open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: t0rfifrans announces our mini-expansion Apocrypha 1.5
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 : last (10)

Author Topic

Bogu D
Clans of the Sanctums
Posted - 2009.07.02 07:23:00 - [181]
 

Yeah! The rigs part is absolutely superb! Even if it will lead to a logistical nightmare for merc and pvp corps in high/low sec that move their area of activity regularly. A high sec ship transporter might be a solution but that's another dead horse that's been flogged to no end.

Yes the Orca is an option for moving rigged ships but a) it's ship maintenace array is not big enough and b) it's skill tree is far from ideal.

The quick and dirty solution is to either:
- allow freighters to move rigged ships without any charges in the highs/cargo/drone bay
- or implement this idea -> Orca - Dry Dock Bay module

Count Helmchen
Posted - 2009.07.02 08:20:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Space Wanderer
"Meanwhile, in an effort to make Factional Warfare more fun, we are looking at introducing Loyalty Point rewards for kills and captures, with special LP stores for each militia, offering unique goodies for hard working militamen and women."

Be careful, this is prone to the abuse and farming... get a char ina faction, another in an enemy one, let the chars kill each other repeatedly, ???, profit!


this is really a big concern if you ask me .... maybe ccp will change the client code in order to allow only one ip used per client and we would finally kill the stupid metagaming in this great game!Razz

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.07.02 08:38:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: Matthew

Originally by: fuze
It also can be an advantage. If swads of ISK farmers start doing FW you can shoot them everywhere and get LP for it as well. Knowing nothing about PvP they will be sitting ducks anyway.


But the FW-farming characters are unlikely to swan around the place for you to shoot, and certainly won't be the same characters farming other areas of the game.

They only need to be in space long enough to blow up the alt's ship, which they can do quite happily at a safespot. The rest of the time (and any time they see hostiles) they'll be nicely docked up or cloaked.

While in theory you can shoot them, in practice any half-competent farmer is going to make it extremely difficult for you to get in the position to.



There is no need to be in low sec to do that. It can be easily done the same way some low sec pirates get ganking ships in high sec.

Insure ships. Pass them to Orca pilot. Orca Pilot warp to safespot. Killer is already there. Target warp to safespot in pod. Orca pilot drop ship, Target board it, Killer start firing. Repeat while Orca pilot salvage the ship wreck.

At best you can scan them and get to attack 1 ship of the target.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2009.07.02 09:15:00 - [184]
 

There have been two easy solutions allready presented, base lp reward on isk the other one lost, so you never make profit with it (yes including insurance), or add some kind of rank, so your alt gets after a few times a stupidly low rank and you dont get any lp for killing him.


About the pirates whining:
0.0 players get after fights they win control over high end moons (sure not all fights, and it isnt a direct benefit to fighting, but it is pretty much what they fight for). And additionally also ratting grounds, agents, etc. So they got a very good financial reason to fight.

Pirates mostly pick on haulers, ratters, and everyone who cant possibly have a reasonable chance of doing any damage at all. They make their isk by looting those wrecks from targets who didnt pose much of a risk anyway. Same is true for the high sec risk free pvp'ers. So they get their isk that way. And they can also ransom them (sadly for them no one in their right mind pays ransom, but that is their own fault).

In FW all your opponents (except some failfits) will have pvp fittings. They arent faction fit mission runners, they do shoot back, and they wont drop more than some t2 loot. So only for FW there isnt any real reward.

Lumy
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.07.02 09:32:00 - [185]
 

Edited by: Lumy on 02/07/2009 09:41:21
Originally by: Hun Jakuza
Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 02/07/2009 07:34:40
Another bad move : rigs, specialized cargo holds.

We have in game, over 200 rigs why increasing the laggy database again with useless idea ?
Today the rigs working fine, not need changes. +400 unnecessary items, new rig bonuses, new industry/research jobs in database just generating more lags.
The game for new players will be more complicated.

I know CCP thinking. Small,med,large rigs will give to players different bonuses. Small rigs will need much less raw material but give to players, less bonuses, like the implants 1%,3%,5%.
For frigates this rigs will useless, small ships have small attributes +1% for example frigate 500 shield will increase +5hp. So useless. Med for cruiser and BCs ? I foresee that they stain already the drake pilots to cry, nerfing down their field purger rigs.

Specialized cargoholds: Ships need for this changes new slots, like rig slots, because if ships need for the new cargo modules low slots, the applicability of the spaceships will reduce only with it.


Fw: Faction war is unplayeable. Reason is the lag.
Players cant fight in 10vs10 battle, because the CCP move their server capacity to 0.0. 10vs10 battle in FW same that than there 0.0 in 1000 pilots of battle.
We said many times for CCP, pls fix the lag, but nothing changed at least 1 year ago.

The FW play need revision too. Who found it for example, onto the hostile station in there may be docking up an enemy ship ?
Capture systems give the players nothing. It's too boring.

Bullcrap! This post is so stupid it's almost insulting.

1. More rigs will have absolutely no impact on DB performance. There are literally thousands inventory types with hundreds of thousands attributes in two relatively small tables. And that's just stuff they export in their DB dumps.
2. There is no reason or hint from dev to expect attribute change in small/medium rigs. CCP wants to make them cheaper, no useless. Baseless speculation is baseless.
3. No, they won't need any new slots. All they need to do: a) make expanders affect fuelbays too, b) make new specialized modules for specialized cargo holds, c) do absolutely nothing and it will be good anyway.
4. They don't move their server capacity anywhere. Sometimes they reinforce node for single solar system, if you expect massive blob and ask nicely.
5. Lag isn't something you just magically make go away. It took several years, inventing and completely rewriting their network(?) layer to make large 0.0 battles and/or existing in Jita possible.

So, go away or get a clue.

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2009.07.02 10:02:00 - [186]
 

Unimpressed, but then I've been unimpressed for the last few expansions.

Been playing for almost 4 years and you've talked about Ambulation for 4 years but have nothing really to show for it. Basically its clear that its not a priority, never really was and the teasers at the various fan fests are just that teasers. So basically it's vaporware.

It's been on the list of future development longer than anything else.

If you've found that it cannot be done, say so, stop leading people on. That goes for everything on the future features list that your working on that's been there 2 years or more (which is about 90% of what's there).

Then once you clean up the list actually put forth the honest future features you really are working on and keep the list manageable such that they could reasonably be done in a year or two.

Fi Vantage
Minmatar
Bristol Freedom Cooperative
True Reign
Posted - 2009.07.02 11:21:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Theqwert125
One solution I've seen is to give small ships MORE calibration, and make small rigs cost more calibration.


This idea is perfect! Even if small rigs give less of a boost anyway.

Expendable Pilot
Posted - 2009.07.02 11:34:00 - [188]
 

Edited by: Expendable Pilot on 02/07/2009 11:34:17
Originally by: CCP Explorer
The version number of Apocrypha 1.5 will be 6.14. Apocrypha 1.5 is the next scheduled release and it will contain scanning fixes.


Woah. Hold the phone. What scanning fixes? Does this mean you're going to fix the issues with the scanning filters constantly screwing up or is this another 'were going to make scanning so trivially easy that anyone with Astrometrics I can now roll their face across the keyboard and successfully scan down everything in an industrial ship fitted with just a core probe launcher and standard probes'?



Sidrat Flush
Caldari
Eve Industrial Corp
Posted - 2009.07.02 11:37:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Sidrat Flush on 03/07/2009 14:29:14
"The Winter Expansion

We will be reporting on the winter expansion as it draws closer. All I can say, is that it is focused on sovereignty and you will not be able to walk in it."

Doh! I need to remember to read all the words, not just the words I want to read.

No really I want CCP to pull off the most daring expansion to date, even more so than the sov-mechanics.

Oh and thanks for increasing the number of mods in the game AGAIN, it's bad enough you change the ingredients around and change the significance of the Activity 6 value, I guess the spreadsheet will be even bigger than it is now.

Nidhiesk
Posted - 2009.07.02 11:43:00 - [190]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Gil Danastre
So with the mini expansion titled Apocrypha 1.5, does this imply there will be a 1.4 in the time between now and then? If so, will it include the oft delayed scanning fixes? Very Happy
Think of it this way: Apocrypha 1.4 (version number) is Apocrypha "1.5" (name).

The version number of Apocrypha 1.5 will be 6.14. Apocrypha 1.5 is the next scheduled release and it will contain scanning fixes.


Ohh no, you got the Bill Gates virus. numbers are not the same as the version "name". oh god, who will save us ... again

Sidrat Flush
Caldari
Eve Industrial Corp
Posted - 2009.07.02 11:46:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Unimpressed, but then I've been unimpressed for the last few expansions.

Been playing for almost 4 years and you've talked about Ambulation for 4 years but have nothing really to show for it. Basically its clear that its not a priority, never really was and the teasers at the various fan fests are just that teasers. So basically it's vaporware.

It's been on the list of future development longer than anything else.

If you've found that it cannot be done, say so, stop leading people on. That goes for everything on the future features list that your working on that's been there 2 years or more (which is about 90% of what's there).

Then once you clean up the list actually put forth the honest future features you really are working on and keep the list manageable such that they could reasonably be done in a year or two.


Damn what a whiner, of course it's been in development for so long because it requires totally brand new code, full size avatars (They've added in some mood awareness AI as well), so that will require the character creation progress a refit as well, then you've got to get in the environments that people will walk around in, oh and the textures for the above, and the coding to get it working properly so that two pod pilots don't end up sharing the same quarters, add in the corporation offices with that 3D holographic map they've been talking about and that's even more coding time, plus all the things at launch AND for future updates to include as well.

You really have no clue and if you'd listen just a bit harder CCP has always wanted walking in stations, planets and that sort of thing since day one, however it was about doing what they could with the hardware they had available and they still have to upgrade the old systems as well (the recent UI changes), accept the fact that while they make mistakes, they are doing their best to get the best online game out there AND at no extra cost to the customer in the form of a retail upgrade. If you think you could come up with a game that you would be impressed with go and get on with it.

Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
Posted - 2009.07.02 11:53:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 02/07/2009 12:04:18
Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 02/07/2009 11:58:30
Originally by: Lumy
Edited by: Lumy on 02/07/2009 09:41:21
Originally by: Hun Jakuza
Edited by: Hun Jakuza on 02/07/2009 07:34:40
Another bad move : rigs, specialized cargo holds.

We have in game, over 200 rigs why increasing the laggy database again with useless idea ?
Today the rigs working fine, not need changes. +400 unnecessary items, new rig bonuses, new industry/research jobs in database just generating more lags.
The game for new players will be more complicated.

I know CCP thinking. Small,med,large rigs will give to players different bonuses. Small rigs will need much less raw material but give to players, less bonuses, like the implants 1%,3%,5%.
For frigates this rigs will useless, small ships have small attributes +1% for example frigate 500 shield will increase +5hp. So useless. Med for cruiser and BCs ? I foresee that they stain already the drake pilots to cry, nerfing down their field purger rigs.

Specialized cargoholds: Ships need for this changes new slots, like rig slots, because if ships need for the new cargo modules low slots, the applicability of the spaceships will reduce only with it.


Fw: Faction war is unplayeable. Reason is the lag.
Players cant fight in 10vs10 battle, because the CCP move their server capacity to 0.0. 10vs10 battle in FW same that than there 0.0 in 1000 pilots of battle.
We said many times for CCP, pls fix the lag, but nothing changed at least 1 year ago.

The FW play need revision too. Who found it for example, onto the hostile station in there may be docking up an enemy ship ?
Capture systems give the players nothing. It's too boring.

Bullcrap! This post is so stupid it's almost insulting.

1. More rigs will have absolutely no impact on DB performance. There are literally thousands inventory types with hundreds of thousands attributes in two relatively small tables. And that's just stuff they export in their DB dumps.
2. There is no reason or hint from dev to expect attribute change in small/medium rigs. CCP wants to make them cheaper, no useless. Baseless speculation is baseless.
3. No, they won't need any new slots. All they need to do: a) make expanders affect fuelbays too, b) make new specialized modules for specialized cargo holds, c) do absolutely nothing and it will be good anyway.
4. They don't move their server capacity anywhere. Sometimes they reinforce node for single solar system, if you expect massive blob and ask nicely.
5. Lag isn't something you just magically make go away. It took several years, inventing and completely rewriting their network(?) layer to make large 0.0 battles and/or existing in Jita possible.

So, go away or get a clue.


So stupid answer.

1. More rigs will have absolutely impact on DB performance.
Because the number of the database queries will grow with more hundred thousands daily towards the server from the players.

2. No reason, but we knowing CCP.

3.
Fuelbays cargo extender for low slot = crap

4.
They moved server capacity of 80% to 0.0 everyone is know that.
Just go to FW, low sec and high sec, and look at the difference in the battles onto how much lag in game compared to 0.0. 20 man fleet battle in empire is unplayable.
This does not occur at more hundred pilots in 0.0
And something, dont talk Jita, Jita got more 12GB RAM after his code was amended to 64 bit, but other nods this not obtained the memory extension.

5.
Lag in FW system is hardware syndrome, because there is not a suitable server capacity.
We played there over 100 man battles without lag when started FW, but this a strange manner changed with some months later, the players' number decreased to one in those systems though.
Where his playability was disappearing ? Why started these systems extreme laggy, while nothing changed ? May be only a reason they made his nods of number decrease there.

So just stfu and use your brain.

Aastarius
Posted - 2009.07.02 12:08:00 - [193]
 

They state quite clearly there is an issue with the FW code, not the hardware. Yes it probably wouldn't hurt to throw some more [hardware] resources at it, but rather pointless until they can track down the actual bugs that are creating the problem.

Tiger's Spirit
Caldari
Posted - 2009.07.02 12:33:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: Aastarius
They state quite clearly there is an issue with the FW code, not the hardware. Yes it probably wouldn't hurt to throw some more [hardware] resources at it, but rather pointless until they can track down the actual bugs that are creating the problem.


This is not true, because when started the lag there, we not got new patch, but the player numbers decreased there.
Nothing changed in the code, but lag came.
I remember when we fight there with over 100 enemy pilots without lag. What changed ? Nothing, but now you cant fight against small 10 mans fleet. If no change in software and players number decreased, just one reason left, the hardware.

Tristan Coultare
Posted - 2009.07.02 13:23:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Count Helmchen
yadda, yadda...
maybe ccp will change the client code in order to allow only one ip used per client and we would finally kill the stupid metagaming in this great game!Razz


Do you even have the faintest idea on how networks work? Does the acronyms LAN & NAT mean anything to you?

Obviously not, else you would not make such a clueless comment.

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.07.02 13:34:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: Tristan Coultare
Originally by: Count Helmchen
yadda, yadda...
maybe ccp will change the client code in order to allow only one ip used per client and we would finally kill the stupid metagaming in this great game!Razz


Do you even have the faintest idea on how networks work? Does the acronyms LAN & NAT mean anything to you?

Obviously not, else you would not make such a clueless comment.



They will also make it so everyone uses ipv6 to circumvent that problem, duh.

Junto Mien
Posted - 2009.07.02 13:54:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Tristan Coultare
Originally by: Count Helmchen
yadda, yadda...
maybe ccp will change the client code in order to allow only one ip used per client and we would finally kill the stupid metagaming in this great game!Razz


Do you even have the faintest idea on how networks work? Does the acronyms LAN & NAT mean anything to you?

Obviously not, else you would not make such a clueless comment.



If you read again, he did say change in the client code. So it would actually work, on a basic level. You just restrict it to whatever local IP it uses, even if it's an intranet IP. Of course, there would be ways around this for the clever (eg, set up multiple IP addresses on the same ethernet port, and have the two different eve clients use the different IP's). But his point was not so stupid as you supposed.

If he said server side, which you seemed to have assumed, then it would also be possible to implement - it just means that any home with two computers using a NAT wouldn't be able to both run EVE. So probably not a good idea unless you're happy to exclude families where two or more people play EVE.

WheatGrass
Silent but Friendly
Posted - 2009.07.02 13:58:00 - [198]
 

Epic Mission Arc ...

It's interesting that, unlike the original Epic Mission Arc with Sister Alitura, the new ones are oriented to the four races. Is this because so many players have allowed their faction standings to become so specialized that running the first epic mission arc was not possible for them? For the likely minority of players who have not allowed their faction standings to box them in, will our standings prevent us from running the new epic mission arcs? (My standings are good enough to not get shot at by most factions but will that be good enough to run the race based epic mission arcs?) Will there be any additional epic mission arcs added which span the main empire regions / races such as the original epic mission arc?

Thank you.

So far, I've obtained 15 copies of the Sister Alitura report but have only been allowed to run the mission arc once. Thankfully, my agent has quit giving me missions which provide those reports.

Aya Vandenovich
Posted - 2009.07.02 14:19:00 - [199]
 

Sized based rigs sound great but, and I'm sure this isn't a new question, will there be any changes to rig stats/new rig types?

Nothingbetter2do
Posted - 2009.07.02 14:31:00 - [200]
 

how long before the gallente + faction towers are fixed? please fixed them soon before we all end up having epileptic seizures.

Michel Licari
Tribal Liberation Force
Posted - 2009.07.02 15:25:00 - [201]
 

Edited by: Michel Licari on 02/07/2009 15:29:49
Edited by: Michel Licari on 02/07/2009 15:29:00
LP Store based on kills is Awesome!

There are 2 things that Ive thought of while reading the comments in this thread.

  • Scale the LP rewards for pvp kills based on the number and size of ships involved. This will encourage more small gangs and solo pvp, and also clean up any exploit possibilities. Im thinking of the griefwatch point system when I think of this.


  • Add diminishing returns on LP for pvp kills on the same character. This will (hopefully) stop people from exploiting by killing their own alts/friends.

Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2009.07.02 15:29:00 - [202]
 

Edited by: Wacktopia on 02/07/2009 15:30:29
Originally by: Aya Vandenovich
Sized based rigs sound great but, and I'm sure this isn't a new question, will there be any changes to rig stats/new rig types?


I think it will simply be that a small, med, large, capital rig will always give, say, +10% bonus to whatever but the small will be cheaper and only fittable to frigs, meds to cruisers + BC, large to BS etc.

...Or they might make it so the /effective/ bonus is roughly the same per class - in a similar way to Microwarpdrives. You can fit a 1MN mwd to a BS but it has no real benefit.

I doubt they will create new types of rigs, there are already hundreds.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2009.07.02 15:42:00 - [203]
 

Sized rigs are great for everyone except people who make and sell Gravity Capacitor rigs, since those are almost always fitted to frigate sized ships.

Looking forwards to it.

Rashmika Clavain
Gallente
Posted - 2009.07.02 15:57:00 - [204]
 

Same stats but limited to hull types only... best way in my opinion.

Then it becomes viable fitting frigate sized rigs for a cost more comparable to the value of the ship.

Haniblecter Teg
F.R.E.E. Explorer
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.07.02 16:23:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Nyphur
Edited by: Nyphur on 30/06/2009 23:45:04

Very interesting stuff. The small rigs, I assume will be just as effective on the correct size class of ship but less effective on larger ones? So a small trimark would give 15% armour on a frigate but say 7.5% on a cruiser and 3.75% on a battleship? The epic arcs are also something I'm definitely looking forward to. Hopefully they'll tie in with the on-going war storyline that started with FW but hasn't seen any movement since then.






My big concern is that CCP may try and make small, medium, and large rig loot necessary in building said rigs.

While taking away profit for salvagers, it'd also further complicate teh process, add more crap to the market, etc.

There has to be a way to keep the existing loot structure AND make small, medium, large rigs.

Phantom Slave
Universal Pest Exterminators
Posted - 2009.07.02 17:06:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
My big concern is that CCP may try and make small, medium, and large rig loot necessary in building said rigs.

While taking away profit for salvagers, it'd also further complicate teh process, add more crap to the market, etc.

There has to be a way to keep the existing loot structure AND make small, medium, large rigs.


If I were CCP I would simply scale back the required components of current blueprints, for small and medium rigs. I don't know the exact numbers, but cut 33% off of a Large rig (current) and you have medium, cut another 33% off (66% total) and you have smalls. That's how I would do it. No new components or anything like that, just decreasing the amount required.

Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.07.02 17:31:00 - [207]
 

So, knowing from years of experience how CCP implements great new features in the vein of dedicated cargoholds ...

You all are EXCITED about them?! What the hell is wrong with you all?! We all know it'll nerf 95% of ships for no good reason.

Seriously Bored
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.07.02 17:32:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: Theqwert125
Originally by: Kewso
So the small/med/large rigs will give less bonuses I would think.

so for example would it be like
Current rigs made large

so would it be?
small cargohold optimization = 5%
medium cargohold optimization = 10%
large cargohold optimization = 15%

with the ability to use large on any size ship if you wanted to spend the money?

cause lot of haulers have current rigs that will be made large after that change.



One solution I've seen is to give small ships MORE calibration, and make small rigs cost more calibration. If the player wants to fit the vastly more expensive large rigs in order to squeeze in more T2 rigs, why stop him?

Also, why on EARTH would you scale percentage based rigs, they are already scaled by their very nature!


Um, because they'll be cheaper? As stated in the blog, the current rigs won't change at all, and will be considered large. I think Kewso is exactly right about how the rigs will work.

Basically, if you want that 10% RoF rig on your frigate, you can still do it. It'll just cost you the same large price it currently does, when a 5% RoF rig would just be a lot cheaper. And if 5% RoF costs 500k to 1mil, you can be sure I'll be using it...

These other ideas about Small rigs having the same stats, but only being equipable by frigs are silly. If you wan't your big bonus, you'll still have to pay for it. All small rigs will do is let you squeeze some extra oomph out of your cheaper ships without breaking the bank.

Max Hardcase
The Scope
Posted - 2009.07.02 17:38:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: Phantom Slave
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
My big concern is that CCP may try and make small, medium, and large rig loot necessary in building said rigs.

While taking away profit for salvagers, it'd also further complicate teh process, add more crap to the market, etc.

There has to be a way to keep the existing loot structure AND make small, medium, large rigs.


If I were CCP I would simply scale back the required components of current blueprints, for small and medium rigs. I don't know the exact numbers, but cut 33% off of a Large rig (current) and you have medium, cut another 33% off (66% total) and you have smalls. That's how I would do it. No new components or anything like that, just decreasing the amount required.


My bet : we get an new option in the manufacturing interface for rigs that will specify size. It then modifies the amount of materials needed ( probably a simple fractional multiplier ) and then increases the calibration needed ( probably a multiplier too ) My bet is that current calib points get devided by 100 for BS and up ( and full sized rigs obviously), 10 for BC/CS and that the calib point modifier will be 10x for medium rigs and 100x for small rigs.

Woo Mi
Posted - 2009.07.02 18:27:00 - [210]
 

Yay: flexible bays.
This might finally give us modular freighters with humongous capacity without going over the magic limits per bay (because of it not being allowed to transdport certain ships to hisec).


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 : last (10)

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