These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Blue Harrier
#641 - 2012-06-17 14:48:55 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
There's sound in eve?

\sarcasm mode on
Not really, there is some sort of ‘Muzac’ that plays while the game is active (I turn it off) and the odd ‘noise’ that they pass as game sounds when doing things.
This ‘noise’ often plays for the wrong reason or in the wrong context, a bit like the graphics, so I suppose it all fits in with the general game characteristics.
\sarcasm mode off
Big smile

"You wait - time passes, Thorin sits down and starts singing about gold." from The Hobbit on ZX Spectrum 1982.

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#642 - 2012-06-17 14:58:36 UTC
Blue Harrier wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
There's sound in eve?

\sarcasm mode on
Not really, there is some sort of ‘Muzac’ that plays while the game is active (I turn it off) and the odd ‘noise’ that they pass as game sounds when doing things.
This ‘noise’ often plays for the wrong reason or in the wrong context, a bit like the graphics, so I suppose it all fits in with the general game characteristics.
\sarcasm mode off
Big smile

Bug reports at least the headers get looked over by the QA staff and get reviewed after the ISD looks at them. QA then passes them to the proper teams. So while the bug reports might get a as intended response the feed back is taken on board. The sound devs where asking for feed back earlier in the release cycle.

What OS and client language are you using its funny what can some times mess up the timing of events and sounds.

Thanks for bug reporting your issues internaly using the client. The pictures will help with repros .

There will be a development devblog this comming week after the new patch walking every one thru the steps and why some bugs do not get fixed as fast as us players would like.Smile

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#643 - 2012-06-17 19:00:26 UTC
Quick question, and I may have missed it asked in the thread.

Are the prices for uniforms in the LP stores final?

Thanks!

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Yuna Yee
Perkone
Caldari State
#644 - 2012-06-17 22:48:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuna Yee
Considering the Minmatar V3:

GOOD
- the new Tech2 Ship Models look just awesome!

HMM ...
- many Tech1 Ships look awefully pale, too bright and beamless now - especially ships with larger same-color areas - the worst example being the Hurricane.
Also a ton of other races ships now look way too bright - what before was made so cool has now turned back even worse ...

- what happened to our faction ships having slightly different models - now they're not special any more at all. Especially why did you remove the square sunpanels of the Tempest Fleet Issue? - That was exactly what made this ship so cool...
boeboe joe
Royal Assassins Guild
Chained Reactions
#645 - 2012-06-19 00:00:18 UTC
Ok, so I'm loving the new Minmatar V3's, very nice art team! Looking forward to the capitals. Big smile

But as for the all wardec system changes, I'll refer to one of my favorite quotes:

"All's fair in love and war." - Can't remember source P

Additionally, last time I checked, EVE is a sandbox. If someone knocks down your sandcastle, shouldn't you be able to fight back?

I support the opinion of Jade here,

Jade Constantine wrote:
NeoTheo wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Hi everyone,
• Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
• Allies can not be part of mutual wars – defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)
• Cap on War Dec cost – it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared)
• New UI control for War options in war lists
• Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war – hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
• Added new skill – Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners


Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ...





This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response.

Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table.

Think it through with this example.

9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance.

Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.

Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.



And also, I can't seem to understand why a thread in the "General Discussion" section about a blog was closed for being off topic. Last several posts were still in general discussion over the main topic.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1475348#post1475348

Got 'roids?

Reiisha
#646 - 2012-06-19 02:29:32 UTC
Jade Constantine wrote:
NeoTheo wrote:
CCP Goliath wrote:
Hi everyone,
• Ally contracts have fixed length of two weeks
• Allies can not be part of mutual wars – defender cannot hire allies into mutual wars and existing ally contracts are cancelled (with a 24 hour grace period)
• Cap on War Dec cost – it will never have a base price of more than 500 mill regardless of corp/alliance membership (still affected by the number of wars you have declared)
• New UI control for War options in war lists
• Added cost for hiring multiple allies for a war – hiring more than one ally now incur a cost that goes to CONCORD. The cost rises exponentially the more allies are hired into the same war.
• Added new skill – Armor Resistance Phasing, which reduces the cycle time of Reactive Armor Hardeners


Hello mittens is that you :-( /sob shame ...






This is pretty sad actually. With these changes CCP is caving into Goonswarm whines and allowing them to wardec smaller entities without practical response.

Previously the only way to reach parity in an empire war incoming from a 9000 man alliance would be to allow literally hundreds of allies to pledge their support for free. Now that option is taken off the table.

Think it through with this example.

9000 man alliance wardecs a 100 man alliance. It costs them 50m isk per week to get a 8900 pilot advantage. In order to reach parity the defender would need to add 8900 pilots across a 100 or more allies. In this new system the defender would end up paying infinitely more than the attacker to reach any kind of equivilance.

Whats happened here is that Mittani and goonswarm have whined and pleaded for these changes on the back of the Honda Accord and (now) Star Fraction precedent and CCP have kneejerked into making Inferno wardec system something of a joke.

Instead of encouraging and spreading warfare in Eve these changes will massively limit and restrict them.





Just reposting this.

Why does the defender get screwed over like this?

If you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all...

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#647 - 2012-06-19 02:33:37 UTC
Reiisha wrote:
Just reposting this.

Why does the defender get screwed over like this?

Because with the current system, some corps apparently have 50-70 wardecs, all for free, and most wars which are opened to the general public have been dogpiled by 20+ corps, rendering the merc business basically null and void.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#648 - 2012-06-19 13:05:37 UTC
If you want to know how the current war system is ******

Look at the war history of Project Nemesis.

BYDI recruitment closed-ish

Whisperen
This is Serious Mum
The Initiative.
#649 - 2012-06-19 19:14:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Whisperen
Lord Zim wrote:
Reiisha wrote:
Just reposting this.

Why does the defender get screwed over like this?

Because with the current system, some corps apparently have 50-70 wardecs, all for free, and most wars which are opened to the general public have been dogpiled by 20+ corps, rendering the merc business basically null and void.



So there is more fighting more ship loss more economic activity and more fun now!

Who gives a flying fukc about the 'merc' business! mercs are hired by word of mouth for completing specific objectives the new 'merc' market is a redundant 'feature' designed to pander to role players.

Minnie t1 looks crap t2 is good.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#650 - 2012-06-19 20:01:39 UTC
Whisperen wrote:
So there is more fighting more ship loss more economic activity and more fun now!

There probably isn't.

Whisperen wrote:
Who gives a flying fukc about the 'merc' business! mercs are hired by word of mouth for completing specific objectives the new 'merc' market is a redundant 'feature' designed to pander to role players.

I guess you didn't catch the comments of ccp soundwave where he said specifically they were trying to revive the merc market.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

X1376
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#651 - 2012-06-20 09:05:15 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.


I have hard time to understand this logic after 2 days of trying to digest it.

I would challenge this argument by saying, that price of war dec should scale with size of aggressor. Finally bigger aggressor has more guns to get something out of it...
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#652 - 2012-06-20 10:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Jade Constantine wrote:

Well here is A solution ... please critique it if you see a problem.

1. Concord fees per defending ally are only payable if you are in the process of adding an ally that would take the total size of the defending force over the total size of the attacking force. This will make it prohibitively expensive to massively outblob a small wardeccer (as in small scale mercenary actions) while still allowing a massively outmatched defender (ie 9000 vs 100) to add many alliance for free so they can balance the fight.

2. Introduce 2 week contract periods with auto renewal if either side likes the deal (ie its free) You don't like a war don't renew.

3. Consider leaving mutual decs alone because this alone gives the defender chance to assemble a counter force that can make an aggressor NEED to negotiate an end to the war. There is no reason to deny allies to a mutual declaring defender - all this means in essence is that the defender is removing the attackers automatic right to back out of the war while saving them the wardec fee. Its a transactional tactic - it could be left alone (especially with the 2 week contract periods allowing allies to leave).

4. Then if you are feeling adventurerous - improve the system a bit with iteration -> Once the defender starts paying concord fees (because they have added so many allies they now outnumber the attacker) - let the attacker add allies on a 1-1 basis so the war can escalate (both attacked and defender having the chance to up the stakes by shopping for appropriate allies etc.) With this scale of fighting (ie both attack and defender are relatively matched in numbers - EACH allied choice will matter a lot and people will shop for the right mercs on their capability and reputation.

I think that solves the problem.

Giant ass Goomswarm / Test decs vs little corps and alliances can be dogpiled and frankly they should be. Its fun, its a game, we play for fun and everyone said they liked that.

Small merc decs against similar surgical targets are likely to make the defender think carefully about who they hire because these will attract concord fees and let the attacker escalate if too many are hired.

This serves the needs for huge ass mayhem wars for fun. AND serious small merc fights for profit. There is no need to disadvantage one part of the community to protect another.

Can you see anything wrong with this solution?


I think the biggest issue here is that we're trying to solve different issues. I'm trying to bring the merc trade back into EVE and you're trying to add some measure of fairness into wars, which Isn't really a design philosophy in EVE.

Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE and the war dec system wasn't built for that either. I understand that it's annoying when a big alliance war decs you, but that's hardly new to EVE. Big alliances get annoyed with bigger coalitions outnumber them and so on. That's a fact of life in EVE and we're not likely to change that direction anytime soon. The other thing is that war dec prices are determined by the value you get from them. If you want to go to war with someone, a higher number of potential targets should be more expensive. If you're a smaller alliance, this makes you a less attractive target, unless you've made someone angry in which case you're responsible for any social repercussions you've created.

Letting attackers add allies conflicts with the notion that attacking someone is risky. If you decide you want to go to war with someone, the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated. If this is just about stacking up allies, the power of that choice fades away a little bit.


Why shall you balance the fight in the interst of fairness? I would say the same thing to you CCP Soundwave!
The wardec works and while its NOT the fairest thing, why change it back into the hands of Goons? How is it that making it unfair to wardec a larger entity like goons but it is unfair(its not unfair but FAIR to goons) to change it into the hands of goons.
After all "Why would I want to balance a fight? That's never really been the goal in EVE"!
Goons have brought bad karma into themselves so why cant the rest of eve get back at them?
Why make it in their favour and not the rest of eve?
You speak much about small entities wardecking larger entities but you have forgoten that this has
been the case for a long time and now you change it in favour of the large entities!
why? Cos "higher number should be more expensive". How is this not making it MORE FAIR on goons side? Cos let me tell you, i see the "power of choice fades" very quickly here!
Well goons are big so "the consequence is that he could punch harder than you anticipated", so why wont they? Start reinforcing POS and not allowing them to undock.
Why should goons or any other large entity get the easy way out?

It is very worring how you can simply past judgment in favour of large entities and call that fair while at the same time claiming that eve should not be balanced and not made fair. You are killing militia tactics on someone.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#653 - 2012-06-20 10:05:56 UTC
Yes, it's all about making it better for us evil goons. Goony goon goon goon.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#654 - 2012-06-20 10:07:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Lord Zim wrote:
Yes, it's all about making it better for us evil goons. Goony goon goon goon.


i know i used goons but this goes for any large entity. You seek bad karma and you shall get it!
Why shall you get the protection from CCP while claiming, that is fair and claim at the same time that eve should not be made fair! Its hypocritic!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#655 - 2012-06-20 10:14:56 UTC
I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.

I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :(

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Alice Everlasting
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#656 - 2012-06-20 10:17:09 UTC
Faiunus KeDar wrote:
Quote:
Trilambda

• Minmatar V3
• Re-designed Caldari Drake
• Changes to the way camera focuses when you board or lose your ship.
• Adding flares to missiles. Makes them visible when zoomed out.
• All V3 ship materials are now a bit brighter.


I love the V3'd minmatar ships, however the T1 ships I always imagined to be a bit darker, like the Tornado on TQ. With all the new shaders being brighter I also see another problem. The Caldari and Amarr ships I can live with, but Gallente ships does not look as good as they did once the first version of the new shaders came out. Personly I like the darker textures. Why? New Eden is not a stroll in the park, it is a dark universe we live in. I think that the darker textures fits better with that theme.


I just tried out some ships on sisi and I absolutely agree. The Gallente ships look all fluffy and cuddly now, to the point that there are no shadows left on them, they are lit up even on the side facing away from the sun. and that goes for amarr and caldari ships to. It completely removed the sense of actual space that i loved. and i do not understand all the complaints about it being to dark and "i cant see my ship" stuff people have been saying. The shading and lighting was perfect before 1.1 and thats not about new eden being a stroll in the park or a "dark universe", the real universe is dark and it looked more realistic before, simple as that.
Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#657 - 2012-06-20 10:21:58 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.

I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :(


i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it.
This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#658 - 2012-06-20 10:31:43 UTC
Andrea Roche wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.

I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :(


i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it.
This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts.

I haven't gotten ganked a single time in jita, and I haul multi-billion cargos all the time.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Andrea Roche
State War Academy
Caldari State
#659 - 2012-06-20 10:33:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Andrea Roche
Lord Zim wrote:
Andrea Roche wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
I'm sure we really, truly, deeply care about for example the 0rphanage wardeccing us.

I mean, I'm truly losing sleep over it as I undock my neutral freighter alt. :(


i am sure that you know, that neutral or no neutral you still get ganked on a freighter in jita provided you cargohold is worth it.
This does not change orphanage. They will continue doing what they do. I am talking about the non neuts.

I haven't gotten ganked a single time in jita, and I haul multi-billion cargos all the time.


doesnt mean it wont happen.
besides i have stated before in other threads that i do believe that using NPC charaters to pilot a freighter is an exploits same as all the other war mechanics exploits that avoid war. You should be in corp period if you want to pilot a freightr in highsec. This in turn forces contracting to a 3rd party or creation of alt corp which fuels espionage and conflict. This is the basic hot pot of eve!
RAP ACTION HERO
#660 - 2012-06-20 10:43:10 UTC  |  Edited by: RAP ACTION HERO
you know the ceaseless goonie goon goon whine is getting tiresome

nobody cares what you hisec scrub battered goon victims have to whine about

it seems aleks karde, a csm member and a merc by trade, and a dude generally well-informed of mechanics and stuff, is fine with the changes and that is why the changes are so.

vitoc erryday