These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#461 - 2012-05-19 11:09:08 UTC
OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#462 - 2012-05-19 16:09:12 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.


There was something broken here, but Tuxford fixed it this morning.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#463 - 2012-05-19 16:10:57 UTC
Pattern Clarc wrote:
Are any of the newly rebalance models modules even ready to go live? cap batteries, tracking disruptors an approve hardeners look to be on a pretty poor state imo.


Just to be clear, there are no changed to the tracking disruptor changes going out in Inferno. We were playing around with a few adjustments, but none of them bore fruit, so we reverted them all. Tracking Disruptors will continue to work exactly as before post-Inferno.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#464 - 2012-05-19 16:14:41 UTC
Helothane wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
Helothane wrote:
MagSheath Target Breaker can only be fit on t1 and t2 BS (marauders and black ops). WIth -80% to scan resolution on ships that already have lousy scan resolution, can you explain the logic of this one? I might see a Black Ops using it, if all it is doing is being a covert bridge, or seeding a few BS with these on them in a big fleet of BS, but that scan res penalty is a killer otherwise. I assume that scan res penalty applies whether the module is activated or not (like a cloak module).


The initial version of the target breaker had very conservative stats. I've updated the stats a bit - the scan resolution is now -50% and the duration is now 12 instead of 20 seconds. It should be on Sisi tomorrow or Friday.


I'm still curious about the BS-only restriction, and what role you envision the module playing. When I first saw the module described, I thought it would be perfect for non-FC command ships. No BS class ships can fit links, however, so there goes that idea.


Something that I haven't tested yet on SiSI: If you have two ship equipped with cap batteries, and one uses a neut on the other, is there a chance for the reflected effect to be reflected in turn by the originator?


Regarding the target breaker, the initial aim was to have it work for all non-capital ships, but as setting this up isn't very easy to do on the backend currently without some massive hacks, we decided to just do a battleship class version for now. But we're absolutely open to expanding this post-Inferno to other classes as well (we're even looking into making a more flexible T3 version of it, but that is still in experimental stages).

Regarding the cap batteries, then no, it can't be reflected back and forth Big smile We did actually think about this when implementing the technical aspect, but thought it too silly.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#465 - 2012-05-19 16:15:25 UTC
Daniel Darkside wrote:
I noticed that inventing the Drone Damage Amplifier II requires Caldari Encryption Methods. Since this is a drone module, should it require Gallente Encryption Methods?


Yes, this was an oversight that I have rectified. Thanks for the heads up.
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#466 - 2012-05-19 16:18:44 UTC
Helothane wrote:
The small, medium and large versions of the Processor Overclocking Unit blueprints are inconsistent. The small requires charred micro circuits, damaged artificial neural networks and fried interface circuits. The medium requires conductive polymer, damaged artificial neural networks and tripped power circuits. The large requires charred micro circuits, conductive polymer and damaged artificial neural networks. No other rigs change what goes into making them as the size of the rig changes, just how much of each. Is this intentional?

Also, the finished product itself: t1 has a -5% to shield recharge rate, t2 has a -10% to shield recharge rate. First, no other Electronics (or Energy Grid) rigs have a drawback, which is good, as there is no associated skill that can be trained to reduce the drawback. Second, no t2 version of a rig has a worse drawback than the t1 version.

These are breaking patterns that have existed for quite some time. Are these changes to be seen as a new precedent?



I'll look into the material composition of the rig and fix any errors that might be there. Regarding the drawback, then this was intentional on our part. It's a precedent in the sense that we will consider drawbacks (or other non-standard effects) if we feel it's necessary for the item we're making, but we haven't set a fixed rule of always having drawbacks now in the electronics group. It's determined on a case by case bases.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#467 - 2012-05-19 17:00:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
CCP SoniClover, thanks for the feedback. Oh... but there seems to be missing something... TRACKING DISRUPTORS!!!

Seriously, you guys are going to cause a mess with those that's going to require a LOT of cleaning.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
CCP SoniClover
C C P
C C P Alliance
#468 - 2012-05-19 17:12:04 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
CCP SoniClover, thanks for the feedback. Oh... but there seems to be missing something... TRACKING DISRUPTORS!!!

Seriously, you guys are going to cause a mess with those that's going to require a LOT of cleaning.


We did play around a bit with some adjustments to the tracking disruptor (and some of them accidentally made it to SiSi in a half baked form), but what we had wasn't meeting our goals, so we reverted all the adjustments. There are no Tracking Disruptor changes coming out in Inferno.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#469 - 2012-05-19 17:20:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
Excellent Big smile

Want to 'balance' missiles? Try a high-slot module, using turretslots, (and one for a missile slot using defenders) that reduces incoming missiles by 20%, offering powerful missile defense at the cost of precious outgoing dps.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Haakyra Fly
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#470 - 2012-05-19 20:01:29 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:


Regarding the cap batteries, then no, it can't be reflected back and forth Big smile We did actually think about this when implementing the technical aspect, but thought it too silly.


@SoniClover.... please could u explain how exatcly all this work?

ie: i should neut 100 cap.... i neut 100 cap but 12.5 is also neuted from my cap (as reflection)?

OR

i should neut 100 cap... i neut 87,5 AND ALSO 12,5 is neuted from my cap?

thanks in advance.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#471 - 2012-05-19 20:29:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
From the dev blog:
Quote:

Setting a fixed contract length to ally contracts is one thing we want to do. While the current implementation is fine for the most part, there are a few edge cases where the eternal ally bond can become an issue. It should also make negotiations smoother, when the knowledge of the exact length of the contract is known beforehand.

Another thing we’re looking into is to exclude the ally system from mutual wars – if a war has been made mutual, then no allies can be involved and existing ally contracts are cancelled. This mitigates a little the fact that now when a war is made mutual the only way for it to end is by surrender. We’ll monitor the early experience with the system post-Inferno and make a decision whether this change is needed/wanted.


Making the ally-contracts fixed length should mitigate the severity of mutual wars by more then enough. Also defenders locked in a mutual war should NOT be excluded from getting allies else there are going to be some very nasty problems with mutual-locked attackers suddenly adding a lot of new members, or additional wardecs causing a mess. It's not like mercs like to stick around forever in a mutual war anyway, so 'eternal allies' will hardly be a problem.

Remove the ability to gain allies in a mutual war, will guarantee that the only wardec to be made mutual will be RvB.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Plekto
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#472 - 2012-05-19 20:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Plekto
I thought about it for a day and came up with a workable way to implement defender missiles.

Almost every ship in eve has a missile slot in it, even if it's not using missiles as the main weapon. My idea is for a specific defender launcher (I'd call it the "missile defense system") that fits in a missile slot. ie - you have to dedicate that slot much like you do with a probe launcher to a specific job/task.

The system cycles every 10 seconds or so and fires a salvo of two defender missiles as chaff. It needs to be slow enough that a skilled pilot can overwhelm it with sheer speed so it's not a perma-tank option, yet work to be such a tank vs gankers and newbies.

Then the question is do you use that high slot on a defense system (if the ship has a missile slot that is - some don't!) instead of a better module, knowing that it's only good vs missiles (mostly Caldari designs)? In any case, using it would also deprive you of a weapon slot.

IMO, more decisions and trade-offs is the way to go rather tan trying to level everything out to be the same.

EDIT - it's terribly critical that it be its own module so that it's not as simple as swapping ammo in the middle of a fight.
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#473 - 2012-05-19 21:46:19 UTC
Defender missiles are broken in a way that a simple module won't fix it.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Helothane
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#474 - 2012-05-19 23:03:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Helothane
CCP SoniClover wrote:

Regarding the target breaker, the initial aim was to have it work for all non-capital ships, but as setting this up isn't very easy to do on the backend currently without some massive hacks, we decided to just do a battleship class version for now. But we're absolutely open to expanding this post-Inferno to other classes as well (we're even looking into making a more flexible T3 version of it, but that is still in experimental stages).



Hmm. I recall that there was there is a flag for ships, something like Is Capital, that is checked to determine if that ship can be a target of a titan's DD, since it can only be used on capitals. Is it too much of a hack to have that flag checked in the fitting window when trying to fit a target breaker? I'd think there is something somewhat similar to what prevents a bomb launcher from being fit to anything but a stealth bomber.

To be honest, I think the traditional way that CCP had designed modules to only fit certain ships, beyond one specific type of ship, is a hack. The covert cloak and gang links having huge CPU values, then giving the desired ships a 99% reduction in the cost for those modules. I haven't run the numbers yet, but I bet that the new CPU rigs will allow a titan to use a storyline covert cloak (the ones with only 5000 CPU).
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#475 - 2012-05-20 08:47:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
The new capacitor battery mechanics are useless against NPC nos and neuts. Another reason why this is not the way capacitor batteries should be rebalanced.

A large cap replenishment would be much more useful. Similar like cap boosters but without charges. Instead it balances it's much larger cap booster with a very long cycle-time so the energy/second gain is about 50% lower.

Perhaps combining this with some overdue balancing of the capacitor booster modules as well, so micro capacitor boosters becomes the a viable module for frigates and the bigger ones move up one ship-size. Perhaps finally adding a capital size one as well.

Cap Boosters should be the choice for long, drawn-out fights or if you prefer a steady trickle of cap, batteries for short skirmishes and roams that don't allow easy restocking of charges.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
Rivqua
Omega Wing
#476 - 2012-05-20 10:01:28 UTC
@CCP SoniClover:


I notice the new shield boosters don't get affected by

A) Ship Boost Bonuses (Making them directly less useful on Minmatar instead of Caldari for example) (Intended to nerf Winmatar?)
B) Are not affected by Blue Pills ?

Any comment. I realize it's late to post any changes now, but you could explain the intention for all to see ? :)

- Riv
Copine Callmeknau
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#477 - 2012-05-20 11:55:51 UTC
I see a lot of dev responses here, but nothing about crap web drones being crap :p


Any word guys? Do you consider these drones balanced? Do you think the introduction of scout drones will result in more use of web drones?

There should be a rather awesome pic here
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#478 - 2012-05-20 11:57:42 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.


heh I removed it Twisted

I hope it's already back on Sisi, isn't it?Big smile Tuxford to the rescue!

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥
Tobiaz
Spacerats
#479 - 2012-05-20 12:43:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Tobiaz
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Tobiaz wrote:
OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.


heh I removed it Twisted

I hope it's already back on Sisi, isn't it?Big smile Tuxford to the rescue!


Yep, I've seen it. Good thing it can now be activated by the defender at any moment.

Why is it hidden in the context menu by the way? In my opinion the new 'mutual-lock' is one of the key elements of the new wardec mechanic. It certainly deserves to get its own new icon right next to the 'flag' and the 'sword'.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!
CCP Punkturis
C C P
C C P Alliance
#480 - 2012-05-20 12:53:40 UTC
Tobiaz wrote:
CCP Punkturis wrote:
Tobiaz wrote:
OK, what happened to the option to make a war mutual? I think I'm getting crazy, because I did made a few wars mutual during testing but now I either completely forgot how, or the option is missing.


heh I removed it Twisted

I hope it's already back on Sisi, isn't it?Big smile Tuxford to the rescue!


Why is it hidden in the context menu by the way? In my opinion the new 'mutual-lock' is one of the key elements of the new wardec mechanic. It certainly deserves to get its own new icon right next to the 'flag' and the 'sword'.


Because I'm an idiot and we'll probably do something better about it after release since there's too little time nowBig smile

♥ EVE Brogrammer ♥ Team Five 0 ♥ @CCP_Punkturis ♥