These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Coming to EVE Online in the Proteus Release on January 13th

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#61 - 2014-12-20 03:47:07 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
since coming on board.

well as no one else has said it yet,

welcome aboard

i like your direct tone.

o7

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Essack Leadae
State War Academy
Caldari State
#62 - 2014-12-20 04:27:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Essack Leadae
One question related to the team retiring, just to be sure because I already expect a yes :

Does it mean that any already paid team will disappear too the january 13th ?

I just want to be sure that I shouldn't buy new ones from now...

To be honest, removing them is a very bad move in my opinion, as they just require a small amount of love like :
- Secret bidding to avoid sniping
- Better teams for stuff like crystals for exemple (2.5% of material reduction means nothing for them)
- And very important, a small GUI correction too : I know that there are some players who didn't realize than click on the "Team Chartering" words at the bottom of the industry window would give access to the bidding section, even in my corp...

The related topic about the team subject contains interesting feedback, it is a shame that you don't try two or three months more with some of them if they don't require too much code maintenance. I mean, the industry revamp will become nearly nothing apart a GUI (good btw, but with few bugs) and a cost index tax who will be impossible to contain with the team retiring.

Another question : can we have few visual themes who aren't dark, please ?

Removing obsolete signature... You just lost time to read that =)
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#63 - 2014-12-20 04:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Catherine Laartii
Normally I'm not one to enjoy the look of gallente cruisers since ick, frogs, but WOW that exeq looks nice. I can really see it shining on the exeq navy issue; looking forward to seeing more pretty ships in the WZ to shoot at.

ALSO I'm disappointed to see people still complaining about 'focusing' on the art department instead of doing things for mining or elsewhere. They are a completely separate team doing completely different things, geniuses; no resources or time is being 'diverted' towards one or the other, features just go out when they're ready.
Unezka Turigahl
Det Som Engang Var
#64 - 2014-12-20 05:34:50 UTC
I don't think the Exequror redesign is an improvement. The ship didn't need a redesign in my opinion. It is currently kind of cute and retro. Take the Event Horizon, build it out of 60s car parts, and stick it in a wacky comic book universe. That is the Exequror. It has character. The redesign looses the sexiness and becomes more straight and brick-like. The same fate befell the Megathron. Is there a reason for removing the organic gracefulness of Gallente ships?

The new stubby Manticore-esque wings also do it no favors. Neither do the two satellite dishes that give it the appearance of ears from the front.

All the Exequror needed was a few more divisions in the cylinders to smooth out the geometry. Also some smoothing of the exposed wires on the underbelly. Though I don't understand why so many EVE ships have exposed wiring to begin with. I guess that is one positive to the new design, the wires are gone. But instead of retaining the smooth shape down there it is now straight. Meh.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2014-12-20 06:10:30 UTC
Unezka Turigahl wrote:
I don't think the Exequror redesign is an improvement. The ship didn't need a redesign in my opinion. It is currently kind of cute and retro. Take the Event Horizon, build it out of 60s car parts, and stick it in a wacky comic book universe. That is the Exequror. It has character. The redesign looses the sexiness and becomes more straight and brick-like. The same fate befell the Megathron. Is there a reason for removing the organic gracefulness of Gallente ships?

The new stubby Manticore-esque wings also do it no favors. Neither do the two satellite dishes that give it the appearance of ears from the front.

All the Exequror needed was a few more divisions in the cylinders to smooth out the geometry. Also some smoothing of the exposed wires on the underbelly. Though I don't understand why so many EVE ships have exposed wiring to begin with. I guess that is one positive to the new design, the wires are gone. But instead of retaining the smooth shape down there it is now straight. Meh.


I think it looks great. Looks more like a ship that would do logistics and less of a joke. Most of the logistics ships have the appearance of a lame duck, like they couldn't damage or do anything of use. This redesign makes it look more like a repairer ship and less like a joke.

I also like the embracement of the original design.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Rain6637
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2014-12-20 06:14:18 UTC
A drake change is going to make me sad. I'm already sad about it, actually.

:-(

CCP all will be right with the world if I can have more Kaalakiota versions of things. Kaalakiota.Everything. :-)

Help, I can't download EVE

President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub

PLEX: A Giffen good? (It's 1B?)
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#67 - 2014-12-20 08:35:47 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in.
With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.



IMO this is a high priority.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
COMM4NDER
Legendary Umbrellas
#68 - 2014-12-20 08:43:27 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
CCP Terminus wrote:
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in.
With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.



IMO this is a high priority.

Think Corp/Alliance and Sov & structures changes are really more of a priority.

[url=https://github.com/CommanderAlchemy/.bin/blob/master/eve] EVE - Online Launcher [Linux] [/url] Installs, launches character prefixes (both SISI & Tranquility). Simplescreenrecorder shm inject
Pak Narhoo
Splinter Foundation
#69 - 2014-12-20 08:52:24 UTC
Callic Veratar wrote:
Fonac wrote:
The fact that you're using ressources on doing artwork for the mining belts, can only mean that you're currently not working on improving this aspect with things like ring mining and the likes... This saddens me abit. Sad


Well, it can only mean that if you assume that the environmental artists are the ones developing ring mining game play. Or that ring mining has even been mentioned on the road map since Seagull took over.

Ring and comet mining were ideas that were floated in the past with no clear game play or reason behind then. We'd need a reason to include new resource harvesting that isn't present right now otherwise it's an alternate source of existing minerals, gas, or ice (or some combination there of) that doesn't really add anything new that's interesting.


Reason where there enough like, making mining a group/corp thing and removing the extraordinary boredom out of mining.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#70 - 2014-12-20 09:32:06 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Re: Module Tiericide

I'm hoping that this round will remember to include T1 modules - addressing their relative uselessness (except as a component to build the T2 versions), due to (a) weaker stats across the board compared to metas, and (b) typically higher cost as compared to low, and sometimes even high, metas.

Metas for most modules are simply too plentiful, due to high NPC drop rates, and too cheap, since the lower bound on their value is usually determined by the reprocessing value (which dropped by 50% during the reprocessing changes and made things even worse). The build cost of T1 modules typically exceeds the reprocessing value of metas - thus the T1 price is usually higher, as a result.

Because of this, there is no reason to use, or build, most T1 modules.

Module Tieiricde is the right time and place to fix this problem, and make T1 modules and T1 module manufacturing (aka noob manufacturing) a part of the game again.

Note 1: MAPCs are a good example of how to do it right, although the T1 build cost could be lowered somewhat, relative to the T2 build cost. Metas should always be rare, and thus more expensive - used only when a tight fit or extra oomph justifies the higher cost.

Note 2: Cargo Scanners a good example of how to do it WRONG. Enduring Cargo Scanners are always better than T1 versions, and usually cheaper, due to abundant (over)supply. There isn't any reason to use the T1 version.


The solution to this is simple and trivial to implement- remove meta drops from hisec and sov null.
CCP Terminus
C C P
C C P Alliance
#71 - 2014-12-20 11:15:20 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Terminus
Sizeof Void wrote:
In my opinion, T2 modules should be more powerful than T1 or metas, but should also have drawbacks, which make it impossible or problematic to fit T2-only to ships. A ship with T2 bonuses to weapons should see some disadvantage in tank or speed; a ship with T2 bonuses to tank should see some disadvantage in firepower; et cetera.

Primary This Rifter wrote:
What I hope to see from module tiercide is an increase in diversity between sub-T2 modules, and in situations where T2 is not necessarily the optimal choice (however as said above, I'd like them to maintain a general superiority over T1 variants). ... My biggest concern though is how much immersion is lost if everything has "ample" or "compact" or "polarized" variants.


With this round of module tiericide we haven't touched the overall balance of the modules by too much, since most of them were in a good place already. With that being said, in general T2 modules should have the most powerful effects (not including storyline, faction and officer modules) but also the largest skill and fitting requirements. Conversely, the new 'Basic' variants have much lower skill and fitting requirements and much weaker effects. T1 is your basic, and the named modules are between T1 and T2 in power and fitting, with their own niche specializations.
We applied this reasoning to as many module types as we could without breaking existing economies or causing other issues.

As for naming, we've changed our policy on naming based on the feedback from you guys. Personally, I think it strikes a good combination between flavour and function now.

We'll be putting up a dev blog about the next module tiericide round early next week, which will have much more information. Right now we're shooting for Tuesday.


Ralph King-Griffin wrote:

well as no one else has said it yet,

welcome aboard

i like your direct tone.

o7

Thanks :) It's a blast working at CCP. o7

@CCP_Terminus // Game Designer // Team Size Matters
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#72 - 2014-12-20 11:31:14 UTC
CCP Terminus wrote:
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in.
With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.

I do applaud that. As long as 'visceral' does not translate into 'loot sew'. And I would guess Sovereignty is in more of a need for a ground breaking overhaul than mining at the moment. So one step at a time, I guess. And no silly walks!

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#73 - 2014-12-20 11:55:59 UTC
Well CCP is taking care of the crappiest looking ships upfront, so the ferox is up there, probably the cyclone too.

The rest of the cruisers look good but I do have a issue with the vexor (need to be purdyer). My own personal opinion though.

Exeq looks great. Onie looks good too.

Yaay!!!!
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#74 - 2014-12-20 12:03:23 UTC
Abrazzar wrote:
CCP Terminus wrote:
Mining changes have been talked about and thought of for a while now both internally and externally. There are thoughts on changing the gameplay of mining to make it more of a visceral experience, and provide miners with a range of passive and active gameplay that they can choose how much they engage in.
With that being said other issues are taking precedence in the near/mid future.

I do applaud that. As long as 'visceral' does not translate into 'loot sew'. And I would guess Sovereignty is in more of a need for a ground breaking overhaul than mining at the moment. So one step at a time, I guess. And no silly walks!



I'm pretty sure they are going to input a targeting game into mining, you succeed you get higher ore value. You don't want to do the game, collect Low ore, do the game, upgraded ore for temporary time.

That's my guess.

Yaay!!!!
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#75 - 2014-12-20 12:05:32 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Oh my gourd!
Beccy, look at Oneiros
It is so symmetrical
It looks like one of those … Star Citizen ships
Who understands Star Citizen?

They only fly it because it looks so cliché, okay?
I mean … Oneiros is just so … straight
I can't believe it's just so symmetrical
It's out there
I mean … *phah* … gross!

It's just so … boring.


(with apologies to Sir Mix-A-Lot, and the art team)

This so much.

Please stop removing the special EVE look and feel with every hull upgrade. EVE is on it's way to look like just any other IP out on the market.

Remove standings and insurance.
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
#76 - 2014-12-20 12:10:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyranis Marcus
Wow.

Nice work on music!

What's the purpose of the alignable warp propulsion engines on the Exequror?

Also, the rock fragments being added to asteroid belts won't be collidable will they?

Do not run. We are your friends.
Oraac Ensor
#77 - 2014-12-20 12:19:44 UTC
Maul555 wrote:
STOP!!!! Stop eliminating unsymetrical hulls from this game!!! you have hit the exequor with a FUGLY stick... scrap this abomination please! This was one of my favorite ships... Its now moving to one of my most hated....

I like the new Exequror hull because it tidies up the look of the ship quite neatly while paying homage to its ancestry by remaining asymmetric.
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#78 - 2014-12-20 12:23:39 UTC
Quote:
Combat Recon Ships Undetectable by Directional Scanning

Combat recon ships will be impossible to detect with directional scans and bonuses and attributes will be looked over for all 8 Force and Combat Recon ships. For more details and to provide feedback, take a look at this thread: Recon Ships


What in the name of flying ****?! Whose idea was that ****?! It may be a funny gimmick in k-space, where you have other ways of intel, but in w-space? Seriously? Cloaks aren't good enough anymore or what?

VETO!
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#79 - 2014-12-20 13:32:34 UTC
T2 lml's are too good they basically obsolete all the meta's by having all their specialisations and then some..
the point should be too offer different options throughout not upto T2 then T2 is always better

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Catherine Laartii
Doomheim
#80 - 2014-12-20 14:02:46 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
T2 lml's are too good they basically obsolete all the meta's by having all their specialisations and then some..
the point should be too offer different options throughout not upto T2 then T2 is always better

I'm going to have to lay that particular opinion down to rest as it is flatly untrue.

Compact light missile launchers have proven to be revolutionary in fitting in lowsec combat, specifically FW. The SIGNIFICANTLY lower cpu reqs allow for far more fitting options than you would otherwise have on ships with tight room, and the reason why the compact micros remain at such a premium even over the navy faction variants isn't due to lack of supply by any means.

Generally t2 carriers a hefty premium over its meta counterparts; this is especially true with weapons certainly, but the offset of higher fitting reqs and capacitor balance it out quite handily; the Crow is an excellent example of this since after the pass over it can't actually fit a full rack of t2 launchers and anything resembling a tank without serious skills and gimping its potential speed by loading up on fitting implants and rigs. A full rack of compact lights work wonders on the crow, corax, or even the kestrel to a certain extent. It's just not very visible now due to the lack of 'rebalanced' modules and weapons currently out. Light missiles being the only ones, and they have done very nicely.