These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

! DEPRECATED -- Winter Expansion: Crucible SUMMARY (Updated 11/9)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#221 - 2011-11-08 11:12:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
Not sure you have this yet.

Insurance payouts on ships killed by CONCORD has been reduced to zero on the test server.

Source

This will essentially make suicide ganking a much more expensive activity.

I saw this coming. Like, over a week ago. I did. I have proof.(boo-yah!)

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Numance
feythabolis esoteria paragon period basis markets
#222 - 2011-11-08 12:02:41 UTC
Nice thread

Any new skill incoming to have "something" to train ?
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#223 - 2011-11-08 12:33:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Iam Widdershins
Numance wrote:
Nice thread

Any new skill incoming to have "something" to train ?

Yes.

  1. If you are a Dreadnought pilot, you be REQUIRED to have Tactical Weapon Reconfiguration V in order to use Siege Module II (20 percent increased damage output over post-patch T1 module, which is already boosted over the current version). If you don't have this, you will be a lowly scrub in every Dread fleet until you do. And there will be a lot more Dread fleets.

  2. If you are a bigtime Triage pilot, Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration V will give you some benefits with Triage Module II over the T1 version.

  3. If you want to fly the new ships, Battlecruisers V and T2 large weapons are in order.

  4. If you enjoy flying Destroyers, Destroyers V would be good as they will be getting some pretty serious boosts.

  5. Micro Auxiliary Power Core II's give another reason to train Energy Management V, aside from the obviously ever-important capacitor amount (this skill has been oft-neglected since the prerequisites for Thermodynamics were nerfed).

  6. Bigtime Heavy Interdictor pilots can train Graviton Physics V for Warp Disruption Field Generators, with 20 percent increased range.

  7. Anyone interested in deploying Customs Offices will need to train Industry V.

  8. Astrometrics V will let you use T2 probe launchers, which get the same bonuses as Sisters but are harder to fit.

  9. Salvaging pilots can train Science V for T2 tractor beams, which are 20 percent more manly. (If you are a Rorqual pilot, you need to train Graviton Physics V for the capital version; fortunately this crosses over into Heavy Interdictor territory).

  10. Drone Navigation and Combat Drone Operation, when trained to V, will enable T2 Omnidirectional Tracking Links and Drone Link Augmentors, respectively.

  11. Dramiel pilots will want to train for something else, lol.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Mr LaForge
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#224 - 2011-11-08 12:45:54 UTC
A fitting name to the expansion.

Stuff Goes here
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#225 - 2011-11-08 13:18:48 UTC
I think the question was will there be any new skill books and the answer is so far no.

You also forgot to mention BC to V for the new battlecruisers along with weapon type specialization large to V as well to get the most gank out of those pranks.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#226 - 2011-11-08 13:52:03 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
I think the question was will there be any new skill books and the answer is so far no.

You also forgot to mention BC to V for the new battlecruisers along with weapon type specialization large to V as well to get the most gank out of those pranks.

Read #2.

And I don't think Specialization V of any size is economical unless you have virtually everything else maxed out.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Numance
feythabolis esoteria paragon period basis markets
#227 - 2011-11-08 15:37:54 UTC
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Numance wrote:
Nice thread

Any new skill incoming to have "something" to train ?

Yes.

  1. If you are a Dreadnought pilot, you be REQUIRED to have Tactical Weapon Reconfiguration V in order to use Siege Module II (20 percent increased damage output over post-patch T1 module, which is already boosted over the current version). If you don't have this, you will be a lowly scrub in every Dread fleet until you do. And there will be a lot more Dread fleets.

  2. If you are a bigtime Triage pilot, Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration V will give you some benefits with Triage Module II over the T1 version.

  3. If you want to fly the new ships, Battlecruisers V and T2 large weapons are in order.

  4. If you enjoy flying Destroyers, Destroyers V would be good as they will be getting some pretty serious boosts.

  5. Micro Auxiliary Power Core II's give another reason to train Energy Management V, aside from the obviously ever-important capacitor amount (this skill has been oft-neglected since the prerequisites for Thermodynamics were nerfed).

  6. Bigtime Heavy Interdictor pilots can train Graviton Physics V for Warp Disruption Field Generators, with 20 percent increased range.

  7. Anyone interested in deploying Customs Offices will need to train Industry V.

  8. Astrometrics V will let you use T2 probe launchers, which get the same bonuses as Sisters but are harder to fit.

  9. Salvaging pilots can train Science V for T2 tractor beams, which are 20 percent more manly. (If you are a Rorqual pilot, you need to train Graviton Physics V for the capital version; fortunately this crosses over into Heavy Interdictor territory).

  10. Drone Navigation and Combat Drone Operation, when trained to V, will enable T2 Omnidirectional Tracking Links and Drone Link Augmentors, respectively.

  11. Dramiel pilots will want to train for something else, lol.

nice thread and nice answer :) thanks
Digital Messiah
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#228 - 2011-11-08 15:45:08 UTC
I sense a disturbance in the force. It is as if a million voices cried out, and then all re-subbed to eve online.

Something clever
Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
#229 - 2011-11-08 16:17:08 UTC
POS pellets wil be nice.....

The "grind" should be reduced while the "drama" should be increased. To wit, the changes to PI will create a significant new source of passive income for corps and alliances and hopefully give alliances a reason (again) to want to hold space while pos-pellets will reduce the grind of keeping JB networks running.

Personally, I would like to see JB networks become a lot less expensive because it will make fleets more mobile (good) and region wide control easier, which will encourage alliances to hold space. It would be nice if fuel pellets could be partially made from materials mined from planets so the grind is reduced even more.... this is good because holding space means that other alliances will need to take space.... that's good for drama as the attackers need to cut logistic lines in order to make space taking possible and defenders need to defend their supply lines in order to keep fighting.

The biggest failing of eve-online is NPC space in 0.0. This allows alliances to "fall-back fall-back fall-back" instead of "fight, fight, fight" and (if they lose) regrouping, and invading again. Low-sec should be the fall-back plan for beaten alliances.. it should be a "shame" that you live in low-sec if you have 0.0 ambitions. NPC space in 0.0 creates a static element in the game that makes it possible to exploit 0.0 resources without the need to attack/defend or the risk of losing anything.

That's bad. There should be no NPC stations in 0.0. If you want to call yourself a 0.0 alliance then you should have to earn that right by taking space. End of discussion. There should be no noobs in this game who can say, "look, mom, I live in 0.0 and kill dozens of million isk rats every day even though I have no skills, no friends, no plan and if someone comes I just dock up or move out because I don't care."

No more... no more.

This game needs more isk sinks. One only needs to look at the inflation on the market in order to understand that there is too much isk being generated and not enough being destroyed. Everyone and their dog can fly capital ships or even super-caps and with the soon-to-be-introduced super-cap nerf, there will be more titans in EVE than you can shake a stick at.....

There was a time... that people kept lists of all known titans....... these ships need to be out of reach of most alliances and pilots...... putting a toon in a titan shouldn't be a matter of course.... and losing one shouldn't be something you can replace in a week or two. (or less)

CCP has lost control of its economy. In a faucet-and-sink economy one needs to balance currency generation with currency destruction in order to keep inflation in check. The simple fact is that EVE has become soft. EVERYONE can get ahead.... everyone can be a super-hero.... everyone can fly the most expensive ships..... high-sec mission running routinely puts pilots in faction battleships... getting killed is fairly meaningless because the time investment of replacing said faction-battleship is minimal and 0.0 alliances routinely replace all ships lost during combat operations, even if those losses run into the billions... it's nothing.

Where is the risk?


T-
Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#230 - 2011-11-08 17:33:44 UTC
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=326619#post326619
CCP Greyscale

Quote:
Changes:

* We're going to kick the build time down to 5 minutes and see where that gets us to.
* We're going to allow component assembly arrays to build fuel blocks too because why not.
* We're going to kick the granularity up by a factor of ten and re-implement ~15%/~25% fuel use bonuses for faction towers (and remove the faction-tower-specific bay size increases at the same time).
* CORRECTION: offline timers are not changed, that's still instantaneous; sorry for any confusion, I'm going to get the blog updated in a bit.

WRT the faction tower fuel use, we were hoping that what we were being told by various large-scale fuel operators that maintaining the high refuel interval was the main benefit for most people, as all other things being equal a 1/2/4 scheme is easier to work with than a 10/20/40 one. Obviously we didn't talk to enough small-scale users for whom the use bonus is a bigger deal; this feedback thread has established that this is still a big deal, so we're dropping to our first fallback position and doing 10/20/40 instead.

Things we're not considering:

* Upping cycle times. It breaks reactors etc, and it makes the system harder for players to wrangle. We'd like to move away from designs that require you to memorize data tables to use them properly.
* Making the handover (or anything else to do with this change) more complex/more automated. If for example we determined that we couldn't do this without some form of upgrade script, we'd have cut the feature, because it increases the workload and the risk of this change by a factor of two or three, and at that level we can't justify committing to it. This goes for putting fuel into towers, it goes for running two fuel types at once (which would require major code changes) and so on.

Other things:

* You'll be able to reprocess fuel blocks in the normal way, getting back all the materials etc.
* Currently they're configured to be researchable, with fairly short durations. I'm seeing some questions about this here - is there a strong reason why these need to be unresearchable? I don't have an industry designer on hand right now or I'd ask them :)
* We'll keep an eye on the ice use situation and make further changes there if needed
* WRT the changes to robotics use, assuming large towers are the primary use case then going the other way would kick global consumption up by a factor of 3-4, which would make them a gigantic production bottleneck. Reducing the demand on small/medium towers a little is believed to be a better option than significantly driving up the running costs of all non-small towers everywhere.
* The handover isn't doing anything magic - it'll use old fuel before the switchover and new fuel afterwards. We're saying "half-and-half" because we're recommending you all put a mix of old and new fuel in your towers while the switch is happening, so it has old fuel available before the switch downtime and new fuel available after the downtime.
* WRT talking to players earlier, we have to strike a very careful balance between getting feedback early and not getting people's hopes up. Ideally we'd get input from everyone as soon as we start design work, but our experience has been that bringing very vague designs to the community, and/or pitching designs that subsequently get cut due to being infeasible, creates more disruption than holding back until we're sure something is actually going to work. We do of course talk to subject-matter specialists (ie, people who play that area of the game regularly) within CCP, and the CSM, in the early stages of the design.


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=326872#post326872
- Talks about the 5% base waste on the BPO to create fuel pellets

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=327211#post327211
- Talks about why 10/20/40

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=327973#post327973
CCP Greyscale

Quote:
Changes that I've just checked in for testing:

* Build time now 5 minutes
* Can build blocks in component assembly arrays
* Removed capacity bonus from faction towers
* Upped batch size to 40 and dropped volume to 5m3
* Increased fuel use in normal towers to 40/20/10
* Increased fuel use in tier 1 towers to 36/18/9 and tier 2 towers to 32/16/8
* Sov bonus should kick in for all towers, it will be rounding up though so keep that in mind with your calcs
Razin
The Scope
#231 - 2011-11-08 17:56:07 UTC
Here's something regarding the star-gate orientation due to new nebulae aided spatial awareness:

CCP Navigator wrote:
Solhild wrote:
Hungry Eyes wrote:
the art department can take care of the nebs. devs can work on gallente.

1. gates should be rotated to fire in the direction of the nebula. to hell with people's BM's. if you do this, at least everyone is starting off at the same level. you cant let a minor inconvenience totally destroy the immersion. you've worked hard on this.


Good post. I like the idea that the gate shoots you toward the destination gate. I also agree that the potential is excellent if done right.


Ok, this has actually now been completed internally and is being tested as I write this to you. This change is unlikely to be in the next Singularity build but it will go on the following build allowing you plenty of testing time before the Winter expansion is released.

This change truly adds a more graceful transition in terms of immersion and we really hope you enjoy it Smile
Reilly Duvolle
Hydra Squadron
#232 - 2011-11-08 18:22:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Reilly Duvolle
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
Just noticed this on SISI. When selecting "show info" on items and select the "variation" tab, we have a new "compare" button at the bottom. Selecting this allows you to compare the stats selectively between alle metas of a certain item. Very nice.

Hahahaha...

oh dear.

Look at the Show Info window on TQ, mate.


:facepalm: cant belive I have missed this.


Oh well, in other news, if you click "jump" while out of jumprange of a gate, the ship will start approaching and jump. And, if you set your autopilot to say a specific station in another system, the autopilot will warp to station in destination system and dock up the ship.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#233 - 2011-11-08 19:50:42 UTC
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
Reilly Duvolle wrote:
Just noticed this on SISI. When selecting "show info" on items and select the "variation" tab, we have a new "compare" button at the bottom. Selecting this allows you to compare the stats selectively between alle metas of a certain item. Very nice.

Hahahaha...

oh dear.

Look at the Show Info window on TQ, mate.


:facepalm: cant belive I have missed this.


Oh well, in other news, if you click "jump" while out of jumprange of a gate, the ship will start approaching and jump. And, if you set your autopilot to say a specific station in another system, the autopilot will warp to station in destination system and dock up the ship.

Sweet! I've been hoping they'd do something about this for ages, but never really thought to ask for it. I am impressed that they're doing stuff like this. All the changes you guys just listed are awesome!

And some of the people in that fuel thread are hilariously dumb, that's a fun read.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Keras Authion
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#234 - 2011-11-08 21:07:22 UTC
New on Sisi: Misses that actually miss. Picture.

This post was rated "C" for capsuleer.
Caldain Morrow
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#235 - 2011-11-08 21:15:43 UTC
Keras Authion wrote:
New on Sisi: Misses that actually miss. Picture.


oh i hope so!
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#236 - 2011-11-08 22:43:10 UTC
Keras Authion wrote:
New on Sisi: Misses that actually miss. Picture.

Hells yeah!

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#237 - 2011-11-08 22:45:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Uppsy Daisy
Further hybrid balancing changes:

Hybrid turret reload time will be 5 seconds.
Hybrid ammo will be 50% smaller (and turret capacity reduced to keep same number of charges)
Blaster damage +5% (except XL turrets)
Railgun tracking +5% (except XL turrets)
Hail falloff penalty will be 25%, not 0%.

This is in addition to previous changes.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29692&find=unread
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#238 - 2011-11-08 22:51:03 UTC
Uppsy Daisy wrote:
Further hybrid balancing changes:

Hybrid turret reload time will be 5 seconds.
Hybrid ammo will be 50% smaller (and turret capacity reduced to keep same number of charges)
Blaster damage +5% (except XL turrets)
Railgun tracking +5% (except XL turrets)
Hail falloff penalty will be 25%, not 0%.

This is in addition to previous changes.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29692&find=unread

Reload time: Yeah!
Blaster damage: Yeah!
Railgun tracking: That's great!
Hail falloff penalty: NO! NooOOoOoO!

Why would you nerf Hail's falloff at all? It is completely out of line with Conflagration and Void otherwise. I mean, heck, under some circumstances Void has BETTER range than Antimatter.

Arg!

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature
Uppsy Daisy
State War Academy
Caldari State
#239 - 2011-11-08 22:54:38 UTC
Because it amounted to a buff to projectiles.

Projectiles are already widely seen as good enough.
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis
#240 - 2011-11-08 22:57:53 UTC
Bah :<

I want my Hail! (meh, I'd probably start packing it even with the falloff nerf only halved instead of removed)

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature