These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

New Missile Computer Requiring Trajectory Analysis?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Wynta
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-06-25 21:14:12 UTC
Is this meant to require a gunnery skill or is it gonna be switched to either weapon upgrade or a missile support
stoicfaux
#2 - 2015-06-25 23:03:29 UTC
Wynta wrote:
Is this meant to require a gunnery skill or is it gonna be switched to either weapon upgrade or a missile support

Plus: Given that (last I checked) the MGC and MGE only affect three out of the four stated attributes (no flight time bonus,) but the MGC script affects four attributes, I would bet on it being not yet complete.

/patience_is_a_virtue (which is why I'm going to hell.)



Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#3 - 2015-06-26 02:29:12 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Given that (last I checked) the MGC and MGE only affect three out of the four stated attributes (no flight time bonus,) but the MGC script affects four attributes, I would bet on it being not yet complete.

That or it's just going to be missile velocity affected.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#4 - 2015-06-26 17:11:09 UTC
Agreed. They probably copied the db stuff from tracking computers/enhancers and didn't bother to check. Fix plz. Should be missile skills.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
#5 - 2015-07-01 14:07:49 UTC
Thanks, will fix.

@ccp_rise
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-07-02 06:38:18 UTC
You know this was also pointed out in the feedback thread.....confidence...draining.
epicurus ataraxia
Illusion of Solitude.
Illusion of Solitude
#7 - 2015-07-02 17:46:07 UTC  |  Edited by: epicurus ataraxia
Well, "thanks, will fix" is a pretty reasonable answer.

Of course if you wish an entire root cause analysis as to why it had not been done as quickly as you would like, and a few human sacrifices,for good measure and to appease your impatience, then I assume you are willing to pay the bill?

Whilst I am quite willing to criticise where appropriate, now is NOT appropriate.

Tldr Thanks Rise, glad you are fixing it.

There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2015-07-03 09:04:00 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
epicurus ataraxia wrote:
Well, "thanks, will fix" is a pretty reasonable answer.

Of course if you wish an entire root cause analysis as to why it had not been done as quickly as you would like, and a few human sacrifices,for good measure and to appease your impatience, then I assume you are willing to pay the bill?

Whilst I am quite willing to criticise where appropriate, now is NOT appropriate.

Tldr Thanks Rise, glad you are fixing it.



I'll just requote myself here

afkalt wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
What gunnery skill did they put as requirement beside the obvious weapon upgrade which is in gunnery just because it has to be somewhere and nobody want to have to train a clone of it just for missiles.



Trajectory analysis. Which also requires gunnery IV.

We pointed it out on page 14 of this thread. After "great feedback", the nerf came on page 16. No mention of shady skill requirements

CCP seemingly didn't know about the bad skill until they got around to this thread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=431553&find=unread which they responded to yesterday - 4-5 or so days after they were first told in the "great feedback thread".

So you'll have to forgive me if I suspect they've ignored a bunch of this feedback.

Maybe they've not, but by gods it looks fairly damning - not even acknowledging it at the same time as the nerf.



Feels like maybe you've not read the actual feedback thread....but then I suspect neither have they after page 5.


Let me tl;dr for you:

Overwhelming Feedback: "Mods are good, some potential outlier hulls, overall good work."

Response: "Based on feedback these are too good because :turrets: Have some pre nerfed mods and additional nerfs to the rigs today. Enjoy."

Follow up feedback: "This is too big a nerf, you're now nerfing all the ships fit today with new stacking penalties on existing kit which weren't needed."

Response: There isn't one.

The logic doesn't even make sense.

None.


And yes I am fairly cranky that the baby has been flung out with the bathwater for the wrong/invalid reasons, based on invisible/NDA feedback using incomplete mods on sisi. That crankiness doesn't feel unreasonable at this point and we as a community deserve better. We didnt even have the first set of mods working properly to test so how can we tell they were too good? An utterly flawed comparison of the paper percentage gains on unrelated modules? Hardly scientific or even relevant and certainly inconsistent with the rest of the differences between the systems.

This thread just underscores the fact the feedback thread wasn't read properly or perhaps at all.