open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked EVE Online Apocrypha 1.3 deployment thread Monday, 29th June 2009
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:13:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Lijhal
hi ccp, one questions:

Reverse Engineering will see several improvements. We are increasing the drop rate of Tech 3 datacores, increasing the runs on the blueprints from reverse engineering jobs and increasing the presence of radar sites in wormhole space.

does this means existing t3 bpc's will have a increase in runs as well ?


No, this will only affect blueprints created after the patch. Your existing bpc's will be unchanged.


Is it 3, 9, 9 as was reported earlier on testing subforums (wreck, malfunction, intact)?

Chuck Skull
b.b.k
Fidelas Constans
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:20:00 - [32]
 

@CCP; If I already have capital shield operation. Do I need to go back and train the new pre-req's? Because I cant be bothered tbh.

Robot Robot
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:24:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Robot Robot on 26/06/2009 15:47:38
Edited by: Robot Robot on 26/06/2009 15:46:39
So, I (and others) have had responses in bug reports relating to the scan probing bugs stating that they were fixed in "Tex 1.3".

Further, CCP Frellicus responded more than a month ago stating that some of them had been fixed internally.

Any word on why there is no sign of them in the patch notes? I really think that this is currently the biggest issue with the game, especially considering the degree to which Apocrypha has made scan probing an integral part of enjoying such a large part of the content.

This patch has tweaks to T3 production, ostensibly with the aim of bringing down the cost of T3 cruisers. Perhaps a better way to do that would be to make the scanning (which is fundamental to T3 production) less horrifyingly painful by eliminating these large and well-reported bugs that were introduced more than two months ago.

EDIT: mangled HTML

Hayman Wakefield
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:27:00 - [34]
 

Well at least my Legion and Proteus will be cheaper but oh look huge surprise no new epic arcs to play with. I know it was stated Herethey didn't want to rush out rubbish ones, but any at all or even a bit of information as to a soon would be good. I know missions are supposed to be boring to make me do more interesting stuff but once in a while I need iskies quickly and new amarr crystals would it be a crime to want to do that without it being The Assault for the 1 millionth time?

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.06.26 14:27:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Chuck Skull
@CCP; If I already have capital shield operation. Do I need to go back and train the new pre-req's? Because I cant be bothered tbh.


no, but honestly shield management 5 is well worth it and one of the skills you should train to 5 IMO even if you armour tank.

Necronomicon
Caldari
The Weasels of Doom
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:27:00 - [36]
 

I am personally dismayed and dissappointed in the POS Changes, not the changes themselves, but the timing.

within a week of Kenzoku losing their last towers in Delve/Querious, and after the coalition have finshed spending thousands of manhours deploying their POS networks, with Kenzoku now looking for new space, you pick this time to release these changes?

Could you be any more biased?


RedSplat
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:28:00 - [37]
 

/looks for balance changes related to the General Balance megathread. Sees one, that isnt directly related.

Carefull guys, you might actually start a dangerous precedent of fixing things that are broken!

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.06.26 14:31:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Necronomicon

Could you be any more biased?




of with your tinfoil hat! these changes have been in the pipeline for months and are a stepping stone towards online/anchoring queues one day.

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.06.26 14:32:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Deva Blackfire

Is it 3, 9, 9 as was reported earlier on testing subforums (wreck, malfunction, intact)?


nope, closer to 3,10,20 for subsystems. Hulls are probably what was being tested in the thread you read.

Ruddger
Minmatar
Bitter Vets
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:33:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Chuck Skull
@CCP; If I already have capital shield operation. Do I need to go back and train the new pre-req's? Because I cant be bothered tbh.


no, but honestly shield management 5 is well worth it and one of the skills you should train to 5 IMO even if you armour tank.


KIA whine time. So for those of us who trained up that skill that isn't worth it (you know the one) and we would have preferred not to have it at all.... any suggestions?

Robot Robot
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:33:00 - [41]
 

oh... and i guess i should say good work on the faction drone rebalance, that is pretty exciting. and a bunch of those other changes look good too.

i just keep looking everywhere for some sign that the scan probe fixes are actually coming, and when they're not there i'm blinded to everything else.

</grudge>

Regat Kozovv
Caldari
Alcothology
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:34:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
...and are a stepping stone towards online/anchoring queues one day.


Oh god, this would be excellent. =)

Necronomicon
Caldari
The Weasels of Doom
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:39:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Necronomicon

Could you be any more biased?




of with your tinfoil hat! these changes have been in the pipeline for months and are a stepping stone towards online/anchoring queues one day.


In the pipeline for MONTHS, and a completely simple and unlinked set of changes to make (as in none of the attributes have knock on effects elsewhere in the game)

So WHY were they not IMPLEMENTED months ago? Why now, this week?

Sorry but this tinfoil hat stays on.

Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
Veritas Immortalis
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:41:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
a stepping stone towards online/anchoring queues one day.


Yes please! Timeframe?

Tester128
Fremen Sietch
DarkSide.
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:41:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Deva Blackfire

Is it 3, 9, 9 as was reported earlier on testing subforums (wreck, malfunction, intact)?


nope, closer to 3,10,20 for subsystems. Hulls are probably what was being tested in the thread you read.


this makes wrecked relics even more useless which is quite an achievement, considering how useless they were to start with. Really, think of something useful to do with wrecked stuff - it's a whole lot of class 1-2 magneto sites which are worthless atm.

Dragon Greg
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:42:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Necronomicon

Could you be any more biased?




of with your tinfoil hat! these changes have been in the pipeline for months and are a stepping stone towards online/anchoring queues one day.


Hehe.

So, these changes are in response to the situation say 6 months ago, and in 6 months time we'll get another change to address the current situation? Twisted Evil Or will you just skip that and gives us online/achoring queues Wink

Giddoni
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:46:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
[...] a stepping stone towards online/anchoring queues one day.


WANT!

Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:48:00 - [48]
 

Edited by: Gnulpie on 26/06/2009 14:55:49
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Not so much the actual tower spamming as reducing the 'time vampire' nature of setting up enough modules (20-30+) to create so-called Death Star towers which could take a single operator 12-14 hours to do properly.


Yeah great. So you make it even easier to setup death-stars which require big blobbing.

I thought you guys were interested to reduce the need for blobbing.

Where is your famous risk/reward balance?

It takes only one person to set up a death-star. But it needs a large fleet to tear it down. Now you make it even easier. I can't see any balance in there at all.

Ah well, it is your game.

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:53:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Tester128
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Deva Blackfire

Is it 3, 9, 9 as was reported earlier on testing subforums (wreck, malfunction, intact)?


nope, closer to 3,10,20 for subsystems. Hulls are probably what was being tested in the thread you read.


this makes wrecked relics even more useless which is quite an achievement, considering how useless they were to start with. Really, think of something useful to do with wrecked stuff - it's a whole lot of class 1-2 magneto sites which are worthless atm.


Its exactly what i said in the topic about new BPCs ;p

Deva Blackfire
Viziam
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:54:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 26/06/2009 14:55:54
Originally by: Necronomicon
I am personally dismayed and dissappointed in the POS Changes, not the changes themselves, but the timing.

within a week of Kenzoku losing their last towers in Delve/Querious, and after the coalition have finshed spending thousands of manhours deploying their POS networks, with Kenzoku now looking for new space, you pick this time to release these changes?

Could you be any more biased?




Yes because its now even easier for you to reinforce all systems around. Stop whining, go deploy some more towers.

Also if CCP deployed them earlier you would whine "omg omg ccp is making defending easier, waah waah". one way or another you would come here and whine.

SirFett
Best Path Inc.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.26 14:56:00 - [51]
 

any bugfixes in sight ?

such as towers (mostly gallente) going ape**** and fizzling up the screen going sideways parts of it detatching etc

Letrange
Minmatar
Red Horizon Inc
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:01:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
online/anchoring queues one day.

Question: Are you the official chum chucker at CCP?

The entire collective logistical arm of EVE just went "yes!!!" followed by "arg!!!, now we have to wait not knowing when it will get here!!!". Such tactics should be outlawed crimes against humanity by the Yulai convention...

CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2009.06.26 15:03:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Letrange
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
online/anchoring queues one day.

Question: Are you the official chum chucker at CCP?

The entire collective logistical arm of EVE just went "yes!!!" followed by "arg!!!, now we have to wait not knowing when it will get here!!!". Such tactics should be outlawed crimes against humanity by the Yulai convention...


we know, it's our wishlist but bigger things are in the works which will reduce the need for starbase logistics as well combined with this effective bandaid to some of the pos module anchoring/unanchoring times. Overall, the need for queues which is a cool improvement will be much less but this is not in the near future hence some changes to the anchoring times in the interim.

CCP Abathur


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:04:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
I thought you guys were interested to reduce the need for blobbing.


This is not about blobbing. The time reduction does not make the setup "easier" or the towers themselves more lethal / annoying once completed. Regardless of if a tower takes five hours or ten hours to set up, their end-state effectiveness remains the same.

Jarnis McPieksu
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:10:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Letrange
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
online/anchoring queues one day.

Question: Are you the official chum chucker at CCP?

The entire collective logistical arm of EVE just went "yes!!!" followed by "arg!!!, now we have to wait not knowing when it will get here!!!". Such tactics should be outlawed crimes against humanity by the Yulai convention...


we know, it's our wishlist but bigger things are in the works which will reduce the need for starbase logistics as well combined with this effective bandaid to some of the pos module anchoring/unanchoring times. Overall, the need for queues which is a cool improvement will be much less but this is not in the near future hence some changes to the anchoring times in the interim.


ShockedShockedShocked

...and then you drop stuff like this. DETAILS. WE WANT DETAILS. And implementation as well. Done like yesterday!


Necronomicon
Caldari
The Weasels of Doom
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:16:00 - [56]
 

Module anchor queuing is a HUGE task, as not only would you need to tell the system in what order you wanted the modules anchored, but also the position, so unless you enable snapshotting of a base tower for the system to use, the mechanics involved would be a huge overhead.

Ben Her
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:18:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Letrange
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
online/anchoring queues one day.

Question: Are you the official chum chucker at CCP?

The entire collective logistical arm of EVE just went "yes!!!" followed by "arg!!!, now we have to wait not knowing when it will get here!!!". Such tactics should be outlawed crimes against humanity by the Yulai convention...


we know, it's our wishlist but bigger things are in the works which will reduce the need for starbase logistics as well combined with this effective bandaid to some of the pos module anchoring/unanchoring times. Overall, the need for queues which is a cool improvement will be much less but this is not in the near future hence some changes to the anchoring times in the interim.


ShockedShockedShocked

...and then you drop stuff like this. DETAILS. WE WANT DETAILS. And implementation as well. Done like yesterday!




when the devs say things like that, its like going on a first date. You get closer and closer, but you never get to touch Rolling Eyes

btw devs, I have a question, will cap ship maintenance arrays be allowed to be deployed in WH space anytime soon? I have a POS with about 20 regular maint arrays to house my cap fleet and its annoying :)

Erdiere
Minmatar
Erasers inc.
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:21:00 - [58]
 

Am I really reading this thread and the patch notes right?

NO fixes to the probe scanning interface and NO answers from devs why this is the case for the people who have brought this matter up in the thread?

While ALL other questions about the patch have been answered here. Rolling Eyes


Very poor form from CCP, and very disappointing.

Yazus Kor
Kotharat Logistics
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:21:00 - [59]
 

WTB actual fixes. Y'know? Electron Blaster IIs and Gallente Control Tower Glitches to name but a few.

lobster2b
Perkone
Posted - 2009.06.26 15:27:00 - [60]
 

i feel that i need to stand in the crowd that states that this update is a god one, but it fails to fix what we have been wanting a fix for. example here is scanning in whole, nothing is fixed by looking at the patch notes, what else that needs fixing?

i cant recall that long list


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only