was the last nail in the coffin of hisec industry. Reversing the nerf would undoubtedly also be the last nail in the coffin of hisec industry. I'm pretty sure the middle ground would also be the last nail in the coffin. There ya go, I channeled him for you. You're probably not far off. No matter what happens now all the JF pilots are going to be so busy trolling the forums for any hint of another range nerf new eden is about to grind to a halt.
The sad part of this thread is 90% of it is related to non-JF industrials. most people seem OK with holding off on JF's until they get more into their development changes. The big, silly debate seems relegated to subcap industrials and whether they will be used as taxis by those who own jump bridge superhighways. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
105
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 15:41:00 -
[18] - Quote
What if we did this a little different.
The jump fatigue and range changes to capitals excluding the Jump Freighter, are absolutely fine. However, what if jump freighters had a fatigue-reduction bonus of 125% rather than 90%? Not only could you haul some things, but you could actually earn back fatigue credit. Now, before you say I'm crazy or just trolling, just remember that I am not advocating giving this Fatigue Eater bonus to other industrials. That would be lunacy. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
106
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 15:56:00 -
[19] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:
This isn't the only change we're making to bombers in this release.
I hope a change to bombers you aren't planning is to cause cloaked ships to decloak other cloaked ships, as seems to be the case on SISI. That would relegate bombers back to the dustbin like they were before that change was made a few years ago.
More importantly though, I hope you aren't making these changes to bombers because they have been abused by those using ISBoxer. Get rid of ISBoxer, don't destroy the functionality of bombers |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
106
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 16:38:00 -
[20] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote: Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.
Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues.
Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path |
|
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 17:28:00 -
[21] - Quote
Drak Fel wrote:Querns wrote:Drak Fel wrote:Querns wrote:Drak Fel wrote:So basically what you're saying is, don't do anything that can give you an advantage or we will nerf it to the ground. Not much of a sandbox. I'd say it's more "expect something that gives an outsized, game-breaking advantage to get toned down." So the eventual goal seems to be that only numbers will determine the outcome of fights. Player skill and the willingness of one side to risk more by flying more expensive ships should be negated as much as possible. Ah, but the addition of fatigue adds mobility to the picture. Attacking simultaneously at disparate portions of the large empire you wish to weaken will help you degrade the numerical advantage of a defender. Also, I'd hardly consider large supercapital gangs in the sizes that you and yours and mine and ours field in TYOOL 2014 to be at significant risk. He mentioned nerfing carrier roaming to. Just what are people like me supposed to train now and do with all our isk?
train more cyno alts and become a benefactor to newer players? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 17:33:00 -
[22] - Quote
Dibble Dabble wrote:I see that goons have a moan and CCP bends over and takes it up the bum.
I suppose it was to be expected we know who runs Eve and we wonder how many CCP Devs / Mods are in goons.
Its a shame CCP lack a pair of round spherical objects, not one single pair between the lot of them.
You bottled it CCP.
LOL More Eve Forum Ebola |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 18:00:00 -
[23] - Quote
Perseus Kallistratos wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
It's almost as if you can't accept people from a player group are allowed to think for themselves, that makes me sad friend. Why would you fall for such a flawed view on life?
You should ask that question to yourself, because the group of players that bring up false-pretense ~concerns~ with how the logistics and industry jump changes were readjusted so that null logistics can still work are almost exclusively Pandemic Legion players, a group known for having miniscule numbers and having traditionally relied on being able to project capital and supercapital ships throughout all of New Eden. It's awfully looking like here that you bunch are all aware that PL's claim to being relevant in null is getting burned to ground here through the combat capital jump nerf, which is almost unanimously seen as a necessary change. In response, it looks like your group is trying to salvage at least some amount of it's relevance by making sure that they would at least be geographically isolated from other null entities, which rely on numbers, organization and logistics instead of combat supercapital and capital projection, therefore making sure that your group can able to brace the storm despite all of your disadvantages. Almost exclusively, your group of players claimed under this thread that somehow industrials would be used as shuttles, which is a hilariously silly idea that cannot work, as industrials are filmsy and unsurvivable, suspect to getting caught by bubbles, and better alternatives in the forum of travel interceptors without any vulnerabilies that can travel faster without bothering with any mechanics do exist. Furthermore, in contrast with the self-serving agenda PL is trying to push here, responses to Greyscale's original set of proposed changes which rightly highlighted how those would kill null logistics in it's tracks, and damage EVE economy as a whole, were bipartisan and overwhelming in numbers. Now, unless your group of players can't find a better and valid argument to be able to coerce the developers into making further changes to guarantee that PL can be isolated and able to make a difference with sub capitals, I suggest you stop reflecting your inability think for yourself and penchant for group think upon us, as by continuing to do so, you'll only be hindering your already diminishing credibility further. Actually the power projection is more of a recent thing. You should probably run with "PL are one of the best entities at rapid adaptation to new mechanics, mainly due to their constant need to farm tears from brain dead pubbies". Thanks for not disappointing.
So then why all the moaning about industrials being used as taxis? PL will adapt better than anyone logged in, right? |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 18:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Perseus Kallistratos wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:Perseus Kallistratos wrote:Alp Khan wrote:Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
It's almost as if you can't accept people from a player group are allowed to think for themselves, that makes me sad friend. Why would you fall for such a flawed view on life?
You should ask that question to yourself, because the group of players that bring up false-pretense ~concerns~ with how the logistics and industry jump changes were readjusted so that null logistics can still work are almost exclusively Pandemic Legion players, a group known for having miniscule numbers and having traditionally relied on being able to project capital and supercapital ships throughout all of New Eden. It's awfully looking like here that you bunch are all aware that PL's claim to being relevant in null is getting burned to ground here through the combat capital jump nerf, which is almost unanimously seen as a necessary change. In response, it looks like your group is trying to salvage at least some amount of it's relevance by making sure that they would at least be geographically isolated from other null entities, which rely on numbers, organization and logistics instead of combat supercapital and capital projection, therefore making sure that your group can able to brace the storm despite all of your disadvantages. Almost exclusively, your group of players claimed under this thread that somehow industrials would be used as shuttles, which is a hilariously silly idea that cannot work, as industrials are filmsy and unsurvivable, suspect to getting caught by bubbles, and better alternatives in the forum of travel interceptors without any vulnerabilies that can travel faster without bothering with any mechanics do exist. Furthermore, in contrast with the self-serving agenda PL is trying to push here, responses to Greyscale's original set of proposed changes which rightly highlighted how those would kill null logistics in it's tracks, and damage EVE economy as a whole, were bipartisan and overwhelming in numbers. Now, unless your group of players can't find a better and valid argument to be able to coerce the developers into making further changes to guarantee that PL can be isolated and able to make a difference with sub capitals, I suggest you stop reflecting your inability think for yourself and penchant for group think upon us, as by continuing to do so, you'll only be hindering your already diminishing credibility further. Actually the power projection is more of a recent thing. You should probably run with "PL are one of the best entities at rapid adaptation to new mechanics, mainly due to their constant need to farm tears from brain dead pubbies". Thanks for not disappointing. So then why all the moaning about industrials being used as taxis? PL will adapt better than anyone logged in, right? This is true. So when CCP leaves such an obvious mechanic open to abuse, we have to protest. Only high-level sphere-level exploits should be allowed to sneak through.
Silva told us you guys are scurred. lol |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 19:29:00 -
[25] - Quote
snorkle25 wrote:A few suggestions I have:
1. Add a jump route planner function to the star map.
2. Change the Fatigue generation from 1+(LY traveled) to just (LY traveled). Increase fatigue degradation to .25/min. Add Jump Fatigue Compensation skill that increases fatigue reduction by .01/min per level so maxed out skill equates to -.3/min fatigue.
DNS would not appreciate your insubordinate softening of the nerf. You have been reported to high command |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
108
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 19:35:00 -
[26] - Quote
cecil b d'milf wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.
Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues. Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path Considering how confused you are by CCP's initial direction with these changes, perhaps you ought to consider the more logical explanation that it was intentional and they did "cave in". Occam's razor pal.
Considering he has done exactly what he should have done in the first place, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on what the logical route was. They have multiple tools they can use in order to effect their desired outcome. They didn't need to drop the unopened toolbox from a 10-story building onto the problem, and then step themselves back, giving the impression of caving in. The modifications they have now come out with, all generally sensible, would have been the original outcome if they had bothered to discuss details with the CSM they way they should have. Instead, they brought it directly to the rabble using a worst-case scenario. That is bad judgment. And now that they have half of the people happy they showed moderation by using a logical process of change and review, they now have dopes who think they caved in. I guess you'd prefer a bad outcome as long as it means they didn't cave in on your illogical ideas. Make sense. Thank you for your insight, and good day sir. |
Dirk MacGirk
Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team
110
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 20:37:00 -
[27] - Quote
cecil b d'milf wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:cecil b d'milf wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.
Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues. Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path Considering how confused you are by CCP's initial direction with these changes, perhaps you ought to consider the more logical explanation that it was intentional and they did "cave in". Occam's razor pal. Considering he has done exactly what he should have done in the first place, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on what the logical route was. They have multiple tools they can use in order to effect their desired outcome. They didn't need to drop the unopened toolbox from a 10-story building onto the problem, and then step themselves back, giving the impression of caving in. The modifications they have now come out with, all generally sensible, would have been the original outcome if they had bothered to discuss details with the CSM they way they should have. Instead, they brought it directly to the rabble using a worst-case scenario. That is bad judgment. And now that they have half of the people happy they showed moderation by using a logical process of change and review, they now have dopes who think they caved in. I guess you'd prefer a bad outcome as long as it means they didn't cave in on your illogical ideas. Make sense. Thank you for your insight, and good day sir. Considering I was referring to what CCP intended to do and not making a comment about what they ought to have done, your lengthy explanation actually supports my point. It is far more reasonable to assume that CCP fully intended to drop the nerfquake and then backed away in the face of the tear tsunami that resulted. Your own confusion at why CCP would go about things in such an odd way if these tweaks were the original desired end point points to the more simple explanation that it never was the the desired end point. They were not "leaving themselves open to accusations of caving in"... they actually did cave in.
|
|
|
|