open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Iterative development and what's happening in 2011
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : last (66)

Author Topic

Hertford
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.07.18 20:16:00 - [811]
 

Awesome troll, CCP Zulupark. What's even more impressive is how you became Senior Producer when your knowledge of game mechanics is so shaky.

BBQfire
Posted - 2010.07.18 20:22:00 - [812]
 

i don't want new expansions -> i want old issues fixed!

every few months a new expansion is released with new bugs plus the not resolved old bugs - this sucks and is no good job.

i have the feeling it's like putting paint on a rusty spot being aware that the rust will get through soon.

so please CCP, polish and clean the spot first and after that put new shiny paint on it.

Jason1138
Posted - 2010.07.18 20:30:00 - [813]
 

hard to argue with Phoenus's last statement there

i do not really like the idea of hanging out here for the next 18 months waiting for already 2 or 3 year old issues to be fixed. i don't know why anyone would

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.18 20:31:00 - [814]
 

Originally by: Meissa Anunthiel
Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel on 18/07/2010 18:28:21
Originally by: Malcanis
I just jumped in to a system with 105 total in local, and I haven't loaded after 8 minutes.

I'm hoping a relog will work. I wonder if I still have a ship?

Is 50v50 to much to ask?


One server has a capacity of, say, 1000 people.
One server handles many systems.
Server currently handling 980 people, including 50 in the system you're about to jump to, all is fine...
You jump in with your 50 extra.
Total: 1030 => Lag.
It's not the 100 in local, it's the 900+ elsewhere that are handled by the same node...


This is an oversimplified explanation, but you get the picture...
Edit: Oh, and this explanation pertains to lag, not the black screen per se, the reason for which is linked to the previous but as of now, still not fixed.


Well I guess we've just had the most dreadful luck, always having our 60-100 man fights on a node which just happens to have 900 guys fighting on it on the other side of the map. Every time for the last 8 months.

What are the odds? I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket, I'm clearly due some good luck.

Liang Nuren
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:04:00 - [815]
 

Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/07/2010 21:04:28
Originally by: Malcanis
What are the odds? I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket, I'm clearly due some good luck.


/Goes off on a rant about independent probabilities...

<3

Its such a damn shame that sisi is on such drastically different hardware as TQ. I almost expect mad lags on Sisi - so its hard to spot mad lags on test before it hits live.

-Liang

Ed: Actually: CCP, just how different is the sisi "cluster" vs the TQ cluster? Same hardware but one blade running all systems - I seem to remember something like that.

Bomberlocks
Minmatar
CTRL-Q
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:12:00 - [816]
 

I've gotten tired of all the negative drama (that I've partly been responsible for) and I'd like to make a simple suggestion to CCP on how to stop the poor user take up while CCP is actually reading this thread: Improve the new player experience!

There was a comment thread in ideas and proposals from CCP last year on how to improve the new player experience, and while it has improved a bit, specifically with the NPE Epic arc and the career agents, that is not why people are trying out the game and leaving. People are leaving because Eve has a steep learning curve and the rewards in the beginning are small compared to the effort required to get there. On top of this I cannot tell you how many new players sign up for FW and get their ships destroyed and podded within a few minutes of entering losec and then lose heart and leave.

I propose that CCP introduce rookie PvP and game mechanics education as part of the new player experience. The rookie PvP & Game Mech NPE should have the following features:
1. Rookie pilots should have the choice of a PvP agent and a rookie only deadspace area to practice in.
2. This should be done with the ships given to the player after having completed the advanced military tutorial.
3. There should be an upper limit on SP to limit abuse. Possibly 1 million SP.
4. The PvP agent should be a real player, not a GM, who takes the new player through the steps of all basic common combat scenarios, including system security, hi and losec, concord, griefing (can flipping, suicide ganking, war decs etc), gate guns, session timers and most importantly, getting podded (I don't remember offhand at what level sp gets lost, but that should be the upper limit for the player doing the tutorial).
5. The tutorial will be done over a period of time and should be divided into sections to as to not overburden the new player or the player agent.
6. Before accepting the tutorial, the player must be informed that he will lose a ship that will NOT get automatically get replaced and that he WILL get podded and what the consequences of podding mean.
7. After completing the tutorial, the player must rank the player agent who did the tutorial.
8. Player agents will get compensated for their time and effort and by receiving a limited number of SP based on the ranking they receive from their pupils. A player agent with no ranking will receive 8000 SP per successfully completed tutorial, and a player agent with an excellent ranking would receive 14000 SP per tutorial. Actual SP reward would have to be balanced so as to make it attractive for players with median skills but not as an avenue to bypass the skills training requirement.
9. Corps and Alliances who train new players this way will be able to get an eye on potential future recruits.
10. Rookies having completed this tutorial should then have a solid knowledge of PvP mechanics in EvE, which is critical in Eve for anyone who wishes to play the game, as Eve is or should be a PvP game at its core.
11. This measure should reduce the number of new players leaving due to the frustration with the complexity of the game.

This is just my 2 cents. I'm pretty sure the quality of the player PvP experience would go up quite a bit with such a system and CCP would not be reduced to trying to keep people in game with initially pleasant, but ultimately boring features like Incarna.

I say all this after looking at the success of the Red vs. Blue system, which arguably does more to keep new players in game than anything else, but which is limited because its not officially supported.

Tarasina
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:12:00 - [817]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/07/2010 21:04:28
Originally by: Malcanis
What are the odds? I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket, I'm clearly due some good luck.


/Goes off on a rant about independent probabilities...

<3

Its such a damn shame that sisi is on such drastically different hardware as TQ. I almost expect mad lags on Sisi - so its hard to spot mad lags on test before it hits live.

-Liang

Ed: Actually: CCP, just how different is the sisi "cluster" vs the TQ cluster? Same hardware but one blade running all systems - I seem to remember something like that.


Incidentally, have they tested fleet lag when neighboring(and current) systems have lots of PI colonies? Just curious.

Dr Lebroi
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:18:00 - [818]
 

Since its inception and throughout its life, Eve Online has advertised by CCP to the world as being a game primarily based around large scale space combat. It seems that large scale space combat is not currently possible in Eve Online - I would suggest that this is the single most important issue that CCP should be focused on. Your games' primary function doesn't function. Other parts of the game work and are fun to play but its beating heart is broken.

Or, is it CCP's intent that Eve is no longer to be PRIMARILY based around large scale space combat? New projects and development resources suggest this but if this is the case, I think the current players should be told. I joined to blow up spaceships when Eve was a game about blowing up spaceships. Am I now in the wrong room?

What is Incarna? CCP is massively invested in it in terms of manpower and budget. It has higher priority than the gameís original raison díetre i.e. large scale space combat. Why? What are its features and what does it bring to the Eve universe? Presumably you would like us to be as excited about it as you are, please provide some solid information about why it is so central to your plans.

Iím really pleased to see open discourse in this thread with CCP, the Devs that have responded have done their company great credit. Many thanks.



Niccolado Starwalker
Gallente
Shadow Templars
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:40:00 - [819]
 


Personally I dont experience much lag. When I find myself out in deep space I am always alone, covert and sneaking, but I can certainly understand it to be a problem.

A question though. Would it be possible for CCP to automate the system, scale it so that if there are more than 60 people in the system containing different people not being in the same alliance is considered to be a system in state of war, thus leading to automatic granting the system its own node? I am pretty sure there are many problems coming with this idea or it opens a galaxy wide can of worms, but maybe? hehe..


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:44:00 - [820]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/07/2010 21:04:28
Originally by: Malcanis
What are the odds? I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket, I'm clearly due some good luck.


/Goes off on a rant about independent probabilities...

<3



I dont think you get superstition...

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2010.07.18 21:45:00 - [821]
 

Edited by: Ix Forres on 18/07/2010 21:57:20
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 18/07/2010 21:04:28
Originally by: Malcanis
What are the odds? I think I'll go buy a lottery ticket, I'm clearly due some good luck.


/Goes off on a rant about independent probabilities...

<3



I dont think you get superstition...


Statisticians aren't likely to.

Originally by: Liang Nuren

Its such a damn shame that sisi is on such drastically different hardware as TQ. I almost expect mad lags on Sisi - so its hard to spot mad lags on test before it hits live.

-Liang

Ed: Actually: CCP, just how different is the sisi "cluster" vs the TQ cluster? Same hardware but one blade running all systems - I seem to remember something like that.


As far as I know they're functionally identical, and the sisi cluster uses old TQ hardware, or something along those lines. I'd imagine they try and keep everything as close as possible so that their testing is as close to the real thing as possible. It'd be madness to do anything other than that.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.18 21:52:00 - [822]
 

Originally by: Psihius
Originally by: CCP Explorer
This was a topic of a significant technical debate within CCP. We ended up with a dual-layer EVE Gate (backend and presentation layer) with the EVE Gate backend communicating with special EVE Gate nodes in the EVE Server cluster via XML RPC. The long term plan is to rewrite the EVE Gate backend in Stackless Python and simply run the backend as a part of the cluster. A part of the network work in Incarna is to add the necessary web framework components to the EVE Framework to make that possible.
I have read initial devblogs, there was some details on the architecture. Good luck with the Python :) And the .NET for the WEB part as I understand was chosen because you allready work with MS software? :)
Yes, we use .NET for the rest of our web sites and had experience, tools, components, build and deployment processes and in-house skills to build EVE Gate using .NET.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.18 22:03:00 - [823]
 

Originally by: J'J'J'Jita
Anyway, since devs are reading this, I'm wondering if you're still using windows server, I guess? No linux on the cluster? For communication between nodes, can you say which implementation of MPI for python you use (if you use MPI)? That is, if your in-house version of stackless doesn't do this itself. There are a few different projects out there.
Yes, we are using Windows Server.

We investigated off-the-shelf implementations of MPI but they all had the flaw that if one of the nodes died then all the nodes were torn down. Which is fine for (certain types of) scientific computing and batch processing but not for a simulation such as EVE.

Jason1138
Posted - 2010.07.18 22:30:00 - [824]
 

"I'd imagine they try and keep everything as close as possible so that their testing is as close to the real thing as possible. It'd be madness to do anything other than that."


lol

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.18 22:36:00 - [825]
 

Originally by: Cergorach
Originally by: Marko Riva
1- realise that EVE is a continuous process (and cash cow), so stick to it
2 - drop the idea of Dust, you're asking ADHD console tards to play a single game for like, forever
3 - put WoD on ice, pet projects are for when you have free time&money, you don't HAVE that time (especially not the money)
4 - fire your current QA leader or the people responsible for the ineptitude of QA, in fact fire most of the management crap, if you're not a coder, designer or gameplay vision guy, get out
5 - lol china, lol atlanta. Get rid of that crap, keep it indoors. Take the best of those folks (and the ones actually willing) to Iceland
6 - drop the "look at me I'm so cool&funny" devs, focus on getting **** done
7 - set priorities (I'll help you a bit, try this order; lag, SOV, solving features, getting rid of the #$#$ing silly&sad circular GFX crap). Use 40% of your remaining staff for that
8 - use the rest for incarna, because Dust is now off the charts PI can go fck itself for a bit, the basics work
9 - get the old devs back and ffs start interaction better/more
10 - STOP THINKING THAT BIGGER IS BETTER, that's just managers and investors (read: people with no clue) talking out of their arses. Stop having growth as a primary goal, when you do that all of a sudden you'll find that you grow anyway, and in a better way

Seriously.

p.s: put someone in charge who is capable of making people excel and is allowed&willing to be very blunt/open/passionate about every little aspect of the game, it seems like CCP has been lacking a "this isn't good enough, you can do better" guy for a while now.
So you want CCP to leave all it's eggs in one basket, keep being a small company, drop console games that are almost finished, fire half it's current management, close it's other offices, and ignore it's investors/owners (aka. not you)?

WoD is a good IP, perfect to launch in this market environment (have there ever been so many supernatural TV series on TV?). Dropping a property/game after years of development is a good idea? Closing down White Wolf is a good idea? You want to be tracked down and stacked by the Vampire LARP community? ;-)

Dust514 is an almost complete console game, console games generally sell reasonably well. More money for hardware and developers to work on EVE after Incarna and Dust514 are released...

CCP has the time and money to spend on WoD, Just because there are only 54+70=124 folks working on EVE Online content instead of the 300 that worked on Apocrypha, it is suddenly the end of EVE. How many folks do you think worked on eve releases 5 years ago. Just because you got a big ass release once doesn't mean that you have the right to that every time a release is planned. Heck, most MMO developers require you to pay money for the big releases, has CCP ever asked extra money for a (big) release? No! Now everyone is suddenly complaining that there are not enough folks working on EVE...

There is a dedicated team working on Lag, a dedicated team working on simulating lag, what the bloody hell more do you want. 200 developers staring at the same problem? I hope you understand enough of software development to release that it doesn't work that way. At a certain point you have your developers spending more time communicating with each other then actually fixing lag...
Just wanted to quote one of your posts after reading a few of your replies since they are a nice summary.

Borgis Lobal
Posted - 2010.07.18 22:38:00 - [826]
 

I'm sure the devs are trolling just to get tears of the pathetic morons on the forums.

It has been stated MANY times, bugs are being fixed, they are working on 'stuff', but we don't get any more ships this year. Instead of *****ing, get your arse over to the test server and help instead of complaining about too much lag at fleets, too many bugs and the rest of it.

If you are REALLY that upset, help the cause instead of writing the same old crap, also, what about some constructive criticism instead of attacking devs and problems with content?.

this whole event has really shown pretty much every community out there what a whiny bunch of *****ed the eve community has become and it's a damn embarrassment to be part of it.

CCP Explorer

Posted - 2010.07.18 22:48:00 - [827]
 

Originally by: Liang Nuren
Its such a damn shame that sisi is on such drastically different hardware as TQ. I almost expect mad lags on Sisi - so its hard to spot mad lags on test before it hits live.

Ed: Actually: CCP, just how different is the sisi "cluster" vs the TQ cluster? Same hardware but one blade running all systems - I seem to remember something like that.
TQ has approx. 52 blades, SiSi has approx. 8-12. TQ has a full solid state DB, SiSi has spindles. The TQ blades have much more memory than the SiSi blades.

OwlManAtt
Gallente
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2010.07.18 22:57:00 - [828]
 

Quote:
There is a dedicated team working on Lag, a dedicated team working on simulating lag, what the bloody hell more do you want. 200 developers staring at the same problem?
Results would be nice. Additional people may or may not help, but it doesn't change the fact that lag has been a crippling issue for fleet battles since winter 2009. It was a regression and it needs to be fixed six months ago.

I do not think it is unreasonable to expect that regressions of this magnitude should be fixed quickly.

Olleybear
Minmatar
I R' Carebear
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:01:00 - [829]
 

All I can say is wow. The amount of hate in this thread is amazing.

Basically it comes down to two viewpoints. The players and CCP's.

Players: Fix stuff.

CCP: We have a vision ( Incarna/Dust )

Over simplified obviously as the reasons for each are left out.

I think what we are seeing on the player side is simply this: finite resources, too much to do, and too short a time span to do it all in. Which turns out being Dust/Incarna has a greater priority than fixes.

With the liscensing of the Unreal 3 engine this past March, what we may be seeing is the release of Dust being pushed back even further as stuff is rewritten to work with this engine and the gobbling up of even more of the limited resources to try and make up that time. But, and this is pure speculation on my part, we may also be seeing the very real possibility of Dust coming out for PC's. Which is something the player base wants.

If true, add yet another item to the "To Do List" with the finite resources to do it all.

In the end, it comes down to patience. I am enjoying myself playing Eve currently as is and am looking forward to what is on the horizon. I hope others are too.

Ix Forres
Caldari
Righteous Chaps
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:03:00 - [830]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Its such a damn shame that sisi is on such drastically different hardware as TQ. I almost expect mad lags on Sisi - so its hard to spot mad lags on test before it hits live.

Ed: Actually: CCP, just how different is the sisi "cluster" vs the TQ cluster? Same hardware but one blade running all systems - I seem to remember something like that.
TQ has approx. 52 blades, SiSi has approx. 8-12. TQ has a full solid state DB, SiSi has spindles. The TQ blades have much more memory than the SiSi blades.


This is interesting; how much of the server performance relates to disk I/O latency? How do you manage I/O optimization on Windows Server to ensure resources are directed according to demand? On Linux it's a matter of kernel compilation options and runtime adjustment with ionice; can you prioritize/adjust class of IO scheduling for each node, or does node I/O not account for a lot (I imagine it doesn't)? And at the DB level again how does the spindle vs solid state difference affect things? Obviously performance for random writes/reads to an SSD array will be faster than spindles, but how much of an impact does that have on the server performance? What sort of metrics and measurement do you use on this sort of thing?

(Yeah, full of questions today!)

And one last one- how does this resource allocation shape up to previous expansions? It'd be nice to see this sort of resource allocation information for previous expansions to see how much of a change this is from the norm.

Hegbard
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:03:00 - [831]
 

Originally by: CCP Navigator
We genuinely want to hear your feedback


Why? What do you do with it? It's not like you use it for anything obvious, so there must be some other special reason why you would want it.

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:17:00 - [832]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
Just wanted to quote one of your posts after reading a few of your replies since they are a nice summary.


This is what always scares me about reading CCP replies to whine threads. A lot of the time you post sensible, useful responses to common complaints. But then there's always one post that manages to miss the point so spectacularly that my jaw just drops, and it's usually in the form of finding the single dumbest ass-kisser in the thread and quoting them approvingly.

I get that you won't generally like people who seem to spend all their waking hours *****ing at you. Nobody would. Of course you prefer the folks who share your viewpoint, and it's simple human nature to be more willing to overlook stupidity in friends than in foes. But seriously, you're talking about a guy who has been making a fool of himself for the last 20 pages, by saying that fleet lag is currently too high a priority, that CCP should be happy to get rid of customers who complain, and that balance issues don't matter. I don't agree with more than maybe half of what Marko said, and some of Cerg's complaints make sense, but seriously, if you want us to respect what you're saying, do not quote this guy approvingly. It makes us wonder about your sanity.

Wrayeth
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:21:00 - [833]
 

Okay, I think I've sat on my response to this thread for long enough that my immediate, emotional reaction has faded and I can now post something rational and (hopefully) constructive.

First and foremost, I'm with most of the other players who have been posting in this thread in believing that CCP should focus more on their core game mechanics and balancing. It is my considered opinion that the existing game is what keeps the players coming back, so neglect in that area will result in frustration that can end in subscription cancellations. Personally, I'm of the opinion that CCP should make it a goal to devote no less than half of every expansion to improving and iterating upon the existing mechanics and balance, and the rest on new projects. I would also like to see more small balancing patches in between major expansions, as the game balance is what drives players' gameplay.

In an effort to add more constructive information, I'll add a few comments about things that I believe should be done along the lines of iterating on the current mechanics. This will, of course, cater largely to my own biases, but I will try to be as objective as possible given that fact. These are things that often result in me not bothering to log in, as the game is nowhere near as fun for me as it used to be. As long as the mechanics stay static an with no hope of things changing in the foreseeable (i.e.18-month) future, then the status of my continuing subscription is in doubt.

The primary item I would like to see to see addressed is the need for balancing and mechanics changes that promote small gang combat or even solo PvP. In short, not every wants to be part of fleet battles. Large fleets involve lots of waiting for people to get organized, generally take a long time to travel anywhere, often involve the "L" word (lag), reduce the complexity of possible tactics (a large fleet, by virtue of its sheer size and the difficulty of organizing so many people, has realistic limits on what you can do with it), and reduce the value of each individual pilot's overall contribution to the engagement. The reasons most people would want to avoid the first three items are pretty self-explanatory, and the fourth is a problem for those who enjoy more tactical combat. The last is likely to only irk someone who hates just being another tiny little cog in a massive machine. Personally, one of the (many) reasons I play this game is to escape from my real life, where I *am* that tiny cog in the gigantic corporate machine and it feels like my actions make little to no difference.

So, what's wrong with small gangs in EVE? Simply, the mechanics give large advantages to those who can bring more numbers. While the side that can bring more people probably should have an advantage, there are a number of mechanics that make bringing larger numbers pretty much essential.

First, objectives for things like sov are geared towards fleet warfare; hardened structures with millions of hitpoints, by definition, pretty much require large numbers of people to take out, especially when they have static defenses (guns) supporting them. I would still like to see different or alternate methods of gaining sovereignty that can be undertaken by smaller groups of pilots that wish to only claim a few systems.

(cont'd)

Kuea
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:22:00 - [834]
 

The CCP devs must feel like this guy. Laughing

No matter how much you state your case there will still be some very vocal people left who can't/won't hear you...

Alain Kinsella
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:23:00 - [835]
 

Edited by: Alain Kinsella on 18/07/2010 23:32:27
Originally by: Olleybear
I am enjoying myself playing Eve currently as is and am looking forward to what is on the horizon. I hope others are too.


Actually yes, I do enjoy eve - warts and all - and when I have the time to set aside for it...

And I really am looking forward to Incarna, but want to make sure its just not some clone of SL or There.com simply bolted in to Eve Core (or at least, please give us enough info that we can make this determination for ourselves, and plan around it).

I have no concerns at all about Dust, other than the initial choice of platform (and a previous post may have explained why, which if true would allay that concern too). If it does make it to PC some day, I'll give it a go - I used to play C&C Renegade (one of the few who loved it), and can see a similar playstyle emerging with Dust.

CCP was very detailed on what Dust was (in particular how it was to fit with Core), and I'd just like a similar treatment on Incarna.

Wrayeth
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:23:00 - [836]
 

(cont'd from previous post)

An example of this might be sovereignty structures (not necessarily associated with POS, and possibly requiring hacking and other skills) that are located in pockets of space that are only accessible via some sort of warp gate that will only allow a number of players through that varies depending on the size of the owning alliance. Once it reaches that limit, it deactivates and no more pilots can use it for a time; it should slowly regenerate "charges" or "jumps" at a rate determined by the size of the owning alliance (the larger the owning alliance, the faster it recharges). Moreover, as long as the number of hostile pilots inside the pocket is at its max, the gate will not regenerate charges at all. As an added twist, the owning alliance should be able to warp into the pocket from anywhere in system without having to use the gate, and pilots from the owning alliance wouldn't count towards the limit allowed inside the pocket.

This would limit the size of the force trying to claim sov to something that the alliance's defenders might be able to repel. The attacker would still be able to try to close off the system (i.e. camp the stargates) to deny the current sov holders the reinforcements they might need as attrition wears them down inside the pocket, however.

Finally, to prevent certain metagaming tactics from making it impossible for enemies to attack, the gate should deny entrance to any with positive standings; moreover, standings changes within the last 7 days should not be recognized by the gate.

Anyway, that was just an example that I pulled out of my ass on the spot as to one way to make it possible for smaller entities to hold sov without being someone's pet or having 2387 allies.

In regards to balancing items that make it hard to PvP solo or in small gangs, the two items nearest to my heart involve webs and scrams. First and foremost, let's acknowledge that mobility is life in PvP. This is a double-edged sword in that, if you're completely immobilized, you're probably dead; the corollary to this is that if you can't limit your opponent's mobility, he'll probably kill you or get away.

With the current state of affairs, it is possible to almost completely immobilize your opponents with a single button (i.e. a 2-point scram). To me, this is just as broken as the ability to use ECM to completely prevent your opponent from targeting *anything*. At the same time, if you *don't* have a 2-point scram, the current state of webs is such that they don't reduce the enemy's velocity enough to limit their ability to escape or allow you to track unless the target also has a 2-point scram on it in which case the web is almost superfluous. As such, you again have a "more is better" situation where the larger group can almost completely immobilize the smaller. And solo PvP? It's very nearly impossible.

(cont'd)

Batolemaeus
Caldari
Free-Space-Ranger
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:23:00 - [837]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

This is what always scares me about reading CCP replies to whine threads. A lot of the time you post sensible, useful responses to common complaints. But then there's always one post that manages to miss the point so spectacularly that my jaw just drops, and it's usually in the form of finding the single dumbest ass-kisser in the thread and quoting them approvingly.


Pretty much.
Nice job insulting people with legitimate concerns. I definitely see how you value your customer's feedback.

Wrayeth
EdgeGamers
Situation: Normal
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:24:00 - [838]
 

(cont'd from previous post)


It is my considered opinion that no one module should come close to completely immobilizing its target. As such, I would like to see 2-point scrams lose the ability to completely shut off microwarpdrives. At the same time, I also want to acknowledge the usefulness of having such a module. Given that, and given the fact that as you progress upwards in ship class the ships become slower and slower to start, I would like to see 2-point scrams *reduce* MWD speed instead of shutting the module off entirely. I would suggest that the exact effect be dependent on the size of the MWD module: 1mn MWDs receive a 75% speed reduction , 10mn MWDs receive a 50% speed, and 100mn MWDs receive a 25% speed. Please note that I am proposing a percentage modifier on the total speed with MWD active, not a modifier on the percentage of gain provided by the MWD module. This is just my initial suggestion; the percentage numbers themselves might need tweaking.

As I mentioned above, webs need an adjustment the other way, with more of a speed reduction, not less. While the original 90% webs were too much, the current 60% webs are not enough. IMO, an increase to 70% or 75% would be effective while not game breaking. I don't really have much else to say about this.

Anyway, this has all been written up in a half-delirious state since I'm not feeling well, so I apologize if I didn't word it in a way that clearly ties this back into my original point: the core game is what keeps people coming back; if it is neglected then people will stop playing.

Bondeknold
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:27:00 - [839]
 

I wonder why people keep saying fix this and fix that like a bounch. Of spoiled kids what other games offers no buggs and if eny instant fixes cause idd sure wanna try it . Name just 1 ... You keep complaining and saying that you had enough and you quit but i see you all online enyway so lets cut the crap already before we break the internet with all the water being shared thx ..ccp is and will always be the best and if you think otherwise why are you even here Question

Hegbard
Posted - 2010.07.18 23:28:00 - [840]
 

Originally by: CCP Explorer
TQ has approx. 52 blades, SiSi has approx. 8-12. TQ has a full solid state DB, SiSi has spindles. The TQ blades have much more memory than the SiSi blades.


The customers are revolting against one of the worst damage control attempts since when BP said the oil spill was good for business around the gulf. Let's talk about hardware.


Pages: first : previous : ... 24 25 26 27 [28] 29 30 31 32 ... : last (66)

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