These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 1.1 Sisi features

First post First post First post
Author
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#461 - 2012-06-13 08:26:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Khanh'rhh
Jade Constantine wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Also I wish to interject that large alliances beating up on small alliances is fun. While a few wet blankets may complain that all the fun is at their expense, the fun the large alliances have easily counteracts the quiet sobbing of the small minority.


Not nearly as fun as large alliances getting beaten up by small alliances and their heroic allies - now that really is FUN, and frankly the large alliances create a far more impressive stream of tears.

You know, this is the root of your issue here.

You seem to think all the people who joined your mutual war are "heroic allies" - when in reality they're just random scrubs who want 9000 players to be flashy red to them.

This, right here, is why the system as it stands is completely broken.

e:
Quote:
I've got 36 allied corps and alliances ready to go. If CCP don't nerf the alliance system by this time next year it'd be 300.

You guys are the ones who want to stop my space-friends from being part of the war.

and again.

They aren't your friends. Some will be enemies of GSF wanting a free wardec, others will just want to shoot anyone. Most of your allies are on every war possible.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#462 - 2012-06-13 08:35:21 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Stensson
Amdor Renevat wrote:
So the skill makes your module cycle faster which in turn makes it shift resistance to block incoming damage more frequently.

It sounds like you are trying to compare the resist % vs. the cap cost to determine effectiveness of the module, but in this case wouldn't you have to compare the incoming damage reduction vs. cap cost to get a true gauge of the effectiveness?

Depending on the amount of incoming damage the higher cap cost could actually end up being more efficient then the slower cap burn with slower resist change. The efficiency of this module will only be seen when engaging foes with multiple damage types while fighting a homogeneous opponent isn't the most effective use. Then again you don't pick this module because you know what you're going against, you pick it because you want the advantage of having on the fly resist changes while using fewer slots to cover the resist holes. The added cap cost is basically the same as running a Neut on someone who's already capped out. You're not getting maximum return on each cycle of your neut but the cap cost is worth the benefit you receive.


It is a positive; the 5 second cycle makes the mod much more useful, the cap cost perhaps needs to be adjusted though, whether that is through base stat mod or through another skill I am unsure.

I like the neut analogy, it’s not the same but perhaps it should be noted that running the existing mod is almost the same as being under small neut pressure and that training the new skill to level 5 will take it’s cap level close to the level of a medium neut. On a mod that is already really only useful to ships that are having prolonged engagements i.e. massive buffer or active tank this to me restricts the mod to battleship level and up ships (perhaps T3).

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson
ISD Stensson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#463 - 2012-06-13 08:42:38 UTC
Please keep in mind rules about pyramid quoting, personal attacks, trolling, and off-topic. This kind of messages is prohibited on our forums.

[b]ISD Stensson Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department[/b]

Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#464 - 2012-06-13 09:07:36 UTC
Spyker Slater wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).


This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. Sad

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson


All skills that give a negative duration bonus to an active module have the side effect that they use more cap, this isn't new like you suggest.

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#465 - 2012-06-13 09:15:40 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Spyker Slater wrote:
CCP SoniClover wrote:
No, this WILL increase the consumption on the whole. The cap need is 42, meaning you will now use 84 every 10 second (assuming skill at level 5).


This must be the only skill in eve that will have a negative effect. This is not good. I can train any other skill, even if I never use it, it will still be something positive. Sad

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson


All skills that give a negative duration bonus to an active module have the side effect that they use more cap, this isn't new like you suggest.



Yep - there a quite a few other skills that reduce duration that are actually better left at the lowest level possible.

Another interesting one is Tactical Shield Manipulation - If you are an armor tanker you get more out of your tank by allowing "bleed" from low shields.
Alticus C Bear
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#466 - 2012-06-13 09:42:18 UTC
I do not dispute the reduced cycle time and cap usage increase trade off as a skill.

Look at repair systems, total reduction in repair duration of 25% this has an associated cap cost but it is useful.

If a mod requires a 50% reduction in cycle time then this doubles the cap cost. This suggests there is an issue with the original cycle time and cap cost. I support the skill but would like to see the cap cost adjusted to a sort of half-way house where the mod ultimately uses less cap than it does now but with a higher cap cost than the existing amount at level 5 due to the increased power of the mod. This mod at level five is broken for frigates and probably cruisers, you could perhaps use it on something like a cap boosting repping myrm, and anything battleship and above.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#467 - 2012-06-13 09:43:04 UTC
Xorv wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Five-0

• Rollback of lowering the reward for vanguard sites by 10%


I hope that's only for Low and Null sec Incursions. CCP should be aware that High Sec Incursions represent a serious flaw in EVE's risk vs reward balance and as such should be at the receiving end of further nerfs not rollbacks on old ones.



Eve doesnt have risk vs reward balance. It was killed when high-sec level 4s were introduced and has been periodically shat on from a height ever since.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#468 - 2012-06-13 09:44:08 UTC
Alticus C Bear wrote:
I do not dispute the reduced cycle time and cap usage increase trade off as a skill.

Look at repair systems, total reduction in repair duration of 25% this has an associated cap cost but it is useful.

If a mod requires a 50% reduction in cycle time then this doubles the cap cost. This suggests there is an issue with the original cycle time and cap cost. I support the skill but would like to see the cap cost adjusted to a sort of half-way house where the mod ultimately uses less cap than it does now but with a higher cap cost than the existing amount at level 5 due to the increased power of the mod. This mod at level five is broken for frigates and probably cruisers, you could perhaps use it on something like a cap boosting repping myrm, and anything battleship and above.



that's a pretty reasonable argument.
Xander Blackwell
Perkone
Caldari State
#469 - 2012-06-13 09:58:59 UTC
I do not agree with the removal of the wardec mechanics.... thats pretty much what it is. You are making INEFFECTIVE the new stuff due to a bug (the **** of goons). You could have had a set cap on number of allies or anything else. But I feel that removing the mechanic is a bit harsh. Doesnt effect me as I live in null and my alt is NPC for hauling... but I hate to see care bear space made safer.

Please fix this issue without removing the mechanic.
Nomistrav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#470 - 2012-06-13 10:23:01 UTC
Yanno, I didn't know nations had to pay the United Nations in order to participate in wars. Clearly I have been mistaken and this is all influenced by real world example. Read the first few pages of this thread and the only thing I got out of it was this:

A handful of people giving feedback about the new changes to the war-dec system.

Goonswarm members making a few underhanded remarks that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion, as seen here: "Nice to see that you remain delusional enough to think we'd pay you 5b isk per ally to end a war though."

CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).

I'm not entirely sure how any of this is beneficial, and just from reading I'm starting to agree that these changes seem to be geared toward the larger alliances. Which, makes sense because if you have hundreds/thousands of people all clamoring about the same non-sense, it's only expected that they have the majority vote when it comes to a particular issue at hand. If five people say Denny's, and one person says Waffle House, where the hell are we going to wind up..?

I'm not taking sides. I will say that this -does- seem a bit rushed and that these changes haven't even been out for more than three weeks and we're already changing ****? Took years to figure out how to make Gallente usable but all of a sudden we care enough to make "fixes" three weeks in?

Just saying..

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko
#471 - 2012-06-13 10:23:33 UTC
CCP Punkturis or anyone else from Super Friends, may you pretty please give the info update about Micro Jump Drive?

Thanks, and hope for reply
CCP Paradox
#472 - 2012-06-13 10:26:37 UTC
Paul, we have posted in your thread you created! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119503

CCP Paradox | EVE QA | Team Phenomenon

Space Magician

Paul Clancy
Korpu no Byakko
#473 - 2012-06-13 10:32:38 UTC
CCP Paradox wrote:
Paul, we have posted in your thread you created! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=119503


oh, really. Sincerely thanks!
LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#474 - 2012-06-13 10:42:43 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Stensson
Brunaburh wrote:
you are correct - it's a 24 hour notice to start a war, right? So it takes 24 hours.

However, the argument you are trying to make is answered by "in nullsec" - because CONCORD.


The argument I AM making is that the diplomatic flexibility and tools available to nullsec entities to handle a hostile situation is severly restricted in highsec because of the wardec mechanic. War is unfair. Fine. But the artificial caps on how to handle a war situation in highsec means that the ally system is a really good addition to the game. Sure, unlimited allies are dumb. But just one free ally is equally moronic, given the fragmented nature of highsec organisation. CCP just have to nerf the ally system enough to make Mercs a viable solution, which is achieved when QUALITY instead of numbers becomes important. That threshold is reached with a parity situation.

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson
Nomistrav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#475 - 2012-06-13 10:47:28 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Stensson
LtCol Laurentius wrote:
The argument I AM making is that the diplomatic flexibility and tools available to nullsec entities to handle a hostile situation is severly restricted in highsec because of the wardec mechanic. War is unfair. Fine. But the artificial caps on how to handle a war situation in highsec means that the ally system is a really good addition to the game. Sure, unlimited allies are dumb. But just one free ally is equally moronic, given the fragmented nature of highsec organisation. CCP just have to nerf the ally system enough to make Mercs a viable solution, which is achieved when QUALITY instead of numbers becomes important. That threshold is reached with a parity situation.


So make allies / mercenaries two separate entities when it comes to wars... Because.. They are..

Set a cap on how many allies you can have, but make mercenaries unlimited; and paid accordingly based on the standards of the war (members of aggressors/defenders and their allies) and based on how many mercenaries are participating..

Edit: Pyramid quoting removed - ISD Stensson

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

Zag Dakka
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#476 - 2012-06-13 10:55:52 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...



Your actions indicate otherwise and as your CEO says it is actions that count not words...

Time for disclosure about how many Devs are in which major Alliances - not names just a headcount because as it stands there is a growing credibility gap.

Zag
CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#477 - 2012-06-13 11:01:48 UTC
Nomistrav wrote:

CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).


Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping Big smile

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

CCP Goliath
C C P
C C P Alliance
#478 - 2012-06-13 11:04:49 UTC
Zag Dakka wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...



Your actions indicate otherwise and as your CEO says it is actions that count not words...

Time for disclosure about how many Devs are in which major Alliances - not names just a headcount because as it stands there is a growing credibility gap.

Zag


[email protected]

If you think there's a fairness issue, or some shady behaviour, or just want to request the above, these guys will check it out. I don't want this post replied to and I will delete any following discussion of IA or where developers play EVE. Back on topic.

CCP Goliath | QA Director | EVE Illuminati | @CCP_Goliath

Nomistrav
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#479 - 2012-06-13 11:07:31 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Nomistrav wrote:

CCP adamantly defending their views and then suddenly dropping out of the discussion except to round up conspiracy theory posts and remove them (Save for Punkturis, who is cool enough not to get involved).


Sorry for going for a couple of beers then sleeping Big smile


Not really an issue; just you guys never addressed the issues that were still at hand =P

Dev thoughts on making allies/mercenaries two separate entities?

"As long as space endures,

as long as sentient beings exist,

until then, may I too remain

and dispel the miseries of the world."

~ Vremaja Idama

LtCol Laurentius
The Imperial Sardaukar
#480 - 2012-06-13 11:17:17 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
Zag Dakka wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Guys, before this goes on any further, kindly take off the hats and get real - we do not develop with one corp or alliance in mind...



Your actions indicate otherwise and as your CEO says it is actions that count not words...

Time for disclosure about how many Devs are in which major Alliances - not names just a headcount because as it stands there is a growing credibility gap.

Zag


[email protected]

If you think there's a fairness issue, or some shady behaviour, or just want to request the above, these guys will check it out. I don't want this post replied to and I will delete any following discussion of IA or where developers play EVE. Back on topic.


Listen Golitah, forget the conspiracy theorists. It is an unfortunate but not unexpected byproduct of the gameworld you have created. In a game where polittics means what it does in EVE, its is unavoidable that such accusations will arise with every descision you make. So just deal with it, HTFU and ignore them.

I'd be much more interessted in som serious DEV communication on the real issues. Sure, I understand you want to fix the merc marketplace, and I support that. But the proposed solution seems to treat a bleeding with an amputation.