Test Server Feedback

My feedback:

new industrials - I am very happy with these. They are now strong enough to be the spark point for an escalating fight in low, null or wh space. The specialised cargo holds are probably not useful (to me) but I understand that it's much easier to find a role for existing hulls than to simply erase them from the game.

command ships - they seem to me to perform well in their roles. Not overpowered in combat, strong enough to take in a fleet but not so OP that players will choose them over T1 BCs or BSs for doing front-line DPS. I am very much looking forward to off-grid boosting being deprecated. This will give me an opportunity and a reason to actually use the command ships on grid. This wil increase the tactical options available during a fight. That's got to be a good thing.

HACs - awesome, every one of them. I think the design team got this just about right.

Skill name changes - ridiculous waste of time.

railguns - happy that the damage is up, a bit dubious about the scale of the tracking penalty, but difficult to test because it's not easy to organise a proper fleet fight on the test server. I tried them on a HAC, I probably should also try them on the brutix before commenting further.

bug reporting - I can't report bugs because the bug reporting system does not fill the category drop-down, which means I can't complete the form. The forms cannot be submitted when incomplete.

Nighthawk would not let me activate more than 1 gang link (yes they were all different...) so I think there's a bug there that needs to be addressed.

+15% to local reps - long overdue. Thank you for doing this. local armour rep/buffer hybrid is now viable in skirmish combat. That's very welcome. ASBs are still too OP. They need to be limited to 1 per ship. There's no excuse for this. They are designed as emergency backup for skirmishers. When used dual (or triple) they are perma-mega-neutproof tanks. That's just ridiculous and is damaging the game. Gist x-type shield boosters have no equivalent in armour and are still too powerful (they use far too little cap). They need to be scaled back in my view.

Report over. Thanks for all the hard work. Eve is a better game post-1.1

Well OK, but some of the new names are just... insulting.

"Spaceship Piloting" might sound ok to Scandinavian ears after running it through google translate, but to an English person it sounds like baby language. I don't want to play a game that uses baby language. It's a sci-fi game and I want it to be, as far as possible, scientifically and grammatically correct.

And calling an energy transporter a "capacitor transferrer", or whatever they called it, is just juvenile. It does not transfer capacitors. Capacitors are devices that store and release energy. The modules transfer ENERGY (it's even measured in giga-joules). They are ENERGY TRANSFER ARRAYS.

Using this terrible language in game is bad press and I am concerned that it will discourage other intelligent players. These are the players the game needs, because Eve requires intelligent people to create strategies and scenarios (like the Fountain War) that other players enjoy.

Oh, I agree some of the terms used could use some work, but even as they are they make far more sense to a new player than what we have now.

A bug report was sent in by me about how the info for the wh you are sitting by does not retain the actual distance you are away from it. So you get miss matches between the scan info and the overview.

File it as a bug report. If enough people do that, eventually some hardworking developer will fix it without checking with the designer first - then we'll all feel less nauseous when jumping through stargates (one of many reasons I avoid k-space as much as possible).