These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Inferno Features on Singularity

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#341 - 2012-05-03 03:30:32 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
sYnc Vir wrote:


No, the point is losing space when asleep cause it can be done in 5 hours. There is no fun to be had with that. However should it take longer then its something we can live with.


I absolutely agree 100%, this was something I was very firm with the developers about. Cool


I can quote that for great justice, the CSM has been most helpful with discussing FW changes and bringing good points forward. We'll get started on a blog that explains most of the changes, expect it next week.


This the agenda a certain ex-CSM pushed for? The one to turn FW into a test bed for null sec changes?
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#342 - 2012-05-03 03:47:02 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
MotherMoon wrote:

lol what, have you ever flown a bomber? if you get shot, your dead. if drones deal 15% more damage it won't matter, flying a bomber is fun because you know your going to die. I even made an alt just for flying a bomber recklessly!


I probably did more kills with bombers than you with everything else.
Just try fitting MSE to your bomber, really, try it. Helps against getting instapopped and against drones too, even lights. But with that drone damage mod it might get a problem.


Yeah I was hoping for slight tweeks to Bomber stats to go alongside the new models, including a little more EHPs which would counteract the drone dps increase. That said I think drones should have a damage mod. Another solution if CCP don't want to touch bomber stats would be to have the Drone Damage mod only affect ships with an inbuilt drone bonus.
Damar Rocarion
Nasranite Watch
#343 - 2012-05-03 04:06:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Damar Rocarion
Jade Constantine wrote:
But perhaps CCP won't get the plexing mechanics right first time - so they need to be encouraged to keep working on it until it is right.


Like they got it right when we demonstrated the gallente and CSM-approved standings bug (Which caused you to make an internal memo about me & Bad Messenger to k.com) ?

Giving CCP's track record of absolute fail regarding FW and biased dev (can someone honestly say the FW talker was NOT biased?), it's going to be completely botched and left in place for couple of years. 0.0 lite, biggest blob wins and alarm clock ops.

Hans is not in enviable position here because of all his assurances he will make sure CCP gets it right and everyone can now see it is not going his way and naturally we crucify him over it while it's not really his fault. But CCP needs a scapegoat.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#344 - 2012-05-03 04:25:51 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Quick reminder to keep this thread civil. I wouldn't want to see valid feedback get deleted because it also contains insults and trolling, but it will happen - so take a breath before hitting that "post" button and make sure that you're saying all you want to say and nothing more. Also I would encourage those theorycrafting on FW scenarios to actually try it out on the server and see how it handles rather than kneejerk-responding to some patch notes - you might have fun! Bear


It's also called "effort" and some people just can't handle it and whine on the forums instead of trying it on SiSi first.
Hopefully these changes turn FW into something more then the currently going Plex for LP's whoring R'us 23/7.
Maz3r Rakum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#345 - 2012-05-03 04:37:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Maz3r Rakum
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
sYnc Vir wrote:


No, the point is losing space when asleep cause it can be done in 5 hours. There is no fun to be had with that. However should it take longer then its something we can live with.


I absolutely agree 100%, this was something I was very firm with the developers about. Cool


I can quote that for great justice, the CSM has been most helpful with discussing FW changes and bringing good points forward. We'll get started on a blog that explains most of the changes, expect it next week.



For the love of god rethink a total lockout of all stations.

The current proposed mechanic just encourages a huge blob "ganking" a system, to prevent an enemy that lives there from reshipping. Additionally it doesn't effect neutrals so it encourages current participants to just drop milita or use neutrals.

I'd even be in favor of locking opposing militas from militas stations and/or services (denying them from mission agents), but from all corporation stations is just silly.

Lets say one milita loses the vast majority of the systems. This could effectively kill one milita. While this might sound good for the "winning" side they might want to think, in the not so long term it would kill both sides as they have no one to put up a fight.

I suppose we could start shooting a monument somewhere if it will make you hear how no one really supports this.
Bayushi Tamago
Sect of the Crimson Eisa
#346 - 2012-05-03 04:38:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Bayushi Tamago
Short Story:
Revert the ship/item hangar and cargohold changes. They are complicating and lagging things and are less functional than what we are using.

Long Story:
- Active ship shouldn't disappear
- You now *have* to hold shift in order to move multiple items
- UI seems laggier than current TQ
- Filter are awesome, but I like the seperate spawning of containers since going between containers with the index thing is time consuming


Also, /drool for nemesis hull
Dutov Devlich
inFluX.
Good Sax
#347 - 2012-05-03 05:00:34 UTC
Will second the above that really need the old ships button back or as least some mods to the setup. don't mind that it's all in one but I need something that says what a ship is, if I look the inventory of my ships and there are 4 named (***), I basically have to make each one active to see what ship it is unless something in the cargo hold gives it away as to what ship it is. If it would do Ship type and then the ship name that would resolve that issue. can live with the initial load up time. it wasn't bad for me.
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#348 - 2012-05-03 05:27:20 UTC
radecz3k wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:

• Fueled Shield booster (Small/Medium/Large Ancillary Shield Booster), using Cap Boosters as charges



Since you have working shield booster for fuel make us happy, and rename it to "Covert cloak" and remove cloaky 24/7 afk campers from eve. I would say we need more nerf of covert cloak than shield boosters for fuel... This would remove advantage of people who arent next to pc over people who are really active.



Every god-damned time any new additions are announced, there comes along one of these puling little victims crying about this, in...

Every.
*******.
Thread.

Learn to secure your ******* space, or you ******* deserve to lose it.



Ni.
Maz3r Rakum
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#349 - 2012-05-03 05:40:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Maz3r Rakum
Lyrrashae wrote:
radecz3k wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:

• Fueled Shield booster (Small/Medium/Large Ancillary Shield Booster), using Cap Boosters as charges



Since you have working shield booster for fuel make us happy, and rename it to "Covert cloak" and remove cloaky 24/7 afk campers from eve. I would say we need more nerf of covert cloak than shield boosters for fuel... This would remove advantage of people who arent next to pc over people who are really active.



Every god-damned time any new additions are announced, there comes along one of these puling little victims crying about this, in...

Every.
*******.
Thread.

Learn to secure your ******* space, or you ******* deserve to lose it.





Cloaks are already powered by fuel. They are fueled by tears of nullbears like you (radecz3k). If someone is cloaked they can't hurt you. That is until they uncloak and gank you.
Smokie Dokey
Nothing Personal
#350 - 2012-05-03 05:52:34 UTC
So is there any way some one online can post some fancy shots of the new launchers and mods in action for those of us who are at work? I'm getting anxiouse just sitting here waiting to get home Sad
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#351 - 2012-05-03 05:55:17 UTC
Brzhk wrote:
Active shield tank is now immune to cap warfare... That is a huge minnie boost !


Because only Minmatar ships can spec' an active shield-tank.Roll

Ok, so far, we've got:

1) A whine about cloaking.
2) A somewhat more subtle whine about "NURV WINMATAR!!111!!!oneone!!"

That's two down, two more to go, namely:

1) NERTF TEH ZOMGOPDRAEK!!!111oneone!11
2) "Waaaah, I wants 100% safe hisec, becaue all even remotely PvP-oriented players are RL sociopaths!"

Haven't read the whole thread yet though, so I'm sure those'll come up in due course.

FFS...RollUgh

Ni.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#352 - 2012-05-03 05:57:52 UTC
Has something happened to the server?

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Oppon's Pull
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#353 - 2012-05-03 06:01:04 UTC
Long DT but they're probably hot-fixing the issues already raised so far. Cant wait to get back online and finish flipping this system.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#354 - 2012-05-03 06:04:40 UTC
Maz3r Rakum wrote:
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
sYnc Vir wrote:


No, the point is losing space when asleep cause it can be done in 5 hours. There is no fun to be had with that. However should it take longer then its something we can live with.


I absolutely agree 100%, this was something I was very firm with the developers about. Cool


I can quote that for great justice, the CSM has been most helpful with discussing FW changes and bringing good points forward. We'll get started on a blog that explains most of the changes, expect it next week.



For the love of god rethink a total lockout of all stations.

The current proposed mechanic just encourages a huge blob "ganking" a system, to prevent an enemy that lives there from reshipping. Additionally it doesn't effect neutrals so it encourages current participants to just drop milita or use neutrals.

I'd even be in favor of locking opposing militas from militas stations and/or services (denying them from mission agents), but from all corporation stations is just silly.

Lets say one milita loses the vast majority of the systems. This could effectively kill one milita. While this might sound good for the "winning" side they might want to think, in the not so long term it would kill both sides as they have no one to put up a fight.

I suppose we could start shooting a monument somewhere if it will make you hear how no one really supports this.


To put this as gently as I can, most people that do a lot of combat in game find your fear of not having a place to dock in hostile territory fairly amusing.

There are many reasons why blob warfare exists. Not being able to dock in your enemies territory is not one of them.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#355 - 2012-05-03 06:06:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
On a lighter note, I"ve spent the evening looking over the new Amarr V3'd ships and the new missile effects. While there do appear to be a few rough edges here and there with the latter, overall everything looks amazing.

Well done.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
X Gallentius
Black Eagle1
#356 - 2012-05-03 06:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: X Gallentius
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
Looking forward to the feedback.

1. The consensus among the FW community was denial of services but ability to dock was a good middle ground. There are so many b***sh** ways to get around denial of docking rights that it won't matter to the hard core players but will drive the casual players out of FW. Denial of services is enough of a PITA tbh.

2. There will be a double hit to income for the losing side. A) They will already lose access to the most lucrative FW agents, and B) they will be further penalized by the reduction in LP payout because they are losing. Denial of lucrative FW agents may be enough.

3. Proposed system upgrades won't be worth the expense. No station in low sec with manufacturing is ever used to capacity. Will "addition of one" factory slot include stations that currently don't have manufacturing? Why not put cynojammers on the table? It would give low sec players the ability to counter 0.0 supercap roflstomp blobs.

4. Be careful with excessive LP payouts for plexes. I foresee some guy with two competing alts farming all day in some back water system. Gallente Alt 1 contests Korasen (for example), and then Caldari Alt 2 decontests it.
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#357 - 2012-05-03 06:25:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Lyrrashae
Rara Yariza wrote:
Ranger 1 wrote:
Rara Yariza wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:


Without going into exhaustive detail:
1. Cannot dock in stations that are in systems controlled by an enemy
- Example: Minmatar cannot dock in stations in a FW system controlled by the Amarr/Caldari
- You also cannot use station services if you docked before system flipped
- Ninja Edit: This does not affect neutrals




Being unable to dock is a very poor mechanic, this isn't 0.0. If it isn't going to be changed then make it so players can't dock in the highsec stations of their opposing faction aswell. Only fair.


FW area's are war zones, thus subject to (in effect) Martial Law. It's not that difficult to understand.

It's not like you would not be able to stage a system or two away.


I understand it just fine and whatever rp reasons you like, it doesn't change the fact this is not a good thing. it slows down roaming gangs, promotes more blobs and changes facwar into a more grindfest orientated arena. Not to mention you can lose a system during your sleep cycle and come back to either being camped in or locked out of your ships. it's not a well thought through idea.


Remember when some clueless person awesome space-brosef said that they wanted FW to be like a "gateway" to sov-null?

And then they appeared to back off?

Congratulations, you've just been played.

Again.

One less reason to join FW, in any case, but we all know who CCP is really making this game for, at the expense of everyone else. Soon, not Soon(TM), our only options will be "become a sov-dullsec lemming or GTFO." I give it another year at most. Sandbox, my arse!

Ni.
Andreus Ixiris
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#358 - 2012-05-03 06:45:00 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
1. The consensus among the FW community was denial of services but ability to dock was a good middle ground. There are so many b***sh** ways to get around denial of docking rights that it won't matter to the hard core players but will drive the casual players out of FW. Denial of services is enough of a PITA tbh.


Precisely. Unless CCP can provide some sort of foolproof way of preventing players from gaming the system and getting access to docking rights anyway, this is just going to drive casual players away. I do like the idea of denied access to stations, but it has to work consistently, or it won't work at all.

X Gallentius wrote:
2. There will be a double hit to income for the losing side. A) They will already lose access to the most lucrative FW agents, and B) they will be further penalized by the reduction in LP payout because they are losing. Denial of lucrative FW agents may be enough.


I don't know. It might serve as an incentive for the mission runners to actually get out there and do something to protect their ISK faucet. Not likely though, I guess.

X Gallentius wrote:
3. Proposed system upgrades won't be worth the expense. No station in low sec with manufacturing is ever used to capacity. Will "addition of one" factory slot include stations that currently don't have manufacturing? Why not put cynojammers on the table? It would give low sec players the ability to counter 0.0 supercap roflstomp blobs.


Something I was worried about is this: what happens if a station's manufacturing slots were full to capacity, and then suddenly a system was lost - what happens to my build job if it's in the extra manufacturing slot that gets axed due to my faction's inability to defend that system?

You know what would give a lot of people an incentive to capture systems for their faction? Research slots. ME slots. PE slots. Copy slots. Invention slots. Research slots out the wazoo. If we got +1 of those for every system we captured, you'd see people flocking to FW space.

As for cynojammers, they were on the table, I think.

Andreus Ixiris > A Civire without a chin is barely a Civire at all.

Pieter Tuulinen > He'd be Civirely disadvantaged, Andreus.

Andreus Ixiris > ...

Andreus Ixiris > This is why we're at war.
Lyrrashae
Hellstar Towing and Recovery
#359 - 2012-05-03 06:49:38 UTC
Andreus Ixiris wrote:
Hey, a question - have you changed the Drake model so it doesn't have the fake launchers anymore?



Yes, please do this.

I've always so loved the long-lean-and-low-slung majesty of the Drake, but the model is getting a touch dated. Time for a mild re-vamp, at least.

(Hint: Oversized engines + Black/red skin, naow!)

Ni.
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#360 - 2012-05-03 06:51:25 UTC
X Gallentius wrote:
CCP RubberBAND wrote:
Looking forward to the feedback.

1. The consensus among the FW community was denial of services but ability to dock was a good middle ground. There are so many b***sh** ways to get around denial of docking rights that it won't matter to the hard core players but will drive the casual players out of FW. Denial of services is enough of a PITA tbh.


WILL YOU SHUT UP, everyone at fanfest liked the changed we helped craft them, and we cared enough to go to iceland to talk to the devs about FW. we care about it a lot too. And all of these changes were put past the community in person, and now like 24 people are angry about it, while everyone else is silent because they already knew was coming sorry if you feel late to the boat. Fun times ahead for FW! it will gain 1000's of members and we won't mind losing you.

Some of us have been asking for these changes for 3 years, stop trying to stop the change we've all been waiting for ! Factiona warfare is dead! it has been dead, it's not like this can make it any worse.

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg