These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Rubicon] Ships dropping from SMAs

First post First post
Author
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-11-04 17:12:44 UTC
excellent change for anyone doing exploration in expensive T3s
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#62 - 2013-11-04 19:31:47 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Fozzie
Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now.

Next announcement is:
To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to unanchor CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.

:Edit: This change has been postponed as it turns out the loot is destroyed at the beginning of the unanchor process, not the end. We will be investigating our options for solving this problem after Rubicon 1.0. For now there will be no change to starbase module unanchoring timers.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#63 - 2013-11-04 19:35:21 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now.

Next announcement is:
To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.


Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place?
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#64 - 2013-11-04 19:36:48 UTC
Mara Tessidar wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now.

Next announcement is:
To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.


Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place?


It doesn't, I mistyped. Meant unanchor.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie

Mara Tessidar
Perkone
Caldari State
#65 - 2013-11-04 19:42:55 UTC
Ah.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#66 - 2013-11-04 19:43:14 UTC
Yes!!

The Tears Must Flow

Winthorp
#67 - 2013-11-04 19:43:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now.

Next announcement is:
To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to unanchor CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.


Thanks for listening and acting.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#68 - 2013-11-04 19:52:49 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now.

Next announcement is:
To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to unanchor CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.


Next your going to remove the ability for a rookie ship to light a cyno....

That is insane...


And then you are going to force titans to bridge with the fleet...


Ludicrous...


CCP Fozzie, joo be crazy!!!!

Yaay!!!!

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#69 - 2013-11-04 19:54:21 UTC
CCP Masterplan wrote:
One less thing the for CSM to keep asking us for! (But seriously, they've been very insistent on keeping up the pressure to make this change happen, so well done to them)
And Fozzie needs to stop hogging all these Likes for himself - share the love!


So CCP Fozzie demanded people begin "censored.. bad word", likes on you or he'll cause nerfs to rookie ships, unanchoring alts, forcing titans to bridge with fleets, ...

Here's no like for You CCP Masterplan.

Yaay!!!!

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#70 - 2013-11-04 19:55:55 UTC
To think I thought unanchoring a XLARGE Hanger with stuff inside was a bug.....

Yaay!!!!

GizzyBoy
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#71 - 2013-11-04 22:21:00 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mara Tessidar wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now.

Next announcement is:
To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.


Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place?


It doesn't, I mistyped. Meant unanchor.



its my understanding you cant unanchor a sma with stuff in it, so a timer is not necessary, at least thats how other hangers work.
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#72 - 2013-11-05 18:41:26 UTC
Praise bob, CCP and the CSM for such a change!
Good work!

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Panhead4411
Rothschild's Sewage and Septic Sucking Services
The Possum Lodge
#73 - 2013-11-06 14:47:37 UTC
Again i ask....does this mean you plan to apply this 'fix' to all the other POS arrays that got hit with the no-loot-drop nerf when you applied it to SMA's?

http://blog.beyondreality.se/shift-click-does-nothing    < Unified Inventory is NOT ready...

Winthorp
#74 - 2013-11-06 19:12:41 UTC
When will we get no self destructing within a force field?
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication
TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
#75 - 2013-11-07 02:34:33 UTC
Winthorp wrote:
Loki Paden wrote:
Will take some of us 20-26 days to train the necessary skills to help protect WH POS -- something that was not needed BEFORE by most of us.....announcement made by DEV first week of Nov...Like the idea but that is not enough time to train......BOO CCP!


Yeah your WH POS was perfectly safe before this... Roll


Indeed. Besides, who puts all their eggs into one basket?

Good change. If the cargo is present, it should always have the opportunity to drop.

Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.

Support better localization for the Japanese Community.

Mandelbrot Fracture
Russians Never Give Up
#76 - 2013-11-08 02:44:46 UTC
The universe is against us!
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#77 - 2013-11-08 20:54:35 UTC
GizzyBoy wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Mara Tessidar wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Only 48 likes so far on Masterplan's post here. Not great so far but it will have to do for now.

Next announcement is:
To deal with the tactic of leaving a rookie alt in a reinforced starbase to offline CHAs and SMAs right as the starbase dies (and therefore deny all loot from the aggressors) we are increasing the unanchor delay on SMAs, XLSMAs, CHAs and PHAs to 1 minute.


Why should offlining it deny all loot in the first place?


It doesn't, I mistyped. Meant unanchor.



its my understanding you cant unanchor a sma with stuff in it, so a timer is not necessary, at least thats how other hangers work.


Can you unanchor a sma with crap in it, I don't believe so.
Can you unanchor a corporate hanger with stuff in it? No I've tried

Can you unanchor a xlarge ship assembly array?? Yes, yes you can. It doesn't matter what's in it, or where it is. You'll get a warning box saying "you sure", you click yes, everything's gone.

Was a ez way of getting rid of billions in 3 seconds

Yaay!!!!

Mabrjjcj Rojo
Out of Focus
Odin's Call
#78 - 2013-11-09 21:09:37 UTC
YES!!! POS bashing in WH's is officially BACK!!

Cool
SalubriousSky Rinah
Cryptic Spear
#79 - 2013-11-10 10:32:50 UTC
LOL, you guys are thanking Fozzie, when you should really be thanking the GSF and their partisan CSM...
Darxar Gardallion
Amalgamation Limited
The Amalgamation Initiative
#80 - 2013-11-10 12:35:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Darxar Gardallion
Winthorp wrote:
Loki Paden wrote:
Will take some of us 20-26 days to train the necessary skills to help protect WH POS -- something that was not needed BEFORE by most of us.....announcement made by DEV first week of Nov...Like the idea but that is not enough time to train......BOO CCP!
Yeah your WH POS was perfectly safe before this... Roll


Loki knows that it is not perfectly safe and everyone who lives in a wormhole system realizes that if someone really wants your system or wants to pop your POS, they can and will make it happen. Wormhole space is not safe nor is it easy (and it can be quite the pain in the arse for many reasons that have been posted in numerous other forums). However, instead of making the griefers and ganksters happier by giving them more loot and more killmail; why not fix all the problems with POS permissions that affects everyone (not just those who live in a wormhole systems) and other things instead of making griefers and ganksters happier and making wormhole system even more lucrative to "visit" than they already are?

NOTE: I have not been playing this game as long as many of you have been; but, the one common theme I keep seeing is that the game is becoming less and less PVE/indie friendly and more PVP/gankster friendly, not withstanding the nicer tutorials and such implemented prior to my start, etc. I do a little of both, though I am admittedly not very good at or as interested in the PVP. But, the more PVP/gankster friendly you make this game and the more you make "hisec equal to losec and losec equal to null" and wormholes harder to live in than they already are, you might as well just kick all of the carebears and indies and lesser PVP types who love this game and who are not in one of those big sovs or pirate corps out of the game (or maybe that is your intention?).

Anyways.....I think if you are going to make the PVP griefers and ganksters happier with a huge change in their favor such as the SMA piñata, there needs to be a balance on the other side of that to counter it and, as Loki stated, you should have provided more lead time so those who felt secure enough to not immediately spend nearly a month to train up for a skill that is only useful for POS defense be allowed the time to fit said training in prior to implementation.