Test Server Feedback

@Punkturis and friends: I noticed that the "view" settings for your new (pretty) inventory UI are global. Would it be possible to make the settings so that specific tree items can be set to their own viewing mode?

IE, I personally prefer list mode for my items inventory, but large-icon mode for my ship hangar. Currently if I set the items tab to list, the hangar is also set to list, etc.

Nice job on the new UI overall! It's still slowing me down ATM but I'm sure as I get accustomed to clicking in the right places rather than sitting there going :hurrrrwhattt?: it will prove more efficient than the old system.

Someone from SiSi just said you have to capture numerous systems in a group before they all lock you out from docking. Is that true? Can someone clarify? Sounds interesting.

I think the only major things that really need to be discussed involve the tanking mods.
The drone mod simply needs to be better (less fitting, more bonus), and the CPU rig needs to be balanced so we don't have people getting fits that shouldn't be possible (ie: cov-ops titans).

ARMOR ADAPTIVE HARDENER
Simply put, it needs to be better. For starters, this module is only effective in small fights where the damage types are more concentrated as opposed to fleet fights. For this reason, these are never going to go on Capitals over a nice EANM.

With that said, the module needs to be more effective. The reason being is that this is a module that would act as your tertiary tank mod, for ships that would normally be plugging a small hole (ie: EM on T2 Gallente). It needs to be better because right now it's better to take your chances with a stacked EANM. The problem is that the adaptive module takes too long to react.

It has a 10 second cycle time and adjusts 1% into the respective spots per cycle.
It takes far too much time it takes to adjust to a level that would exceed that of a stacked EANM or simply another active specific hardener.

For starters, I would give the module significantly more HP for overloading. It overheats WAY too fast, and right now it's so weak that it NEEDS to be overloaded. Next, I would say at least double the rate it adapts. Either by percentage OR by reducing the cycle time. The mod is simply too weak at the moment to be taken seriously, as it's pretty much useless on T1 ships.

ANCILLARY SHIELD BOOSTERS
I'm hoping these are unfinished...

The first glaring problem is the reload time, and there are a couple reasons why.
I know why you've picked 60 seconds. It makes sense that since the maximum you can squeeze in is 6 tiny (navy) charges, you would make the reload time a combined amount (6 x 10) of a normal injector. the problem with this method is that, in fights where active tanking is useful, you cap out WAY too fast, and fights generally don't last much longer than 2 minutes or so. That is a HUGE amount of time where you can't boost.

That brings us to the second issue with the reload time. This has less to do with the module, but more to do with the reload mechanic. You can't do anything during the 60 seconds. Once your module starts to reload you can't use your ships cap in the meantime. This is a big no-no as far as I'm concerned, and for obvious reasons will always* result in the ship exploding long before it finishes reloading and starts to tank again.

The next issue is the cap charges themselves. Right now there is no reason to use the larger cap charges unless you LIKE to reload for 60 seconds. The cap doesn't overflow into the capacitor, so for using something like 800s (2 or 3 navy), you need to reload after a few seconds and have effectively burned through 800 cap PER CYCLE. That's an expensive shield booster. If boosting with larger charges would overflow into the capacitor & we can keep boosting, using ships cap, during the reload THEN there would be a reason to use them. Right now, small charges are ahead by a mile and larger ones are useless.

Lastly, I was under the impression that these things would just be drinking fuel from your cargo and not need to be reloaded after a few cycles like they do now. The balancing factor being that they would drink cap way faster (which they do) than the traditional types.

before you make to much feedback take this into consideration *even though I can't test it >.<*

With the shield booster, you could fit one normal shield booster, and one of these new shield charges. I think that was the idea behind the reload time. it's not suppose to be a solo shield rep.

I'm allready planning a sick tank with my command ship once I can get in. With active and this new kind of shield tanking in combination with each other. Here what I was thinking.

Once your cap is out and your shield rep is dead. you turn off your reps. Then when your in low armor you cycle the shield charge, boosting you up past peak recharge and turn back on your normal shield rep overheated.


also with the armor mod, I will hold off judgement until the target breaker module is in. Since that mod might be the thing to finally break up the blob in eve online.

What are you taking about? my conversation with hilmar was asking where FW was when it's release date had been pushed back a year. And talking about how it will get supported and patched by a small team after release until the system was polished. I am on your side you know.

we shouldn't try to cancel the change until it's tested, what so hard for you to understand about that?

edit: one more thing.

" Most in faction war have always been against this no docking rule. It has come up allot and it gets shot down again and again. "

Yeah because only 10% of FW original population are even left. WE all left , or became inactive. The only people left must really like the current system to still be defending it, but you can't argue with the fact that FW has lost it's popularity. In a way I guess ccp should of expected this. By abandoning the feature a lot of players left *70-80% of us* and the only ones left now see it as thier game. And obviously everyone left doesn't like the changes. That doesn't make the changes bad.

LETS TEST IT 1ST.

How about I just un-subscribe my accounts?

FW people live in low sec!

wake up guys ... locking systems is making **** quite problematic for other side because u get push into highsec. Nobody is interested in some sort of nullsec sov hybrid.

What is great on current state is that u can live in low sec and fight in low sec. I still support any occupancy changes, if they will allow me to revert them with some effort. This change is currently advocating overblobing and is promoting more numerous parties (currently Minnie and Gals).

Economical motivation means nothing if ocupants will overblob u and will have economical bonuses from their lp stores.

Also most of FW pilots are in it for PVP (scale not matter in this case). And you are sugesting major regulating mechanism will be some vague LP bonus. Sorry it is very strongly pointing to the fact that the changes are just quick pile of ideas (mostly from nullbears) and there is no conception for lowsec on table.

U can hit me for me hitting Hans ... but honestly ingame reponse i have from lowsec dwellers is quite positive to my arguments.

BTW when I was first time pointing to facts about strong influence of nullbears (Mittani) to FW people were laughing ... here we go ....

Please quit over a bug on SiSi, please, so I can laugh.

Fixed it for you since you were trying to put words in my mouth.

I don't think everyone in faction war should give up on hans not by a long shot.

2 step what you are talking about is really the age old problem for faction war. Are we to give lp increases for losing? On the other hand if all the rewards go to to the winners than new people will just join the winning team - who is going to join the lower paying militia?

This is why this is a somewhat delicate matter unlike with player owned null sec alliances. Sure you can give the winner everything in that case.

Some things have been brought up in the past on this:

1) have the militias all have valuable items that are only in their lp store. So for example if amarr plates weren't useless (and more or less the same as the gallente ones) then as the amarr numbers dwindled those would rise in value as would the amarr lp.

2) The data core idea is sort of the same idea as this

But the problem with these things are they are mostly limited to pve activities. You can just use a pve alt to get these lp. Moreover to the extent you give lp for pvp kills and that lp reaches a very high value then you will just have people killing their own alts.

Anyway there is allot that can be said on this topic. But the bottom line is the consequences in faction war can't be too direct and severe. There can be consequences and they can be really nice just not too direct and severe.

Indirect consequences, I think, would be awesome. For example I always like the idea that every month a system is owned by one faction there is say a one peercent chance an station owned by a corp affiated with the sov owners enemy will be sold to one friendly with the sov owner.


Anyway Hans has a good handle on this I trust his judgment here. I am just not sure if ccp will listen to him.