open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked EVE Online: Incursion 1.0.0 is coming this Tuesday!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Callin Vandylx
Posted - 2010.11.27 17:00:00 - [91]
 

I too would like an explanation of why Loan Contracts are being removed. I have used these extensively in the past as part of Eve University's Mining Ship Loaner Program.

Would CCP please comment in more detail on why these are being removed, and give full details on the forthcoming January "Contracts Refactoring?" Furthermore, will a reasonable replacement for these loan contracts be provided?

Thanks,

Callin

Takseen
Posted - 2010.11.27 17:14:00 - [92]
 

Quote:
Wrecks will no longer jump around in space, when a tractor beam is activated on them.


Oh nice work guys, that one's been *ahem* bugging me for ages:)

CCP Atlas

Posted - 2010.11.27 17:25:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Callin Vandylx
I too would like an explanation of why Loan Contracts are being removed. I have used these extensively in the past as part of Eve University's Mining Ship Loaner Program.

Would CCP please comment in more detail on why these are being removed, and give full details on the forthcoming January "Contracts Refactoring?" Furthermore, will a reasonable replacement for these loan contracts be provided?
Callin


The reason for removing this contract type is that it was very seldom used and it was apparently a breeding ground for scamming. This is much the same reason as for removing the 'freeform' contract type in Apocrypha 1.3.

For the legitimate loan contracts, almost every single one operates on trust and does not require collateral. For those contracts, an alternative would be to loan the items and/or money using an item exchange contract and then receiving the items back with another such contract.

We realize this is inconvenient for people that are using these contracts for legitimate means but when we compare the amount of work these contract scams add to our customer support department to the value that this contract type provides we feel that their removal is justified.

We will provide more information about the upcoming contracts changes soonish. It should be on Sisi in a couple of weeks.

Patri Andari
Caldari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
Posted - 2010.11.27 18:11:00 - [94]
 

It is quite annoying to see all these responses to every other question but mine. I will ask again but perhaps in a nicer tone.

Ahem.

Dear noble and generous developers of Eve, why did you not boost T2 missile ammo in the same or similar fashion as you did turret ammo?

Was there some balance consideration that needed more time to tinker with? Are there plans to revisit this issue in the future? Will it take as long as the rocket fix? Ooops that last one was not nice, but I tried.





Grady Eltoren
Minmatar
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Posted - 2010.11.27 18:12:00 - [95]
 

CCP -

I just wanted to throw my two cents in and say that I REALLY REALLY like the way EVE is going these days.

I love how you guys are addressing all the little things that needed polish as the game evolved and how you are rebalancing them to make them relevant or just plain old fixing them. YOU GUYS ROCK.

I also love the staggered deployment - It ends up being like Christmas three times instead of once. :) Not to mention - surprises??? :) Those are always good.

I really like how EVE is becoming more user friendly without dumbing down the complexity of the game. Despite the nay-sayers on removing learning skills too - I think that was a hard but well thought out decision. I have a character that I spent months training his learning skills up to 5/5 long ago but I don't care - I remember the frustration of being a new player all too well and I think this will help those guys out and make the game better for all. Just making my corp training easier in general I thank you.

So anyways - one good deed deserves another and thank you in turn for yours.

Cheers - happy holidays - and congrats on what looks to be the best expansion yet.

Grady Eltoren
Minmatar
Aviation Professionals for EVE
Posted - 2010.11.27 18:22:00 - [96]
 

Edited by: Grady Eltoren on 27/11/2010 18:25:20
Originally by: Patri Andari
It is quite annoying to see all these responses to every other question but mine. I will ask again but perhaps in a nicer tone.

Ahem.

Dear noble and generous developers of Eve, why did you not boost T2 missile ammo in the same or similar fashion as you did turret ammo?

Was there some balance consideration that needed more time to tinker with? Are there plans to revisit this issue in the future? Will it take as long as the rocket fix? Ooops that last one was not nice, but I tried.







Hey Patri -

If I might be so bold as to try and answer your question - from my humble knowledge - I think the answer you are looking for lies in the range issue of both Ammo's.

In other words, the reason they addressed T2 projectile ammo was because they just addressed the short range kind that NO ONE used. As a minmatar ammo guy myself and speaking for many others - the T2 projectile ammo has always been broken up into TWO parts. Long range and short range. The long range had no ship drawbacks rather just launcher (gun) drawbacks...the short range had both. Consequently - NO ONE used it because it was TOO nerfed. So CCP took some of the Nerf off it to rebalance it.

In answer to your query though - if you think about it - T2 missiles have no range issues though - It is ALL long and short range. Again as a Minmatar I use missiles as well. I personally have no problem with the T2 variant ship penalties you are rallying against because it is a somewhat acceptable nerf to me. HOWEVER - that is not to say that the penalties couldn't be less. I think CCP will be watching this expansion closely and comparing missile users to projectile more to see if that very reason needs to be addressed down the road.

Side note - ROCKETS were addressed because that was a FIX that has been long needed to be addressed. It is unrelated to this T2 projectile ammo rebalance. There is a lot of history behind it if you read the forums and it stems from it being accidentally left out of a fix for missiles some time back. This new fix is just bringing it in line with the other missile weapons in regards to explosion velocity, etc etc

This is just my knowledge of the situation my friend. Take it for what it is worth.


Kazini Jax
Gallente
Starlight Operations
Starlight Network
Posted - 2010.11.27 18:26:00 - [97]
 

Edited by: Kazini Jax on 28/11/2010 00:59:49
Edited by: Kazini Jax on 27/11/2010 18:26:09
Hmm, CCP Greyscale says the Noctis BP will cost 390mil. Is that right? It seems a little excessive considering mfg time/resources. 39mil sounds better, I think. Be a typo. Please?

Dorian Arconas
Posted - 2010.11.27 18:28:00 - [98]
 

I have noticed what appears to be some nice UI changes. However do these changes offer the option to re-size the UI. I have a setup on a 70 inch HDTV with a very large screen resolution and the UI is by far too small. Can i finally play this game in all its potential 70 inch glory ?

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.11.27 18:31:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Kazini Jax
Hmm, CCP Greyscale says the Nocturnis BP will cost 390mil. Is that right? It seems a little excessive considering mfg time/resources. 39mil sounds better, I think. Be a typo. Please?
It's 390 M.

Koenny
Minmatar
Masters of Puppets
ROYAL NAVY.
Posted - 2010.11.27 18:35:00 - [100]
 

wondering when the existing ships in eve get a new model, like the scorpion. will be looking foward for that.


CCP Chronotis

Posted - 2010.11.27 18:49:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Patri Andari
why did you not boost T2 missile ammo in the same or similar fashion as you did turret ammo?

Was there some balance consideration that needed more time to tinker with? Are there plans to revisit this issue in the future? Will it take as long as the rocket fix? Ooops that last one was not nice, but I tried.



The focus was on the tech II turret ammo which were distinctly underpowered with almost no use/usage. Missiles are different in that even with drawbacks, they are used and useful in scenarios so any attention to this area would be fine tuning over radical changes. There are very much plans to continue to push more regular frequency balance updates out so you should see more balance changes rolling out in the future.

Patri Andari
Caldari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
Posted - 2010.11.27 19:14:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Patri Andari
why did you not boost T2 missile ammo in the same or similar fashion as you did turret ammo?

Was there some balance consideration that needed more time to tinker with? Are there plans to revisit this issue in the future? Will it take as long as the rocket fix? Ooops that last one was not nice, but I tried.



The focus was on the tech II turret ammo which were distinctly underpowered with almost no use/usage. Missiles are different in that even with drawbacks, they are used and useful in scenarios so any attention to this area would be fine tuning over radical changes. There are very much plans to continue to push more regular frequency balance updates out so you should see more balance changes rolling out in the future.


Thank you for your response. I would like to point out that by not addressing the issue at this time you may be simply providing fuel for a future imbalance discussion.

What this means is that only T2 missiles have ship drawbacks. Put jav rockets or precision standards on a crow and you self web your self and die in a fire. Put fury rockets or standards on a crow and you self paint yourself and die in a fire. Meanwile, crusaders are zipping about the field swapping out ammo for any situation in an instant with no negative ship effects. Sad

I look forward to seeing how this controversy will develop.









Jacen Aris
Caldari
Sphere Systems
Obsidian Fusion
Posted - 2010.11.27 19:22:00 - [103]
 

patch day the day before my last coursework for the year has to be handed in? awesome, i like this expansion alot.

Lirinas
Posted - 2010.11.27 19:33:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Kazini Jax
Edited by: Kazini Jax on 27/11/2010 16:51:55
In regards to fish-eye effect..

The difference is these are resolution changes. In the past, if you stretched Eve across, say, 3 monitors, you would get planet distortion. But these, being resolution changes, should mean that you will get to set it to a resolution equal to your monitor setup. In other words, I have 3 22" monitors. The natural resolution for a 22" monitor is 1680x1050. This change should mean you can expand your Eve client to a resolution of 5040x1050, the width of 3 22" monitors.

Unfortunately this is not the case. I've seen the Distortions & FoV changes with my own eyes with the SiSi client. With my 3-monitor setup, I'd have an effective resolution of 4240x1024, but the visual representation of space is heavily distorted and magnified so you see no more than you can at 1024x768 (the minimum resolution for EVE). Yes you have more real-estate to move your windows around, but Outer Space looks like a fuzzy, distorted mess. The ultimate irony is that even at that small resolution, you can still see the distortions, it's just not quite as noticeable.

While a variable FoV is traditionally done in other games to keep those with a bigger monitor from having any sort of advantage over the lowest-common denominator. However EVE has always further punished us with larger monitors with the Fisheye Distortions that I've never comprehended the existence of. With CCP advertising the ability now to have the ultra-wide resolutions, I find myself confused to say the least. Especially when I remember from one of the earlier SiSi builds from over a month ago when there was none of the "Fish Eye" distortion & magnification.

For the record, I do love the ability to resize the Window much more easily than before, and the new Fixed Window option, although I'd call it the "Borderless Window" option, as that is the term I've seen used by programs). I was just wishing that the Fisheye distortion would finally go away.

Night Epoch
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2010.11.27 21:03:00 - [105]
 

Some super pleasant surprises in these patch notes.

Special overlay icons for Deadspace/faction etc. items? Cool

no more rubber banding when coming out of warp! (always reaaaally annoyed me, I'm nitpicky for visual hiccups, call me shallow)

Hawk made less useless?

T2 ammo made less useless?

Fighter Bomber ownage reduced somewhat for sub caps?


nice stuff CCP Laughing

Useful Alt
Posted - 2010.11.27 21:33:00 - [106]
 

anyone could do a before ---> after check on t2 ammo on sisi for me? or it's still not available there?


Wrayeth
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2010.11.27 21:54:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
There are very much plans to continue to push more regular frequency balance updates out so you should see more balance changes rolling out in the future.


That's seriously awesome. I had begun to think that the current--often broken--status quo would remain in effect for the foreseeable future. There are simply too many ships and setups that need to be looked at, so it's nice to see that isn't the case.

Dr Lebroi
Posted - 2010.11.27 22:57:00 - [108]
 

CCP, the last few days you have been full of win and awesome sauce. This rocks, we love fixes even more than shinies! Nice work.

Dorian Arconas
Posted - 2010.11.28 01:29:00 - [109]
 

What abought UI size for large monitors. Do some of the the changes effect this ? In other words no more tiny tiny UI for large resolutions ?

Lirinas
Posted - 2010.11.28 02:05:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Useful Alt
anyone could do a before ---> after check on t2 ammo on sisi for me? or it's still not available there?
I assume you're referring to a detailed breakdown on the Ammo changes, as opposed to the generic listing in the patch notes? That's not a bad idea,but I don't have the time (nor ambition) to check that data - maybe tomorrow. For now, here's a brief summary from my earlier research today:

Ammo that had its damage increased appeared to have a 10% increase (for all damage types it does), while reduced tracking penalties took the penalty from .5x to .7x or .75x. As I said in an earlier reply to this post, the patch note for Conflagration is partly incorrect - it has a reduced tracking penalty (.5x to .7x) instead of having it eliminated entirely.

Originally by: Dorian Arconas
What abought UI size for large monitors. Do some of the the changes effect this ? In other words no more tiny tiny UI for large resolutions ?
UI Elements remain unchanged in size and behavior, from my own experiences on SiSi. If there is a new option to resize portions of it, I have not seen it.

Dorian Arconas
Posted - 2010.11.28 02:21:00 - [111]
 

I did not mean individual UI elements but the UI as a whole. Im sure plenty of users are familiar with how small the UI gets on a large monitors native resolution . I mean every game out these days has a way to UI scale . I was seriously hoping this would be added.
Can you have your ship on one monitor and your UI on a smaller one so its readable or is that option just for your inventory and chat boxes ?

Jenna Jiff
Posted - 2010.11.28 05:10:00 - [112]
 

I see that Short Range T2 Turret Ammo is getting a boost.

Why isn't T2 Missile Ammo?

Tus
Gallente
Reapers Legion
Posted - 2010.11.28 05:19:00 - [113]
 

Oh man. So many things getting fixed that I considered to be small, yet annoying. Much love in this one. <3 Much love. <3 Wake me up when its tuesday, I shall sleep until then for "time travel" hahaha... If only.

Patri Andari
Caldari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
Posted - 2010.11.28 05:19:00 - [114]
 

Originally by: Jenna Jiff
I see that Short Range T2 Turret Ammo is getting a boost.

Why isn't T2 Missile Ammo?


Short answer:

CCP thinks that short ranged turret ammo is under used and therefore needs a boost. T2 missile ammo appears to be used at acceptable rates and therefore needs no boost. (read a few posts above to see where this summary comes from).

Now for the real reason imho:

CCP hates missiles and would like to see them used less because they add to server load. In fact they hate them so much they would like to leave in ship drawbacks that make missile ships explode at a higer rate than all other ships if they use T2 ammo.

You're welcome.




Protheroe
Posted - 2010.11.28 05:44:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: CCP Atlas
Originally by: Callin Vandylx
I too would like an explanation of why Loan Contracts are being removed. I have used these extensively in the past as part of Eve University's Mining Ship Loaner Program.

Would CCP please comment in more detail on why these are being removed, and give full details on the forthcoming January "Contracts Refactoring?" Furthermore, will a reasonable replacement for these loan contracts be provided?
Callin

The reason for removing this contract type is that it was very seldom used and it was apparently a breeding ground for scamming. This is much the same reason as for removing the 'freeform' contract type in Apocrypha 1.3.

For the legitimate loan contracts, almost every single one operates on trust and does not require collateral. For those contracts, an alternative would be to loan the items and/or money using an item exchange contract and then receiving the items back with another such contract.

We realize this is inconvenient for people that are using these contracts for legitimate means but when we compare the amount of work these contract scams add to our customer support department to the value that this contract type provides we feel that their removal is justified.

We will provide more information about the upcoming contracts changes soonish. It should be on Sisi in a couple of weeks.

Unless improved loan contracts will definitely be reintroduced in the new system that's being planned, please don't do this.

That some people have used these contracts to scam is a very weak argument for removing them entirely; there's hardly a feature in the game that hasn't been used to con someone out of money in some way at some point in time, and as you point out, loan contracts are not used much so it can't be a widespread problem.

Unlike the old freeform contracts, the terms of loan contracts are stated quite clearly, so if someone falls for a scam based on a loan contract, it'll probably be their own fault and not an inherent flaw in the system.

Although they aren't currently used much, some niche but interesting non-scam stuff is possible with the loan contract mechanism that cannot be done with Item Exchange contracts and it would be a huge shame to remove them permanently. As someone who has used these contracts how they were intended in the past, I really urge you to reconsider this.

tec'na
Posted - 2010.11.28 10:14:00 - [116]
 

WOO HOO! cant wait. Very Happy

Oh wait, thats the day i booked off work to play all day! dam it Very HappyRolling EyesShocked

never mind,

Fluffy Pillowbiter
Posted - 2010.11.28 10:54:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: Fluffy Pillowbiter on 28/11/2010 10:55:01
Edited by: Fluffy Pillowbiter on 28/11/2010 10:54:33
ok, so the noctis blueprint costs 390 mil cool, my question would be is the hull price a typo? or the base material amount a typo? Cause the hull price is 1,600,000 isk and if i'm reading this right the amount of tritanium you would need at base amount is 3,684,351 and buying trit even at 1 isk puts u in the hole on this ship, let alone the rest of the materials u'd need.Hopefully there is a typo somewhere.

Bragii
Gallente
Trumpets and Bookmarks
Posted - 2010.11.28 11:00:00 - [118]
 


Most people buy wide screen LCDs, which, as their name implies, are quite wide already.

So although I have 2 screens I find it more useful to have them above and below one another.

So rather than just a “Horizontal offset” how about a "Vertical offset" ?


Junkie Babe
Posted - 2010.11.28 13:04:00 - [119]
 

Gleam has had its shield hitpoint and signature radius penalties removed.

Even with those removed I doubt anyone would use gleam. Beams track much slower than pulses and gleam has a 25% tracking penalty and half the range of Multi and does barely more damage.

Why does beams which aren't good close up to start with have the shortest ranged crystal and with a tracking penalty for barely any more damage.

Invictra Atreides
Caldari
Posted - 2010.11.28 16:10:00 - [120]
 

The new Window options are rly useful. I was running EVE in windowed mode and on a custom resolution 1680x960 (screen:1680x1050) so I could have the start bar below EVE and no need to Alt Tab.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

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