Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3082
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 07:28:44 -
[1201] - Quote
Luscius Uta wrote:Do you plan to make any significant changes to Command ships and their bonuses? In other words, are they going to continue to function as good DPS boats, or will people who don't plan to use command bursts be advised to spend their SP on something else?
the better at the very least look back at the tank im going to be a bit irritated if the meta shifts even more in to brick armor because the damnation is the best at taking a hit
BLOPS Hauler
|
Brokk Witgenstein
Extreme Agony
755
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 07:33:16 -
[1202] - Quote
Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed. |
Lavayar
russian sobr Dream Fleet
297
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:39:37 -
[1203] - Quote
Any comments from CCP about increasing base command burst AoE range?
It's too small. Really. http://i.imgur.com/5MpU15H.png
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:46:23 -
[1204] - Quote
Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed.
... isn't that even more of a reason to revise them? they don't need to all be brought up to the damnation they just need to be ballanced
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:47:28 -
[1205] - Quote
looks fine to me... particularly since they want to encourage using more than one
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ginger Naari
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
33
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:47:59 -
[1206] - Quote
Synmath Uisen wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote: The current plans for material requirements for batches of the burst charges are as follows (base values for an unresearched blueprint): Batch size for all bust charges is 500.
All information command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All skirmish command burst charges: 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All shield command burst charges: 100 units of Hydrogen Isotopes 100 units of Nitrogen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All armor command burst charges: 100 units of Helium Isotopes 100 units of Oxygen Isotopes 300 units of Heavy Water 100 units of Tritanium 100 units of Isogen
All mining foreman burst charges: 500 units of Heavy Water 500 units of Tritanium 500 units of Isogen
This means that the cost of an individual burst charge should land between 200 and 400 isk, with the mining burst charges costing a bit less than the combat ones.
So this is very affordable, and can be worked well, 5 hours per load of ammo, no issues there decent amount of time. here is my next big question and issue, it has to do with mining boosts. i know you say that the blog for it is coming out soon, but to be honest, I'm watching the numbers and seeing my mining productivity dropping like a rock, and I'm very very nervous about the future state of mining. Have you given thought to having the mining boots just have longer range period? 15km is too small to support even the smallest of null fleets, and the Idea of having to put a 500 mil (projected and speculation) battle cruiser on the filed to even consider getting boosts is really hampering any production we would see. This on top of the major changes (I read as Nerfs - blog about Ore revamp) to our main mining ships, and watching the current productivity drop in a major way. I would like to feel that I'm not going to be working harder and harder to make even the slightest Isk. At this point, I could see mineral prices double after these changes, as Null/low mining is getting completely hammered with these Nerfs. Again I apologize for jumping the gun on this, but Mining is what I enjoy, I love the Industry aspect of the game, but I get very sensitive at how much my profits are being cut by the sheer amount of productivity loss.
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3086
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 08:51:32 -
[1207] - Quote
Ginger Naari wrote:
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
you just answered your own question
BLOPS Hauler
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:05:57 -
[1208] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
you just answered your own question
It will be interesting to see if this ships or is changed. The announced plan for Citadel fuel was to require isotopes from 4 different areas of space but later that was cancelled.
I actually liked the original Citadel fuel plan because if you wanted to go in the new Citadel fuel business it meant you had to diversify your mining activity into multiple regions or new gameplay was created for traders and haulers to ensure all of New Eden was supplied with the raw materials for Citadel fuel. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:41:18 -
[1209] - Quote
Rosewalker wrote:I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen?
Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:50:35 -
[1210] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Rosewalker wrote:I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen? Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now.
why are the "MAX" boost numbers in the blog so much lower than what we have now even though the base for most the mods is higher? is there some modifier that's been changed or removed that i'm not seeing? it seems all the implants and ship boosts are about the same. or is the T2 mods weaker than the ones we have now
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:54:05 -
[1211] - Quote
MrB99 wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ginger Naari wrote:
What puzzles me is why we need 2 different isotopes to build them.
It makes it awkward to source the other one from a different area of space.
you just answered your own question It will be interesting to see if this ships or is changed. The announced plan for Citadel fuel was to require isotopes from 4 different areas of space but later that was cancelled. I actually liked the original Citadel fuel plan because if you wanted to go in the new Citadel fuel business it meant you had to diversify your mining activity into multiple regions or new gameplay was created for traders and haulers to ensure all of New Eden was supplied with the raw materials for Citadel fuel.
The intent for nullsec production is that the majority of materials by volume to be able to be sourced locally, but that some trade should still be required (mostly in specialty and lower volume items).
The fuel for citadels fall into the bulk category, while the materials for building these burst charges are expected to be a smaller volume.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14411
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 09:57:03 -
[1212] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Rosewalker wrote:I noticed that you have Nitrogen Isotopes listed 3 times and Hydrogen Isotopes only once. Did you mean for the skirmish ammo to require Hydrogen Isotopes instead of Nitrogen? Yup good catch. That was a typo I made in the post, and it's corrected now. why are the "MAX" boost numbers in the blog so much lower than what we have now even though the base for most the mods is higher? is there some modifier that's been changed or removed that i'm not seeing? it seems all the implants and ship boosts are about the same. or is the T2 mods weaker than the ones we have now
The skills provide a much milder increase in strength compared to the current system.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:05:19 -
[1213] - Quote
Possibly already asked and or answered but, 58 pages..
What happens to existing leadership implants when they no longer do anything?
What about the skills that were trained specifically for passive boosts?
What happens to "fleet" "wing" and "squad" command skills once those roles in fleet are no longer needed for boosting?
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:07:21 -
[1214] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The skills provide a much milder increase in strength compared to the current system.
ah over looked that it was cut in half. well it feels like this is going to be hard on groups that use these for E-war particularly considering you normally have them spread out but i suppose its not much of an issue when everyone has the same disadvantage
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:08:43 -
[1215] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Possibly already asked and or answered but, 58 pages..
What happens to existing leadership implants when they no longer do anything?
What about the skills that were trained specifically for passive boosts?
What happens to "fleet" "wing" and "squad" command skills once those roles in fleet are no longer needed for boosting?
the existing implants still boost the mod
sucks to be us (all but mining was moved to a boost)
they now add range
BLOPS Hauler
|
MrB99
Astral Mining
10
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 10:56:38 -
[1216] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up
Automating transfer of ore from mining ship to command ship.
Compression on the fly in mining ships, or the command ship.
Improve performance of mining drones to make them more compelling to use.
Ability to tractor rocks to your mining group's location. (i.e. to reduce slowboating of bonus-group)
Ability to get yield from all the too-small-to-target rocks that are now eye candy yet mysteriously disappear when a belt is mined out.
Make visible / scannable "hidden" mining belts that are in combat anomalies or mission spaces.
Modify frequency of gas anomalies spawning, or ice anomalies respawning.
Proximity alarm of hostiles.
Spawning of "bonus" rocks in a belt.
Animation improvement - rock size scales based on # of remaining units to mine
Killmarks for # of rocks mined.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3087
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:00:24 -
[1217] - Quote
... those are some pretty crazy ideas for a fleet boost
BLOPS Hauler
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3571
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:06:26 -
[1218] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Brokk Witgenstein wrote:Not gonna happen. Those tanks will be *required* for large fights where once upon a time, offgrid boosters couldn't be alpha'ed. ... isn't that even more of a reason to revise them? they don't need to all be brought up to the damnation they just need to be ballanced Actually it's an even better reason to give all ships DPS caps Citadel like to prevent instant volleying, and provide squad & wing commanders a larger role in combats. Obviously this then means a lower logi cap gets introduced. Both of which introduce far more skill into the chain of command, not just needing one good FC but also a bunch of good sub commanders to really make a fleet excellent. And then this whole issue of headshots, & instant alpha of boosters goes away, and everyone gets more fun in a fight. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:14:04 -
[1219] - Quote
they kinda just sounds like a bad idea... all that would do is cause people to brick tank their ships with no damage mods for any fight expected to get that large. E-war would become pointless as you would no longer need it for application or reducing incoming damage. Resists would go out in favor of Raw HP. there would be no need for sub commanders as logi and E-war become less relevant.
currently Logi and alpha are what give us the need for good FCs and even mid sized fights are full of sub FCs for E-war Logi sub cap and capital DPS.
in these fights you are not trying to kill every enemy ship you "win" once the enemy DPS can no longer get through your reps. for some reason many people find this dull and a problem with RR and alpha. Really it puts you into a tactical environment much more like real combat. Where you are not annihilating the enemy army in a battle but breaking them and forcing a retreat.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Ivan Beer
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:20:26 -
[1220] - Quote
Hello.
I wanted to type a few (very few) words about this update (?)
Umm, So, first off I have a question:
Why is their going to be a visual effect??
Second Question:
The Orca I purchased (on contracts) well before this potential update was even posted has the (?older?) high slot fitting modules. So, in about 45 more days from now, when I can actually fly that ship I will not be able to use the (high slot) mining links that are fitted on it? I do not know, hence the question.
Lastly,
I do not do PvP, I just Mine the ore I find in the asteroid belts. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, I thank you in advance.
Cheers!
|
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3571
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:25:13 -
[1221] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they kinda just sounds like a bad idea... all that would do is cause people to brick tank their ships with no damage mods for any fight expected to get that large. E-war would become pointless as you would no longer need it for application or reducing incoming damage. Resists would go out in favor of Raw HP. there would be no need for sub commanders as logi and E-war become less relevant.
currently Logi and alpha are what give us the need for good FCs and even mid sized fights are full of sub FCs for E-war Logi sub cap and capital DPS.
in these fights you are not trying to kill every enemy ship you "win" once the enemy DPS can no longer get through your reps. for some reason many people find this dull and a problem with RR and alpha. Really it puts you into a tactical environment much more like real combat. Where you are not annihilating the enemy army in a battle but breaking them and forcing a retreat. Rubbish. Resists would matter because it would mean more DPS ships need to engage you to hit your DPS cap. Ewar would not become irrelevant because it would still be key to break DPS incoming on your key ships or logi repping their key ships. And it would mean you could always break reps on a ship but it would be a slower thing allowing the targeted pilot time to actually fight, rather than instant death
Alpha is what removes the need for decent squad commanders as soon as you hit instant volley size. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:47:20 -
[1222] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Alpha is what removes the need for decent squad commanders as soon as you hit instant volley size.
no because you still need FCs for things like E-war and logi ect you try to get one guy doing that and you will be left with cluttered coms and your FC will suffer cardiac arrest
BLOPS Hauler
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
18022
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:50:11 -
[1223] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:they kinda just sounds like a bad idea... all that would do is cause people to brick tank their ships with no damage mods for any fight expected to get that large. E-war would become pointless as you would no longer need it for application or reducing incoming damage. Resists would go out in favor of Raw HP. there would be no need for sub commanders as logi and E-war become less relevant.
currently Logi and alpha are what give us the need for good FCs and even mid sized fights are full of sub FCs for E-war Logi sub cap and capital DPS.
in these fights you are not trying to kill every enemy ship you "win" once the enemy DPS can no longer get through your reps. for some reason many people find this dull and a problem with RR and alpha. Really it puts you into a tactical environment much more like real combat. Where you are not annihilating the enemy army in a battle but breaking them and forcing a retreat. Rubbish. Resists would matter because it would mean more DPS ships need to engage you to hit your DPS cap. Ewar would not become irrelevant because it would still be key to break DPS incoming on your key ships or logi repping their key ships. And it would mean you could always break reps on a ship but it would be a slower thing allowing the targeted pilot time to actually fight, rather than instant death Alpha is what removes the need for decent squad commanders as soon as you hit instant volley size.
Ahahaha nope
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his ISK/hr depends upon his not understanding it!"
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3088
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 11:51:11 -
[1224] - Quote
Ivan Beer wrote:Hello.
I wanted to type a few (very few) words about this update (?)
Umm, So, first off I have a question:
Why is their going to be a visual effect??
Second Question:
The Orca I purchased (on contracts) well before this potential update was even posted has the (?older?) high slot fitting modules. So, in about 45 more days from now, when I can actually fly that ship I will not be able to use the (high slot) mining links that are fitted on it? I do not know, hence the question.
Lastly,
I do not do PvP, I just Mine the ore I find in the asteroid belts. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, I thank you in advance.
Cheers!
visual effect so that people on both sides know what is going on
second the mods are not going to go anywhere there stats will change to become the new ones
BLOPS Hauler
|
Sgt Ocker
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1137
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 12:59:56 -
[1225] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Ivan Beer wrote:Hello.
I wanted to type a few (very few) words about this update (?)
Umm, So, first off I have a question:
Why is their going to be a visual effect??
Second Question:
The Orca I purchased (on contracts) well before this potential update was even posted has the (?older?) high slot fitting modules. So, in about 45 more days from now, when I can actually fly that ship I will not be able to use the (high slot) mining links that are fitted on it? I do not know, hence the question.
Lastly,
I do not do PvP, I just Mine the ore I find in the asteroid belts. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated, I thank you in advance.
Cheers!
visual effect so that people on both sides know what is going on second the mods are not going to go anywhere there stats will change to become the new ones Sorry Lugh but your wrong, the modules are changing from 3 different modules with different attributes to 1 module with 3 different types of "ammo" (silly idea). Orca especially will be hit hard by this. It has 3 highslots of which (since barge and exhumer buffs capacitor link is redundant, unless you run an active tank) 2 can be used for links, 1 for a tractor beam to more easily scoop cans. Post November, all 3 highslots will be used for links, 2 for mining, 1 for shield. NB; Shield link will make little difference in a pvp situation, your orca gets red boxed, consider it dead. They just aren't designed to survive or defend themselves.
IMO the visual is only there to make it easier for the opposing side to see who to primary. Devs expectation is that every fleet will have numerous boosters travelling with them, so to make it easier for opposing fleets to see who is boosting at a given time, they included a target marker (visual effect).
My opinions are mine.
If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - -
Just don't bother Hating - I don't care
It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
|
Zappity
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
2999
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 13:51:09 -
[1226] - Quote
I really like the idea of buffs for anybody within range. White knighting in highsec should be a thing. Maybe make this an ammo variant? 'Promiscuous Shield Command Burst' would fit with your current naming scheme...
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
14412
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 17:07:09 -
[1227] - Quote
Just to let everyone know, we currently plan on releasing the blueprints for the command burst charges in our October release so people can start building them in prep for the changeover in November.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2493
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 19:02:46 -
[1228] - Quote
Regarding the blueprints: I'm glad to see that strontium clathrates aren't an ingredient. They're under TREMENDOUS pressure right now, and don't really need more use.
However, one thing that could use a little love is Liquid Ozone. Have you considered adding Liquid Ozone to the ingredient list as well?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Laurens Punani
La Luna Negro inPanic
0
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 20:21:55 -
[1229] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok let's answer some other questions and update the plan a bit more!
Some of you have expressed concern that the "Mining Equipment Preservation" burst isn't valuable enough. I'll start out by saying that not every link needs to be of equal power and that the consolidation of cycle time and cap use into one link is a big buff even if the new 3rd link isn't something you'll always use. However we are interested in hearing from you about what kinds of bonuses you think would be interesting as a replacement for the Mining Equipment Preservation effect. We'll give consideration to your ideas and see if a better option comes up.
[....]
Like I said above, we're working hard on the next dev blog (focusing on the Mining Foreman gameplay role and the Porpoise/Orca/Rorqual) and we hope to get that out to you all soon. Thanks everyone for the continued feedback!
Nice to hear that the next dev blog is on its way!
I totally agree, that not every link needs an equal counterpart in the new system ; If everyone gets slightly worse boosts the prices might go up a little and it wont change much for the average miner. Considering this, it's pretty important to know if the Rorqual will be able to move while the indu-core is activated... If not, big alliances with the ability to form defense fleets at any given time will get better boosts most of the time, and the income of the average miner will drop. --> 10% less income is a pretty big deal if you have to mine for 25 hours a month just to pay the plex (i just wanted to post it so i can be salty if things dont work out the way i want them to :-P )
If the Rorqual IS able to move while boosting at full potential and lots of them are on grid, i'd say the boosts are fine the way they are. Having boosts for mining drones would not really help, since players willing to field a rorqual will most likely be willing to use hulks for maximum yield... long story short: the cargohold is too small for 2 cycles + drones, even without a boost for them. If, on the other hand, you could assign your drones to your booster ship and fill it's cargo with ore this kind of boost could be REALLY great and encourage bigger mining fleets since the booster ( for example the Porpoise withput mining-fighters) would be able to profit while helping other people without an own boosting char...
A pretty gimmicky alternative would be an increased range for interactions with containers and fleet-hangars. a 50 km boost range does not really help it the whole mining op has to stay within 2.5 km of a container... good for people who actually use containers, but totally useless if you warp to a station/pos to drop off the ore. (but i guess the crystal preservation link is useless unless you actually use crystals...) |
XxUltradmbxX
Girl Friends Please Ignore League of Unaligned Master Pilots
9
|
Posted - 2016.09.12 23:43:46 -
[1230] - Quote
rip mining missions thanks ccp |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 59 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |