These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: War, Modules & Super Friends

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mike Whiite
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#261 - 2012-05-15 06:58:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Whiite
I realy don't get this, this whole forum is chattering how bad the delayed damage is on Missile's that they're only PvE weapons and shoot now be used for anything else.

And all I've seen now is: Reducing load time on turrets, removing T2 penalties on on T2 turret weapons, boosting of Hybrid weapons, removing launcher hard point from the Merlin. (not that I'm against it)

and now talk of disrupting missiles and nerving the main missile PvP platform the Drake.

If missiles are so bad and only for PvE-ing carebears, why all this need to reduce their effectiveness?

Personaly I don't like the idea of TD's afecting missiles, not that I'm agains a module that defends against missiles just not "one module to rule them all"

and if TDs effact missiles will tracking computers, traking enhanchers and tracking links affect missiles as well?
POS Trader
Merchants of Lore
#262 - 2012-05-15 07:07:36 UTC
Mike Whiite wrote:

If missiles are so bad and only for PvE-ing carebears, why all this need to reduce their effectiveness?


So that NPC rats can tracking disrupt your drake too

Some missions will become funny - can't shoot stuff with missiles AND guns. Roll
Callidus Dux
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#263 - 2012-05-15 07:07:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Callidus Dux
Mike Whiite wrote:


If missiles are so bad and only for PvE-ing carebears, why all this need to reduce their effectiveness?



Show me the link where there was a demand for "Tracking Disrupt" missiles. Just because "There is a Drake I can not get down" is not a valid argument.

Can we than expect a module against this dirsuption? Similar to the turret mudules? Or is it only allowed to nerf missiles so bad, that they are bad in PvP AND PvE? You bring your new stylish models with launchers and stuff but nerf missiles so, that barely someone will use missiles again. Really Fxxx YOU!

CCP is maximum dull. X
Wilson Yu
Masters of Ownage
#264 - 2012-05-15 07:21:25 UTC
I like the war mechanic change that is coming up although this dev blog does bring in concerns.

Tracking disruptor affect missiles which have no tracking what so ever, i don't think that is a good idea. Tracking disruptor have never ever been able to affect missiles, well for good reason and logically it makes sense. IF tracking disruptor can affect missiles, how will that work and i don't think that is a good idea. We all know that guns beat missiles in ever way possible.

I don't know what is going in the minds of ccp but that is the dumbest thing i heard int he dev blog.

Missiles should never be affected by tracking disruptor because missiles have no tracking.
Onar Maldarian
Perkone
Caldari State
#265 - 2012-05-15 07:36:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Onar Maldarian
Point of Magsheath when there's already a module that does exactly the same (burst)?

Drone damage augmentor as lowslot is just retrded. All hail the new Gila-Sentry + huginn/scimitar sniping fleets.

I hope the "missiles affected by tracking disruption" is some kind of joke, otherwise there's someone having really bad ideas in there.

The rest seems find, unless you come up with some retrded attributes for the new shield boosters.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#266 - 2012-05-15 07:52:48 UTC
Onar Maldarian wrote:
Point of Magsheath when there's already a module that does exactly the same (burst)?
They don't do quite the same thing. The lockbreaker is much more powerful in what it can do, but also much more detrimental to fit.
Quote:
Drone damage augmentor as lowslot is just retrded. All hail the new Gila-Sentry + huginn/scimitar sniping fleets.
Meh. Most worth-while drone ships are better when shield tanked anyway, and it's not like drones will be any less easy to get rid off or any less awkward to deploy.
Geil Ding
Perkone
Caldari State
#267 - 2012-05-15 08:25:31 UTC
Quote:
Micro jump drives


Can every ship now fit a jump drive? That would be great Big smile
I would like to see a hauler sized jump enabled ship. A T3 hauler maybe?
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2012-05-15 08:34:47 UTC
Jack Dant wrote:
Har Harrison wrote:
This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot).

So by "corp hopping", CCP didn't mean corp hopping, but joining/leaving corps in space? Yet another exploit fix marketed as a feature Sad

The idea was presented to fix the issue of rejoining a corp you have left to gain an advantage whilst it was at war. CCP had already suggested that a pilot who left a corp whilst at war would have this marked on their employment history, so recruiters could see that they left corps frequently to avoid a war. This idea was to prevent some of the exploits and to make a consequence of leaving - you couldn't rejoin to pvp after leaving to do indy/pve etc...
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2012-05-15 08:36:29 UTC
Pere Madeleine wrote:
Har Harrison wrote:
Jack Dant wrote:
Quote:
We’ve also implemented a good suggestion from Fanfest, which is that if you leave your corporation while it is engaged in a non-mutual war, then you will not be able to rejoin the corporation until that war ends, or until 7 days pass, whichever comes first.

How is this a fix for corp hopping? People leave the corp to avoid the war, so why would they want to rejoin before the war is over?

This was never suggested to stop people LEAVING a corp at war (the suggetion from fan fest was they take their "yellow" mark with them on their employment history). It was to stop them coming in and out so as to gain a tactical advantage (e.g. sneak into a system and rejoin the corp so WT doesn't see them in local or having someone pull a log off and get a director to boot them from corp so that they can log back in and not be a WT - e.g. freighter pilot).


Whether you suggested it with that intention or not, it's still a problem. What's the point in declaring war on people in order to disrupt their operations if all they have to do is jump out of corp and mine/run missions in a NPC corp for a week?

An INDIVIDUAL might not be disrupted per se. The corp would be if they had a POS or corp assets for example. CCP an't stop a person leaving a corp. All they can do is tighten up on the mechanics around it to make it less desirable and/or exploitable.
Har Harrison
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#270 - 2012-05-15 08:37:32 UTC
Geil Ding wrote:
Quote:
Micro jump drives


Can every ship now fit a jump drive? That would be great Big smile
I would like to see a hauler sized jump enabled ship. A T3 hauler maybe?

Wonder how they work? Do you need to lock onto something or do they just move you 100km??? If so, could be great for running gate camps in low sec...Twisted
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#271 - 2012-05-15 08:48:18 UTC
Har Harrison wrote:
The idea was presented to fix the issue of rejoining a corp you have left to gain an advantage whilst it was at war. CCP had already suggested that a pilot who left a corp whilst at war would have this marked on their employment history, so recruiters could see that they left corps frequently to avoid a war. This idea was to prevent some of the exploits and to make a consequence of leaving - you couldn't rejoin to pvp after leaving to do indy/pve etc...

Yea, but it does nothing to fix a multitude of other corp hopping problems. For example, the case where people all leave the corp and reform it under another name is actually more powerful with the new system. It costs significantly more money to re-dec the new corp, especially since you'd have two wars active (the old corp and the new).

I would be happier if the restriction was to joining ANY player corp instead of just rejoining the corp you quit.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Evelgrivion
State War Academy
Caldari State
#272 - 2012-05-15 09:14:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Evelgrivion
I think I owe you an apology, CCP SoniClover; I only recently noticed that the asymptote for wardec costs in the current proposal peaks at around 450 million ISK, rather than the multi-billion isk scale that had initially caused so much consternation and I assumed was still in play. I apologize for making an irrational assumption and for reacting so harshly to the war declaration mechanics changes without even giving you the courtesy of properly reading what you had to say.

Even though I don't agree in principle with the idea of scaling costs with member count, the work you've put into the mechanic has yielded a very reasonable maximum war declaration price.
carmelos53
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#273 - 2012-05-15 09:24:53 UTC
CCP I would strongly suggestthe following for war dec mechanics:
1) A max war dec cost
2) Alt bloating negation (Yes it WILL be a problem -everyone Corp in their right mind will do this)
NorthCrossroad
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#274 - 2012-05-15 09:33:56 UTC
I'm sorry, but two of the most needed modules reiterations are not done: salvager drones and TD improvements, and you call it success? Really can't understand not deliver salvagers instead of the anc boosters f.e.

North
Mechael
Tribal Liberation Distribution and Retail
#275 - 2012-05-15 09:36:19 UTC
Some of these new items are being seeded through loot drops only. Talk about gross. Having officer/complex mods only available via loot drops is gross enough. What next, raiding for 1337 gear? Seed BPOs or bust, please. Let the free market hash everything out.

If the market needs a better UI, then give it a better UI.

(A related note: get rid of BPCs in general. They make zero sense.)

Whether or not you win the game matters not.  It's if you bought it.
steave435
Perkone
Caldari State
#276 - 2012-05-15 09:36:42 UTC
NorthCrossroad wrote:
I'm sorry, but two of the most needed modules reiterations are not done: salvager drones and TD improvements, and you call it success? Really can't understand not deliver salvagers instead of the anc boosters f.e.

North


In a PVP game, anc boosters are WAY higher on the priority list then salvager drones...
Especially since getting the anc booster out first gets them out in time for the AT, which should shake things up quite significantly.
Jack Dant
The Gentlemen of Low Moral Fibre
#277 - 2012-05-15 09:40:23 UTC
Evelgrivion wrote:
I only recently noticed that the asymptote for wardec costs in the current proposal peaks at around 450 million ISK


It doesn't "peak" at anything, it keeps growing, albeit slowly, with number of members in the target. Although, it does take 31k members in alliance to break over 1 bil. And if all of EVE was to join in a single alliance with 350k members, it would only cost 3 bil to wardec it.

What happens in lowsec, stays in lowsec, lowering the barrier to entry to lowsec PVP: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=476644&#post476644
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#278 - 2012-05-15 09:49:19 UTC
Hmmm. I'm starting to think this expansion is mostly a disappointment. FW gets some interesting additions, but pretty much everything else is at best half-baked, or delayed.

Ship balancing should have continued from Crucible, and there were some good initiatives regarding tiericide and fixing armor tanks, but instead we get a boost to kiting, boost to shield tanking and a couple of unfinished modules.

.
MR rockafella
Santa's Factory
#279 - 2012-05-15 11:14:31 UTC
This look nice and all, but the real question is are you gonna fix the FUKIN r.a.m. rounding issue in production its a fukin +4 year old bug in eve.
Commander Spurty
#280 - 2012-05-15 11:23:57 UTC
"dec blog" wrote:
MagSheath Target Breaker I - Mid slot. A module that has a chance of breaking the lock of ships targeting you, the chance increases the more ships target you at one time. Also breaks your locks. Reduces scan resolution significantly as a downside. Only one can be fitted at a time and the can not be fitted to capital ships.


This counts drones in the equation?

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP