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) |
Sarah Flynt
Federation Interstellar Resources Silent Infinity
243
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:44:08 -
[181] - Quote
I'm surprised that nobody asked this, yet:
Will the Industrial Core still make the Rorqual immobile while running?
Sick of High-Sec gankers? Join the public channel Anti-ganking and the dedicated intel channel Gank-Intel !
|
Draconas109
The Society of Mutual Respect Care Factor
36
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:44:15 -
[182] - Quote
Arrendis wrote:Draconas109 wrote: 1. it's been in the game for how long? 2. if it's not broke, why change it 3. if it has to change, why add mining boosts to it? with being near a citadel, you have to still pay attention or die as you're not tethered, putting a rorqual in a null belt is just guaranteed death 4. in the name of jesus tap dancing ******* christ, why is there an ammo requirement taped to it?
how's that for reasons?
1. Inertia's not a reason. 2. It's pretty darn broke. 3. Mining boosts currently tether, allowing a rorqual to sit between the two spires atop an Astrahus in perfect safety. 4. Hel if I know. So call it 1 out of 4!
apparently you do boost and tether, my bad. you still have to pay attention for bumping |
Desiderya
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Wrecking Machine.
1121
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:44:31 -
[183] - Quote
Finally \o/
Some feedback on the devblog.
- Removing the bonuses you get from skills does not feel well. By all means, effective boosting and unlocking some effects should only be viable through using the proper setups but there are many situations where you can't fit a traditional boosting ship in but still want to provide some bonus to a fleet (or rather, gang) with the SP investment you have done. I assume this has been sacrificed to make the new boosting system mechanically possible.
- I was hoping to see these modules being available (unbonused) for all ships as the selection of destroyer, battlecruiser and capitals doesn't cover all types of gangs.
- The visual effects still look very, very similar. Also it would be nicer if you could also spot which type of ammunition is running.
- Suspect timer: The same rules that are in effect for neutral logistics should apply. If not you have someone sitting on a war target fleet in HS providing a lot of assistance and you can do little about it.
Ruthlessness is the kindness of the wise.
|
Winter Archipelago
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
584
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:45:14 -
[184] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected. The only thing that gives me pause is the stacking penalty. Example: Seems odd that it may benefit a mining ship to NOT fit a MLU. Maybe it'll finally get some career miners to fit a tank instead of going for pure yield, then whining about how they have it so hard compared to others when every other activity in the game has to decide on their own personal balance between tank and gank.
For the Newbies: The 8 Golden Rules - The Magic 14 Skills - Finding the Right Corp - EVE University Wiki
|
Baltrom
The Congregation No Handlebars.
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:02 -
[185] - Quote
im probably going to catch a fair amount of flak for this but id like to be the voice of the probably unpopular opinion that theses changes are not thought through. (also please excuse my possibly bad enlgish)
at the moment , there is nothing wrong with links , everyone in the game can use them equally . if you have the isk to plex an alt or the rl money , for links , anyone can do it and use them equally .
right , now theres people saying , oh wow , why do i need to have an alt to be on par with the bois that have link alts ? thats unfair.
well . you need alts for everything in this game , the newest launcher is even designed to make launching alts easier . you cant really mine without having an army of mining alts (if you want to be on par with the people that have mining alts), you cant use supers effectively unless you have alts sitting in them , some lowsec alliances only recruit people with capital alts , people camp gates with re sebo alts etc etc ... the entire alt argument is ******** in a game like eve . so, you want to have links ? get someone with a links alt . not really a big deal in my opinion.
2nd , i obviously have no clue how the new links ships are gonna be flown on a combat grid . but to me it seems as if the new mechanic gives even more power to the blob. eve is a game of n+1 , if you have more people , you are stronger . now forcing links on grid means that 2 equally skilled fleets , both having their links on grid and, depending on how the ships are gonna be flown , also in dps range of each other . now one of the fleets is actually a bit bigger , which is already an advantage , but to me it seems that the bigger fleet will not only have an easier time keeping their links alive , but also killing the enemy links ship which is going to put them at an even bigger disadvantage as they already are .
i might be wrong with everything i am saying , maybe i dont see the big picture . i also didnt read every single comment and dont know if my concerns have already been voiced by someone else.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2779
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:08 -
[186] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? It would also mean you can forget about any kind of kite meta because unless your boost ship is attached to your hip and able to keep up with you, your bonuses are gonna drop before you have a chance to get back into boost range. Thanks for the reply. Exactly this case I had in mind when proposing this change. It shall be unfeasible to use boosted ships in novice plexes.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
6365
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:25 -
[187] - Quote
Sarah Flynt wrote:I'm surprised that nobody asked this, yet:
Will the Industrial Core still make the Rorqual immobile while running? We won't know until November. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:31 -
[188] - Quote
Can we get "maximum bonus" from the charts defined? If I'm looking at this correctly, most links got nerfed but new ones added so i don't know what is what. |
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:46:43 -
[189] - Quote
Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone. WOW. That is a hilarious level of elitism. Have you made suggestions in this thread on how to modify this new system in a way you feel benefits your playstyle better? If not, you should do that. Page 1. Links fittable on Blops. Though I honestly don't really care all that much about getting links. I don't need them.
you can blobs bridge a T3 for links? |
Pandora Carrollon
Dawn of a New Horizon The Republic.
637
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:48:32 -
[190] - Quote
Look guys-
The intent seems to be to force mining to be a more interactive thing. I mean, CCP heard the miners and is giving them a bump limit. Now, it looks like they've heard CODE and others that advocate making mining more active and not AFK ISK farming.
These changes will happen all the time. I really don't have an issue with the idea as long as CCP also hears that the mining ships and such need their ships to be able to defend themselves. Flying a cheap disposable destroyer up, vaporizing a mining ship then losing it in some kind of cosmic suicide pact is not realistic at all. Miners should be able to fight as well and the rats should be almost as brutal as the players.
Mining SHOULD be a badge of honor, not derision. Miners should embrace these changes and the boosters for miners should actually charge for the service, a percent of the take, etc. But ORCA's, Rorq's etc. should be able to fend off 1-2 groups of sub caps all day long. Drop in a fleet of a half dozen or more ships, then it should be a reasonable fight.
Making mining active should make the game more fun, not less. Give it a chance and see what happens. If it is completely unworkable then it likely won't live long. However, what I think you'll find is that you'll have to figure out all the wrinkles and costs, but eventually it will re-balance out and need only some tweaking to make it work right.
There has to be balance in all things guys. We just need to make sure that CCP follows through and give the miners the ability to defend themselves so the current gank mechanics can be understood for being as bad as off grid boosts.
8 Golden Rules of EVE GÇó EVE is entirely PvP
|
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
3560
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:49:01 -
[191] - Quote
two questions:
will the command burst buff apply to the buffing ship too? in other words: will the magus get a free "lets tank a bit better" button?
will the buff apply to cloaked ships in fleet? will be relevant if you want to use something like a rapier as surprise.
comments so far: - the main thing i dislike is that the buff does not go away if the command ship dies, IMO it should since it would make target calling more interesting.
- you should not be able to cloak the links right after the buff.
- i would like to see shorter cycle times, unless you are fine with linked garmurs in novice plexes tbh i would like to see you losing links entirely if you leave grid
how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
596
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:49:37 -
[192] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Alhira Katserna wrote:Annia Aurel wrote:Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ... Good question. I hope they get refunded as they-¦re useless now for at least 90% of the people who trained them just to support their fleet. They are still useful and are still used for supporting your fleet. So why would there be any refund? Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills.
a. Because previously they provided a bonus for any and every FC running a fleet. Now they aren't gonna do jack unless FC wants to hop in a boost ship and put a target on his forehead in every engagement.
b. Saying we can "extract them" is just accepting the fact that its just a way for CCP to squeeze more money out of ppl by giving them a reason to buy extractors just to get use out of the SP that they already spent monthly fee's on in order to train. It's like selling someone a car then telling them gas isn't gonna be sold for that car anymore and it can only be driven on specific roads unless they buy a new special upgrade. It's essentially bait and switch.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
711
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:49:50 -
[193] - Quote
Rowells wrote:IM SO HARD RIGHT NOW BUT ALSO PICKY ON THE DETAILS A BIT. FC I NEED A TOWEL: STAT. Quote:T1 Industrial Core (while active)
+25% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+50% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
T2 Industrial Core (while active)
+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+100% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range AAAASSAGGHGGHGGHGGGGG DAMNIT WHY CCP WHY I was also hoping to do away with the requirement to siege to get the bonus. Theoretically though with the numbers given it is still worth using a Rorqual for boosting even without siege active which would make both playstyles viable. So risk / reward. I think this is a nice balance.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
Ima Wreckyou
The Conference Elite CODE.
2717
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:50:54 -
[194] - Quote
Nice change over all.
I am missing some information about how this will interact with crimewatch. Will it be possible to boost people with a limited engagement timer or criminal timer without going suspect or getting CONCORDED as well?
the Code ALWAYS wins
Elite PvPer, #74 in 2014
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
2691
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:52:06 -
[195] - Quote
Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
596
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:52:24 -
[196] - Quote
Tipa Riot wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Tipa Riot wrote:Finally, finally! This will be a very good change for the health of the game. Although I think some details need to be tweaked.
- The boost duration of 60-130s is too long IMO, would like to see it more in the 30-60s range.
- Will neutral boosters receive a suspect flag if interfering with wars and limited engagements in highsec (same as logis)? The problem w reducing the time to that sort of level would be that it would mean the total elimination of frigates getting any kind of boost in places like novice FW plexes. At least w a 2 minute timer a frig pilot can get his boost then warp into the plex and have a limited amount of time boosted. With a 30 second time the boost would be gone before you even managed to land in the plex. Ofc a t1 boost frig would solve this but that's starting a slide down a particularly slippery slope. Are we gonna start creating new ships from scratch every time a gameplay mechanic changes? It would also mean you can forget about any kind of kite meta because unless your boost ship is attached to your hip and able to keep up with you, your bonuses are gonna drop before you have a chance to get back into boost range. Thanks for the reply. Exactly this case I had in mind when proposing this change. It shall be unfeasible to use boosted ships in novice plexes.
So your next request is that only 2 ships be allowed in a novice plex at a time... well that kinda defeats the whole point of FACTION WARFARE so I guess we're just gonna have to create "EVE BATTLEGROUNDS" the place where all risk adverse cry babies can go to get a fair fight. Special combat plexes w 2 ship limits and no boosts or implants allowed....
Daemun of Khanid
|
Airi Cho
Dark-Rising Wrecking Machine.
158
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:53:36 -
[197] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Something else that just occurred to me: Squads should be removed. You don't need them anymore after these changes and their removal would reduce a lot of clutter in the fleet. Instead of 5 Wings with 5 Squads each, you can just have the 5 wings with all people in it. That's enough room to organize a fleet and all the problems with missing squads, overcrowded squads or finding out in which squad you are while the entire list jumps around erratically due to newly joining members would be gone.
TBH it can still make sense for just warping e.g. logi or ewar |
William Weatherwax
Signal Cartel EvE-Scout Enclave
22
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:54:07 -
[198] - Quote
Quote: When a fleetmate is hit by the Command Burst, their ship will receive a timed bonus lasting between 60 and 130 seconds that continues to operate even if they move out of range, or if the boosting ship dies. The bonus persists through warps within a system, but does not persist through docking and undocking or through system changes. [...]
[...] Like existing warfare links, multiple copies of any given Command Burst bonus do not stack on top of each other. The Command Burst system will only apply the bonus from the strongest version of each Command Burst effect that is applied to any given ship.
Right now it is useless speculation but I wonder if the boost would persist when you drop fleet. Otherwise I would come with two boosters with separate fleets. Booster A fires, fleet changes to Booster B. Would that be still considered stacking?
Also, I wonder if you could overheat the module for some extra boost.
|
ArmyOfMe
Coreli Corporation Mercenary Coalition
601
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:54:44 -
[199] - Quote
Awesome that links are finally getting changed to ongrid, and for the most part im quite positive about this change. There is one issue i am worried about tho, and that is small/micro gangs of nano ships, that will be a heck of a lot more nerfed then other types of gangs.
A normal ahac, bs, or close range ship gang of any kind really will be able to stay close together the entire time, which will be great. Microgangs on the other hand depends a lot on individual pilots flying around, trying to spread out the hostiles. Having to do all this and having to go back and forth to the link ship because of the limited time of the buff will be a massive pain, and will mean that most of the gang will either be flying close to the link ship the entire time, or that the hostiles will swarm the link ship, making sure that the nano gang wont be able to get boosts.
ArmyOfMe wrote:
1) If you get bumped then that webber wont do anything.
baltec1 wrote:
We use the exact same tactic for titans and they enter warp instantly.
|
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
711
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:54:45 -
[200] - Quote
Daemun Khanid wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Alhira Katserna wrote:Annia Aurel wrote:Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ... Good question. I hope they get refunded as they-¦re useless now for at least 90% of the people who trained them just to support their fleet. They are still useful and are still used for supporting your fleet. So why would there be any refund? Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills. a. Because previously they provided a bonus for any and every FC running a fleet. Now they aren't gonna do jack unless FC wants to hop in a boost ship and put a target on his forehead in every engagement. b. Saying we can "extract them" is just accepting the fact that its just a way for CCP to squeeze more money out of ppl buy giving them a reason to buy extractors just to get use out of the SP that they already spent monthly fee's on in order to train. It's like selling someone a car then telling them gas isn't gonna be sold for that car anymore and it can only be driven on specific roads unless they buy a new special upgrade. It's essentially bait and switch. No, this is how skill changes have always been handled. If the skill is still useful in any capacity then you don't get a refund. If the skill is removed completely, only then you will get a refund.
When the Advanced Ship Construction skills where nerfed to 1% PE per level (so almost useless), no SP refund was given.
When mining barge was removed as a pre req for the Orca, no SP refund was given.
I don't see why this scenario should be made an exception. Plus back then there was no option of extracting the SP.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
|
Elenahina
agony unleashed Agony Empire
1063
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:56:05 -
[201] - Quote
Tau Cabalander wrote:Team Five 0 wrote:However, Command Burst bonuses do stack on top of bonuses from other sources (such as modules and implants) and this interaction may be subject to diminishing returns (stacking penalties) depending on the attribute being affected. The only thing that gives me pause is the stacking penalty. Example: Seems odd that it may benefit a mining ship to NOT fit a MLU.
Wait, maybe they could fit tank instead and become harder to gank.
Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you.
|
Tipa Riot
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2779
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:56:23 -
[202] - Quote
Bienator II wrote:
- you should not be able to cloak the links right after the buff.
Good point, the already mentioned cloaky nullified drive-by booster. This could be easily fixed by giving command bust modules a penalty to cloak reactivation.
I'm my own NPC alt.
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1256
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:57:05 -
[203] - Quote
the effects are still just far too strong, you should cut them in half
and navy mindlinks should give a smaller bonus than normal mindlinks, maybe cut both of them down to make them less essential. having too much of an implant requirement is bad for proper pvp
and I think those burst ranges are too high, 15km sounds about right for fully skilled and bonused |
Linus Gorp
Ministry of Propaganda and Morale Black Marker
386
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:58:57 -
[204] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Linus Gorp wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote: **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently.
That's because WoW is just right on their intellectual level, while they're too dumb for pretty much everything else that isn't a WoW clone. WOW. That is a hilarious level of elitism. Have you made suggestions in this thread on how to modify this new system in a way you feel benefits your playstyle better? If not, you should do that. Page 1. Links fittable on Blops. Though I honestly don't really care all that much about getting links. I don't need them. you can blobs bridge a T3 for links? But then I'd need a dedicated bridger. Easier to just continue blopsing without links. It's not like we need them anyway.
When you don't know the difference between there, their, and they're, you come across as being so uneducated that your viewpoint can be safely dismissed. The literate is unlikely to learn much from the illiterate.
|
Jennifer Cho
Oberon Incorporated
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:59:03 -
[205] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vidork Drako wrote:Its a very nice change because offgrid boost had no sense. Great job. Now a question who will come back again and again until we got an answer : Q : Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? Lets us know please. A simple yes or no will be enough. No. The skills will all continue to exist (under slightly different names) and will impact the same type of gameplay, so there are no plans to refund any skills with this change.
Given below quoting the dev blog the bonus given by the skill are underwhelming compared to their ranking :
Dev Blog wrote:Our plan for skill requirements in the new system significantly reduces the barrier to entry for this role.
Imagine one of your development points :- As a fleet booster I am happy to spend a month training Fleet Command to 5 so that I gain an extra 4%.
These skills, as designed, are closer to the electronic systems skills which top out at Rank 5 (excepting the Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration - and that is only 8).
I would suggest that Fleet Command should be at max a Rank 8 skill (preferably 6) and Wing Command a Rank 5 skill and that you should return the excess skill points.
|
Daemun Khanid
Kameiran Order Local Is Primary
596
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 17:59:04 -
[206] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Daemun Khanid wrote:Moac Tor wrote:Alhira Katserna wrote:Annia Aurel wrote:Will you refund all SP currently allocated in Leadership skills? Those you still want them are free to reallocate them ... Good question. I hope they get refunded as they-¦re useless now for at least 90% of the people who trained them just to support their fleet. They are still useful and are still used for supporting your fleet. So why would there be any refund? Plus all the begging for an SP refund is a moot point as you can just extract and sell the skills. a. Because previously they provided a bonus for any and every FC running a fleet. Now they aren't gonna do jack unless FC wants to hop in a boost ship and put a target on his forehead in every engagement. b. Saying we can "extract them" is just accepting the fact that its just a way for CCP to squeeze more money out of ppl buy giving them a reason to buy extractors just to get use out of the SP that they already spent monthly fee's on in order to train. It's like selling someone a car then telling them gas isn't gonna be sold for that car anymore and it can only be driven on specific roads unless they buy a new special upgrade. It's essentially bait and switch. No, this is how skill changes have always been handled. If the skill is still useful in any capacity then you don't get a refund. If the skill is removed completely, only then you will get a refund. When the Advanced Ship Construction skills where nerfed to 1% PE per level (so almost useless), no SP refund was given. When mining barge was removed as a pre req for the Orca, no SP refund was given. I don't see why this scenario should be made an exception. Plus back then there was no option of extracting the SP.
Can't speak for every past change but there were certainly changes in the past that resulted in SP refunds. Just because some changes did not result in said refund doesn't mean there's not a case for saying this one should. Particularly now that spending cash money to extract skills is a thing. If you establish that it's ok to change to functionality of a skill after it's already literally been paid for then what's to stop them from doing the same thing over and over again all in the name of "balance" just to get ppl to pay them cash for more extractors. Extractors which can ONLY be brought into the game through real world cash transactions. Are you ready to start getting farmed for $$$? If I pay $ to train a skill (aquire sp) and the function of that skill changes so that it no longer provides me with a benefit then I should be entitled to a reapplication of that skill to something that will benefit me. CCP have literally nothing to lose (that they are entitled to) by letting ppl respec the SP spent on these skills. All they have to lose is money they can potentially extract from the player base through extractor sales and to call that a shady business practice is an understatement.
Daemun of Khanid
|
Drago Shouna
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
565
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:01:04 -
[207] - Quote
MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:MidnightWyvern wrote:Draconas109 wrote:I'm going to kindly remind who puts food on your table and a house over your heads.
Your customers who pay cash money to play this game, and when you **** off your customers, they'll take their money with them and go somewhere else.
Just putting that out there. Implying you speak for anyone but yourself. Getting cold and lonely on that pedestal? I'm not the only one not thrilled with this change if you'd spend 5 seconds looking at other posts and their likes going up. Because Forum Likes are how we judge good or bad ideas, right? Using a populist approach like that sure worked wonders for Sony Online Entertainment with their still massively successful game Planetside 2. Oh wait... Sarcasm aside, how many times have we seen people initially freak out in the Comments thread on the DevBlog and then those same people are playing the game months later, still bitching but not having left like they swore they were going to? **** changes in online games, man. World of Warcraft has apparently been dumbing down their gameplay more and more with each successive release and they still have millions of subscribers, many of whom regularly swear they're quitting as soon as the next update drops and have been doing so for years without ever actually leaving permanently. Off-grid boosting was becoming a problem, and in the best case it represented yet another requirement for dedicated afk alts in order to be competetive. Is that really good design? Is that really the best way for people to have FUN in a game? Not being able to know if the small gang that your small gang just engaged with might have a fully tricked out Command Ship running Mindlink-buffed Warfare Links sitting in a safe? Let's not forget how many times in that DevBlog CCP reiterated that they are going to be changing aspects of that design proposal based on all the player feedback they get. If you don't like the changes, post suggestions for how you'd like them to work and stop just threatening to drop your subscription.
And yet they don't do anything about neutral boosters?
I fully accept that off grid boosting or neutral boosting in a battle scenario could be annoying as ****.
But how the hell did boosting 4 or 5 miners ever have any impact on a battle?
Why not leave the cycle/range/cap boost for Miners out of it, the only thing it achieves is a nerf (again) to mining, nothing else.
Solecist Project...." They refuse to play by the rules and laws of the game and use it as excuse ..."
" They don't care about how you play as long as they get to play how they want."
Welcome to EVE.
|
yuma detog
Skyrock
0
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:01:24 -
[208] - Quote
What happened to encouraging people to fly their own ships (with the proposed fleet warp changes a year ago)?
This smartbomb-buff-mechanic is forcing players even stronger into choosing an anchor and stick with it if they want to receive boosts. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3085
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:01:35 -
[209] - Quote
Moac Tor wrote:Rowells wrote:IM SO HARD RIGHT NOW BUT ALSO PICKY ON THE DETAILS A BIT. FC I NEED A TOWEL: STAT. Quote:T1 Industrial Core (while active)
+25% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+50% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range
T2 Industrial Core (while active)
+30% bonus to Mining Foreman Burst strength
+100% bonus to Mining Foreman and Shield Command Burst Area of Effect Range AAAASSAGGHGGHGGHGGGGG DAMNIT WHY CCP WHY I was also hoping to do away with the requirement to siege to get the bonus. Theoretically though with the numbers given it is still worth using a Rorqual for boosting even without siege active which would make both playstyles viable. So risk / reward. I think this is a nice balance. I honestly don't feel the same way. There's a definite progression of bonuses and skill/isk cost as ships get larger or more specialized, and the progression seems to be better after the changes as well. However, once you throw in the 5-minute anchoring in place aspect, suddenly the potential risk goes much higher.
I also dislike the fact that it is the only ship that has to make this kind of commitment for its bonuses. It's pretty much always been the point of contention whenever the rorqual is brought up, and to me, seems to be the excuse for introducing the new PANIC button, rather than the other way around (bonuses justifying a penalty instead of penalty justifying a bonus). |
Moac Tor
Cyber Core Stain Confederation
711
|
Posted - 2016.08.29 18:02:34 -
[210] - Quote
Zanar Skwigelf wrote:Why were the mining yield boosts replaced by a mining crystal destruction boost?
Crystals are a dime a dozen, or am I missing something? Yield boosts are still there. The reduction in crystal destruction boost does look a little weak though in comparison to the others.
Modulated ECM Effects
An Alternative to Skill Trading
|
|
|
|
|
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 |