These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

EVE Online: Odyssey 1.1 Feedback

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
GeeShizzle MacCloud
#41 - 2013-09-03 16:52:49 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
I'm sorry to add my voice to the growing people annoyed at the changes to the naming of certain modules but its not a trivial thing, because every time you guys rename a bunch of stuff for what appears to be almost no reason at all, a huge chunk of people are affected when they have fits stored on forums and linked libraries via the IGB, where debates and discussions on optimising and refining fits are made. these fit now CANNOT be imported/linked/clicked on in game because the names of particular modules have been changed.

Its a real f**kin headache that u seem intent on giving us, and to be honest i find it actually very disrespectful to not even mention it in a blog or even comment about it on the end of another blog for the 1.1 changes.


Also having probably only just scratched the surface of these name changes, ill like to point out that you do not transfer capacitor, a capacitor is a piece of hardware!!! i can demonstrate it to you by using a hand held laser, and a chunk of metal & wires that is a capacitor.

A capacitor stores energy in the form of capacitance... capacitANCE! If you pay someone to make these name changes please dont pay the janitor or some other similarly qualified airhead to make changes like this. And for gods sake please dont rely on any form of scapegoat Americanisms, aluminium has 2 i's in it and any spelling that doesnt, has been written by an educational reject. Tell your people to do their homework and not wing it in 1/2 an hour before the patch is to go live.

If it was a change to separate it from certain skills that concerned different a form of a ships systems, guess what, change the skill name that DOESNT have a host of modules tied to its name style.

You're better than this CCP.... dont think you are (15 minutes after you've hurriedly scraped together some changes before the deadline)

....KNOW YOU ARE (days before the deadline so u can do something about it!)



edit: also... go sniping top of page threeeeeee!
Benito Arias
Angry Mustellid
#42 - 2013-09-03 16:53:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Benito Arias
Quote:
Ship Balancing

I think it would be more consistent to have T2 ships inherit their racial T1 ship bonus from their direct progenitors wherever possible. For example, Minmatar AFs got that (hurray, turret weapons all along the Rifter hull line), Stiletto got that, Muninn got that. Vagabond, no, and has less falloff than the Stabber with same weapon type and weapon upgrade modules, unless HAC V.
Atreides 47
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2013-09-03 16:55:14 UTC
Stop ridiculous Matar nerfs, damn it http://i.imgur.com/MejTGfL.jpg

Long Live the Fighters !

CCP and nerfs - http://i.imgur.com/MejTGfL.jpg
Sieg oder Valhalla
Steelforge Heavy Industries
#44 - 2013-09-03 17:05:01 UTC
Eve is a smart person game and we like it that way. Stop dumbing it down for no good reason. Regrouping the skills to make more sense is great; renaming a bunch of modules to ruin immersion is not. Like one of the previous posters said,

Infiltrator2112 wrote:
[Sarcasm]Why not rename Mega Pulse Laser and Tachon Laser to "Big Short-Range Laser" and "Big Long-Range Laser"?[/Sarcasm]
Master Justasii
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2013-09-03 17:11:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Master Justasii
Two ships: Vaga, Sleip, not useless, but certainly less useful now. BTW CCP, ship balancing doesn't mean make all the ships the same.

-1 to Odessey 1.1

Also you'll have to redo the Vaga description. Does not apply.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#46 - 2013-09-03 17:31:51 UTC
hmskrecik wrote:
[edit]
OK, I have some feedback. Are you guys sure medium railguns are where you want them to be? With faction antimatter and 4 magstabs my Proteus dishes out 800 DPS. For reference, in similar setup my Kronos does 850.

Also I love the UI work. Attributes are much clearer to see now.


That is only for a few months.
T3's are being obliterated soon.

Enjoy it while you can.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#47 - 2013-09-03 17:37:37 UTC

  • Attribute display layout is bad if your show info window is more than a couple hundred pixels across. Too much eye movement.
  • "Armor Honeycombing" better described what the skill did than "Armor Layering." The new name implies the exact opposite of what the skill does (layering is adding layers, honeycombing is reducing mass) and sounds like it would have something to do with the layered armor modules.
  • Nighthawk's slot layout is bad compared to the Claymore. It should be 6/4 med/low, not 5/5.
Copter Pilot
SkREW CREW
#48 - 2013-09-03 17:49:45 UTC
Abon Riff wrote:
Jacumbo Ren wrote:
Have noticed with scanning sites now, that if i get a site to 100% then move the probes away to scan another site, i no longer have the "warp to" button on the result. I need to pass a scan over it again, or bookmark it. Before patch the "warp to" button would stay there, even after I pulled probes.

Not sure if this is intended or not.



Same as he said.. Plus even though I have previously scanned the anomaly to 100%, it appears as a large red unresolved signature or a red circle. Don't really want to scan them twice, having not jumped out of the system.


Same issue here.
Florian Kuehne
Tech3 Company
#49 - 2013-09-03 18:03:29 UTC
ccp, communicate with your players, you getting worse and worse.

overall some quite small good changes to the commandships but even some really bad stuff. Look cs thread.

I am very disappointed.
Nikolai Vodkov
Pro Synergy
#50 - 2013-09-03 18:22:50 UTC
Julien Brellier wrote:
Ivan Isovich wrote:
Not a fan of the the new display for ship and character attributes. Forces way too much eye movement back and forth...back and forth...back and forth...back and forth...Allow the option of a collapsed view (like the old way). I can see differences of opinion on this one.


All we need is for there to be a duplicated icon on the right hand side so you can easily see what's what.


This please. Would fix the problem. I personally am having trouble reading attributes as well, but I'm not sure whether it's bad design or will simply take time to get used to.

Run level 4 missions?  Increase your income and help new players earn ISK.  Join channel: [b]Pro Synergy Pro Synergy[/b] is looking for dedicated Salvagers.  Want to learn more?  Join channel: Pro Synergy
youthink
Shakor Freight and Mining Service
#51 - 2013-09-03 18:37:41 UTC
I am really, really not delighted by the new module names Straight
I feel like I have been cheated, somehow...What?
Slye
Shark Waters
#52 - 2013-09-03 19:19:11 UTC
Musashibou Benkei wrote:
so now there's absolutely no difference between the field and fleet command ships............
armor and siege links seriously nerfed (oh, i'm sorry; "adjusted") with no real purpose. these links affect smaller groups than larger fleets.

changes made by CCP continue their downwards fall.


I hardly ever post but would like to say 2 things:
1. Too Balanced = very boring = find other game
2. So why did I waste a year training my leadership skills???? You now losing a fire power for minimum fleet bonus.

I for one do not like this.
Spring Heeled Jim
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2013-09-03 19:24:23 UTC
I cannot fit my armour legion since the patch - not enough powergrid. What have you silently nerfed?
Valkyrie D'ark
Armed Resistance Movement
#54 - 2013-09-03 19:42:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Valkyrie D'ark
Spring Heeled Jim wrote:
I cannot fit my armour legion since the patch - not enough powergrid. What have you silently nerfed?


OMFG... They nerfed the Genolution implants. Great, half my goddamn fits are useless and wont work anymore.
A little heads up next time maybe? I read the patch notes like twice, and I didn't see it there few days ago. Ninjaed or I missed it thinking it was about mindlinks?

Genolution CA-2 implant set bonus reduced from 50% to 40%
Spring Heeled Jim
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2013-09-03 19:46:46 UTC
Valkyrie D'ark wrote:
Spring Heeled Jim wrote:
I cannot fit my armour legion since the patch - not enough powergrid. What have you silently nerfed?


OMFG... They nerfed the Genolution implants. Great, half my goddamn fits are useless and wont work anymore.
A little heads up next time maybe? I read the patch notes like twice, and I didn't see it there few days ago. Ninjaed or I missed it thinking it was about mindlinks?

Genolution CA-2 implant set bonus reduced from 50% to 40%


Ah, is that what it is?

Can I have a refund for the item please CCP? *holds breath*
Michael Loney
Skullspace Industries
#56 - 2013-09-03 19:48:21 UTC
Just something I noticed while reading this thread, the people who are negative all have very few likes. The positive comments were from people with many likes. Since more likes generally indicates better forum posts ( format, topic words ) then I would take these people's opinions as much more important that he ones without likes (especially the older ones. )

Aside from all that, I like the changes made. Things are clearer, naming conventions are better and my hanger full of haulers has a purpose again!

Naming conventions are very important, everyone complains that it dumbs down the game but for every new trial that now understands what their skills do it makes them stay longer and give us more players. Or is it that the 'l33t' PvPers that bait new players are going to run out of easy targets?

I want more people playing, I want more ships in space and I want to see everyone playing more often.
Serenety Steel
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2013-09-03 19:59:35 UTC
Hey bro's....


VAGABOND:

5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire.
7.5% bonus to shield boost amount (was 5% bonus to max velocity).


FFSWTF!


.
Daenika
Chambers of Shaolin
#58 - 2013-09-03 20:04:31 UTC
Quote:
Genolution CA-2 implant set bonus reduced from 50% to 40%


Seems to be an issue with these notes. The 50% bonus provided a net boost of 3.375% to both PG and CPU (1.5% base bonus, increased by 50% (multiplicative) twice for the set bonus). Reducing it to 40% would result in only a 2.94% boost. However, data on Tranq is showing a 3.154% boost, which is consistent with a 45% set bonus, rather than a 40%.

Are the patch notes wrong and the intended set bonus is 45%, or did the change go through incorrectly. Ie. should we be expecting another reduction to the potency of these implants compared to their current live performance?
Blacksmoke16
Resilience.
#59 - 2013-09-03 20:08:34 UTC
Ivan Isovich wrote:
Not a fan of the the new display for ship and character attributes. Forces way too much eye movement back and forth...back and forth...back and forth...back and forth...Allow the option of a collapsed view (like the old way). I can see differences of opinion on this one.


+1, was easier just to look at the left side to see the attribute and what it was, vs having to look to see what it is then look right to see what its value/answer is

Option to have it the old way would be much liked
Yonis Kador
KADORCORP
#60 - 2013-09-03 20:10:17 UTC
Michael Loney wrote:
Just something I noticed while reading this thread, the people who are negative all have very few likes. The positive comments were from people with many likes. Since more likes generally indicates better forum posts ( format, topic words ) then I would take these people's opinions as much more important that he ones without likes (especially the older ones. )

Aside from all that, I like the changes made. Things are clearer, naming conventions are better and my hanger full of haulers has a purpose again!

Naming conventions are very important, everyone complains that it dumbs down the game but for every new trial that now understands what their skills do it makes them stay longer and give us more players. Or is it that the 'l33t' PvPers that bait new players are going to run out of easy targets?

I want more people playing, I want more ships in space and I want to see everyone playing more often.


Maybe someone can write some code that filters out only the posts with enough "likes" since those are the only ones worth reading. (sarcasm)

I have to disagree. Much like how proper formatting doesn't reflect the value of a suggestion, the value of feedback can't really be measured by forum popularity. Being a forum troll, participating in the like and get likes thread, is my avatar hot threads, comment on the guy above you threads, etc. has little bearing on the value of customer feedback. Because folks are more likely to complain than compliment, feedback is, by its very nature, predominantly negative. Negative does not equal unconstructive. Rudeness is unconstructive. And maybe the "old guys" just don't write often. That doesn't mean their comments should be ignored.

YK