These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

War Dec, Kill Reports and New Modules discussion

First post First post
Author
Grideris
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#241 - 2012-05-04 14:12:39 UTC
I think many people in this thread need to remember this: http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=28840

http://www.dust514.org - the unofficial forum for everything DUST 514 http://www.dust514base.com -** the** blog site with everything else DUST 514 you need

Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#242 - 2012-05-04 14:12:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tenga Halaris
After running some tests on SISI, results are:

Armor adaptive hardener is great for PvE, if you encounter a faction which only does 2 types of damage.

setup (Domi) against Serp:


a)

Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane II
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II

77,1 % Armor Resi (kin, therm)



b)

Armor Adaptive Hardener I
Armor Thermic Hardener II
Armor Kinetic Hardener II

80% Armor Resi (kin, therm)


Nice, but the rate of change of the AAH is to slow. If this should be a PvP module it has to raise the resists way faster. It also should adapt as soon as the shield is hit.

Atm it adapts when your armor is being pierced. This is strange, because it would be so much cooler to have the shield as some kind of adjustment buffer to configure the AAH.

Fun fact:

You could pre adjust your AAH, letting someone shoot you, before you enter combat or NPC rats.
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#243 - 2012-05-04 14:13:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.

The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.

People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?


Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#244 - 2012-05-04 14:27:49 UTC
The initial thread was divided, because 90% of the posts were about FW .
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#245 - 2012-05-04 14:39:15 UTC
Salpun wrote:
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.

The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.

People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?


Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.


There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
SLYCE Pirates
#246 - 2012-05-04 14:42:44 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Salpun wrote:
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.

The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.

People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?


Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.


There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.

Evil
It was more a reply to Paradox then to you. O great PunkturisLol
Assumptions are all we have at this point.Twisted

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#247 - 2012-05-04 14:55:57 UTC
Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:

Should get:

30 CPU req.

10% ROF
12% Dmg

Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods.
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#248 - 2012-05-04 15:11:51 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Salpun wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Camios wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
SoniClover stated earlier in this thread that the war cost formula on Sisi now is really old, we've updated it since internally and the new version should be on Sisi soon™ Smile


Can you tell us the formula? We need to know it in advance so we can whine and protest or praise you as soon as possible.


no we'll rather have you protest and whine about it without even knowing how it is Blink

it's in a dev blog that's scheduled to be posted late next week, but I'll ask SoniClover if wants to post it here too..

Sooner feedback is better feedbackTwisted


you're all going to be arguing about it anywaysBlink


And don't you love when we argue? I wonder why you don't show this formula and end it. It's pretty crucial for all empire corporations.

To be blunt, you don't want to tell us something because it will make us angry. For that reason we should be angry already.


CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#249 - 2012-05-04 15:22:29 UTC
Tenga Halaris wrote:
Extrinsic Damage Modifier II:

Should get:

30 CPU req.

10% ROF
12% Dmg

Nice mod, has a lot of potential. At the moments it's not in line with other damage mods.


I'm looking into upping this module in power. I mostly have the CPU and damage to work with, because of the way the technical backend is, I can't affect the RoF of drones. But we should be able to adjust the rest of the stats to make up for that somewhat. The goal is definitely to make this module be on par with the other damage amplifier mods.
Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#250 - 2012-05-04 15:30:39 UTC
Guys and Girls,


the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at.

60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand.

I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB?

If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel.



At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use.


UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments


o/

yeah I know -->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=related

mimimimi...
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#251 - 2012-05-04 15:40:03 UTC
Tenga Halaris wrote:
Guys and Girls,


the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at.

60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand.

I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB?

If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel.



At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use.


UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments


o/

yeah I know -->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=related

mimimimi...


I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).
Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#252 - 2012-05-04 15:42:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
I take it the sec status system is intentionally broken on SiSi atm? Just podded one of my own neutral alts in lowsec but received no sec hit and was able to jump into highsec immediately afterwards and fly around without getting CONCORDed. .
Manssell
OmiHyperMultiNationalDrunksConglomerate
#253 - 2012-05-04 15:45:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Manssell
Salpun wrote:
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.

The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.

People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?


Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.



To be fair, they have had a few back and forth discussions with CCP and players over this on the original Dev blog about the possible changes.

Sadly though all those discussions have shown a complete lack of understanding on why people think these are bad, and a CCP mindset that larger alliances must have greater protection financially form War Decs than smaller corps encoded into the mechanic and to do otherwise is somehow "favoring" small corps.

I really hope I'm wrong! But my guess is that the Dev blog will roll out the new formula that is pretty much the same philosophy as the old one (but slightly tweeked numbers) where it will cost more for a 100 man corp to War Dec a major alliance than to War Dec a 5 man corp. And that's what they are going to go with no matter what.
Shandir
Indigo Archive
#254 - 2012-05-04 16:03:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Shandir
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Salpun wrote:
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.

The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.

People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?


Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.


There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.


Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice?

As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken.
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#255 - 2012-05-04 16:04:56 UTC
Shandir wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Salpun wrote:
I see two types of Devblogs published about new features. There are the check this out and give feedback so we can change it Devblog and the this is the way it will be until we comeback to it after Patch day Devblog.

The players are conserned about what type of Devblog will be posted next week.

People will give feed back/ threadnout with either full information, partial information or no information. What is more helpful to the Devs?


Keep up the good work but as the relationship between the Crimewatch changes and War Decs is not clear yet. And the devs seem to be focused on the formula for cost and still not focused on getting players to want to attach and defend when in a wardec state. Wardecs will remain a broken machanic.


There's a lot of assumptions in this post. We've been getting and acting on feedback on the war cost formula since our first dev blog on war decs which was posted a while ago.


Any thoughts on how you're going to address what players see as the core issue - the lack of reason to fight, lack of profit to be gained by fighting, the core fact that evading the war dec is always the smarter choice?

As someone who has been on the defending side of a wardec, I know that players want wardecs to mean something, and for the chance to *win* a hostile wardec. Please look into this asap, because changes as proposed just now are a droplet of fix in an ocean of broken.


you'll see a dev blog next weekBig smile

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis

Tenga Halaris
Galactic Traders Union
#256 - 2012-05-04 16:08:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Tenga Halaris
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Tenga Halaris wrote:
Guys and Girls,


the Ancillary Shield Booster I needs to be looked at.

60 s reload time is way to much. The amount of boost for this kind of mechanic is to low on the other hand.

I can run 3 cycles on a large one, which takes 4 seconds per cycle and then reload it, which takes 60! seconds, while it boosts like a T2 LSB?

If you don't want it to be used in PvE, raise the fuel cost by changing the type of fuel.



At the current state of parameters, I don't see any circumstances, where this mod is more useful than any module we already use.


UI Inventory is great, not regarding the "in space", need to be done adjustments


o/

yeah I know -->

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmPJDmTQC6I&feature=related

mimimimi...


I just changed the fueled shield booster modules to give them a bit more oomph. I simply doubled the shield boost and cap use for now, that might be too much, but I think it's closer to the intended function - good temporary boost that relies on timing. But it won't probably be on Sisi until Monday (I don't think they build over the weekend).



thanks for answering,

but if you don't change the amount of charges it can hold, we're back to square one. Charges should last 2-3 minutes, if you want to make it effective.

Active tanks are, in most cases used with alt boosted, blue pilled, solo ships, which have a bonus to shield boost amount (Cyclone, Maelstrom), or in PvE scenarios.

If the modules purpose is to improve, or incourage that kind of combat, it needs to have a significant advantage to a capbooster fit.
Shandir
Indigo Archive
#257 - 2012-05-04 16:09:50 UTC
CCP Punkturis wrote:
you'll see a dev blog next weekBig smile


I'm going to take hope that you're hinting CCP's got plans for some more wide reaching changes than proposed at fanfest - that would be great. I'll wait and see what's on the horizon then.

While you're about, how soon are CCP looking at fixing bounty hunting? Any chance we could get some feedback on the proposals out just now?
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#258 - 2012-05-04 16:16:26 UTC
Lady Vorax wrote:
Quote:
Fueled Shield booster (Small/Medium/Large Ancillary Shield Booster), using Cap Boosters as charges

And farewell to armour tanking, that new mod doesnt even come close to compensating for a instant boost......
What is CCP thinking here? Feels like to want to go after sony..


Go try it out. 60 seconds is a hell of a long time to destroy someone who doesn't have a tanking module.


gfldex wrote:
I had a look at the new shield booster. Got me a navy domi with one of those, 2x shield boost amps, 3x hardeners, 3x shield resi rigs -- all T2. On top of that a large crystal set and a strong blue pill. I was not able to tank a single geddon.

What exactly is this module for?

Here's a tip, not that.

As a side note; Blue pills are currently bugged and do not affect the new shield boosters.
It's a known issue.

@SoniClover
Doubling the boost level.. okay.

Doubling the cap usage, terrible idea since it puts you far worse off than standard tanking.
- You'd have to run larger charges = WAY less time tanking
- You'd have raped your ships cap LONG before the 60 reload timer is up, nevermind being neuted.

Unless you meant, doubling it's cap capacity, then sure, lets see how that goes.

https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#259 - 2012-05-04 16:37:54 UTC
Regarding war dec - we're not creating any artificial incentives to fight a war - they are still completely open. This means some wars will absolutely have something to fight over (a POS for instance), while others will not. The reason for starting or conducting a war is still in the hands of the players, with all the pros and cons that entails. The dev blog very briefly discusses stuff we might potentially do in the future, which would give more framework to wars, but they will remain at their core as they do now. There are no plans to change that.

Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling. But IMO it needs to be that way because doubling the shield boosting effect makes it so much better stat wise to normal shield boosters and the intention is absolutely not to obsolete them in any way. I'm sure more tweaking is needed, but let's see how this plays out. From the testing I've done on the internal servers it looks promising, but as always the real test is when it's on Sisi and in the hands of you players, you with your uncanny abilities to break everything good and decent *runs away crying*

Tsubutai
Perkone
Caldari State
#260 - 2012-05-04 16:54:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Tsubutai
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Regarding the fueled shield booster - I doubled the effect, the cap use and the capacity. So you can carry more, each charge will be much more effective, but running the module without charges is crippling.

I don't see how that's crippling - what's to stop people from simply dropping down one size of shield booster? For example, if you were previously running an XL-boosted sleipnir, it seems that the changes would allow you to use a large fueled booster instead and get approximately the same boost amount/cap consumption as before while having more cap charges loaded and ready to burn.