Backstage - OOC Forums
General Discussion => General Non-RP EVE Discussion => Topic started by: kalaratiri on 19 Jan 2013, 11:48
-
Aside from the new BCs, there are several other things going into this patch as well. So far, this includes the BlOps change (here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2482199#post2482199 ), the 'autopilot in the sky' visual effect (here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2484883#post2484883 and here: http://i.imgur.com/O9VZr.jpg ), and of course the new dueling system (here: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74208 ).
Currently Sisi is up, with all of these changes and more (as per here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2483546#post2483546 ), so please go out, find them, let us (me) know what you think :P Being unable to play myself means I'm going to use you all as guinea pigs to test features on :twisted:
-
Also
Pirate Factions Rookie Ships http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wVwoli98Xo&feature=youtu.be
and
Gnosis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9TEPmRtNic&feature=youtu.be
Fozzie Tweeted Gnosis is real https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie/status/292702414480490497
-
The Gnosis bonuses o.o Basically no reason to fly anything else if that goes through as-is.
25% bonus to all medium guns, HMs and HAMS, 37.5% increase to scan probe strength. Battlecruiser level ehp and fitting. Well then :l
That thing better be hard as fuck to get hold of.
-
Pirate rookie ships??? So intrigued.
And SoCT too. If I spot a SoE ship I am likely sold.
EDIT: If these pirate ships are for presents at the ten year anniversary, I am not so intrigued.
-
God damnit, they better not go through with re-using an Angel Cartel ship for the Sansha's newbie ship.
They have a perfectly good hull already - _ -
-
God damnit, they better not go through with re-using an Angel Cartel ship for the Sansha's newbie ship.
They have a perfectly good hull already - _ -
That's a brand new model, I think, not a re-used Angel ship. If it's not a brand new model, it's certainly a wholly retextured one.
I stand corrected. It is an old Angel ship, but it's already been retextured in the client with Nation textures - so it fits in.
I would prefer they use the Fury over the Echo though for the Angel ship. the Echo looks kinda derpy.
http://gogela.com/eve/info.php
-
Some time back, a friend of mine explained to me that the new backgrounds were not simply flat textures presented for each system but in fact had several layers of data associated with them suggesting that individual stars were being identified by the game client and each assigned a separate identifier.
He suggested that he thought this was a leadup to somehow being able to navigate or point out to other players specific stars as specific systems.
Sadly, he no longer seems to play, so I cannot buy the man a drink/ship/bounty for being a prophet.
-
God damnit, they better not go through with re-using an Angel Cartel ship for the Sansha's newbie ship.
They have a perfectly good hull already - _ -
That's a brand new model, I think, not a re-used Angel ship. If it's not a brand new model, it's certainly a wholly retextured one.
I stand corrected. It is an old Angel ship, but it's already been retextured in the client with Nation textures - so it fits in.
I would prefer they use the Fury over the Echo though for the Angel ship. the Echo looks kinda derpy.
http://gogela.com/eve/info.php
Ah it's called the Styx, not the Lynx. But yes, it is a retextured Angel ship.
For some odd reason the second Sansha frigate is not being pulled from the database on that website. I don't actually know its name because no database pull I've seen has ever had it. I think it's the Incubus, but that's an inference.
-
The Gnosis bonuses o.o Basically no reason to fly anything else if that goes through as-is.
25% bonus to all medium guns, HMs and HAMS, 37.5% increase to scan probe strength. Battlecruiser level ehp and fitting. Well then :l
That thing better be hard as fuck to get hold of.
There was a time when CCP was stupidly naive enough to think that 'the immense costs of making Titans' was going to keep their numbers low. Have a look at null-sec today.
50m3 Drone bandwith, 75m3 bay. so a light and medium team, or any combo that fits.
4000 HP hull, armor and shields, equal resists across the board for hull, armor and shields. Equal bonuses for any weapons and 5 turrets and 5 launchers on a 6/6/6 configuration means you can fit it however the hell you want and still have maximum effect on any setups, 3 rig slots.
Basically, if this thing goes live as-is, there will only be a question of time until the null-powers don't fly anything else below capitals, and then shortly after that, you find them all over the rest of EVE and anyone who DON'T fly them is an idiot waiting to get killed.
*THIS* is the I-Win button that has not existed until now. *THIS* is the kind of idea that will, without a doubt, kill EVE.
-
It will only be I win if you can't fit something else to get the same cheaper. I'm bad a theory crafting, but can you have any race ship equal this in one area? Yes, it will be a great prober, but aside from that, will it be able to out stabber a stabber, or out thorax a thorax?
Even if they nerf the hell out of it, I'm still getting one when ever I can. Envied the NPC since the first time I say him flying one.
-
It will only be I win if you can't fit something else to get the same cheaper. I'm bad a theory crafting, but can you have any race ship equal this in one area? Yes, it will be a great prober, but aside from that, will it be able to out stabber a stabber, or out thorax a thorax?
Even if they nerf the hell out of it, I'm still getting one when ever I can. Envied the NPC since the first time I say him flying one.
It will be able to do anything any other single BC can do, only it does not have to plug any resist holes, making tanking so much simpler, it can be fit to counter any enemy and what's worse; you can't fit any other BC in the field to perfectly counter or equal any other BC out there.
Imagine a Drake gang, that runs into something they can't handle. They would be able to, if for example they were a Harbinger gang. Just that, instead of docking the Drakes to go get the Harbingers you only need to use your nearest Orca or capital ship's ship maintenance bay to transform the 'Drake' into a 'Harbinger'. The tactical flexibility of this ship is absurd.
-
My new goal in life is to roll around in a Gnosis like a baws
-
I'm not really here, but the possible implications of there being pirate faction rookie ships have me intrigued. Spinning some up wildly:
-- Finally the ability for those aligned with pirate factions to declare that and have it recognised, along with appropriate noob ships, services, agent contacts and legal hassles?
-- Pirate faction war maybe on the horizon?
-- CONCORD somehow recognising the pirate factions? (Although I find it hard to come up with a lore explanation for this.)
-- Or just one-offs with better stats than normal rookie ships, which we can select once as an anniversary present?
-
The Gnosis bonuses o.o Basically no reason to fly anything else if that goes through as-is.
25% bonus to all medium guns, HMs and HAMS, 37.5% increase to scan probe strength. Battlecruiser level ehp and fitting. Well then :l
That thing better be hard as fuck to get hold of.
There was a time when CCP was stupidly naive enough to think that 'the immense costs of making Titans' was going to keep their numbers low. Have a look at null-sec today.
50m3 Drone bandwith, 75m3 bay. so a light and medium team, or any combo that fits.
4000 HP hull, armor and shields, equal resists across the board for hull, armor and shields. Equal bonuses for any weapons and 5 turrets and 5 launchers on a 6/6/6 configuration means you can fit it however the hell you want and still have maximum effect on any setups, 3 rig slots.
Basically, if this thing goes live as-is, there will only be a question of time until the null-powers don't fly anything else below capitals, and then shortly after that, you find them all over the rest of EVE and anyone who DON'T fly them is an idiot waiting to get killed.
*THIS* is the I-Win button that has not existed until now. *THIS* is the kind of idea that will, without a doubt, kill EVE.
Most speculation around so far seems to think this will be the 10th year celebration gift, in which case it will be limited (for a 350k units or so term of limited). Would of course not hinder some from buying and stocking a few dozen.
-
Most speculation around so far seems to think this will be the 10th year celebration gift, in which case it will be limited (for a 350k units or so term of limited). Would of course not hinder some from buying and stocking a few dozen.
If this is the case (I sure hope so) it won't be that big a problem. The huge issue I see with this ship all spin around the idea that you can gather an effectively infinite number of these ether by building them, getting them from events or agent rewards or some other means. If everyone gets one each and that's it, no more of them forever, then it will only be a passing, and temporary issue.
Still don't alter the fact that the tactical flexibility of these things are insane. Crap will be blown up with these and whine and tears will be had, in droves.
But it won't be a game-breaking issue. Time will tell, I guess...
-
OMG GNOSIS.
When I think I proposed 2 very similarly oriented design for the DeviantArt contest...
-
we need SoE, Mordu's, Syndicate and Mandate ships too :bear:
-
Mordu's Blackbird ;)
-
A Mordu's BlackBird
A Syndicate Celestis
An Ammatar unique design with Matari Speed and Amarr lasers (but without much armor)
A SoE unique exploration-centric cruiser (SoCT should cover reconnaissance and scouting)
A Thukker unique design
A Khanid unique design
And of course a Concord issue shuttle.
-
A Khanid unique design
Torpaddon plx.
-
An Ammatar unique design with Matari Speed and Amarr lasers (but without much armor)
Scorch Vagalazor plx.
-
A Khanid unique design
Torpaddon plx.
If and when CCP looks if T2 ships are in "appropriate" corps, I'd expect the Purifier and Anathema swapped around (making the Stealth Bomber a Khanid design). I've been known to be wrong on my wild mass guessing and delirious musings, though. Wouldn't mind the Inquisitor (it's still a missile boat, right?) to be retconned to be a Khanid design. IIRC there was at one point a Khanid patrol frigate (or something similarly-named) in the DB, using the Cruor model (but naturally with Khanid textures).
-
Inquisitor is a repair frigate, now
-
IIRC there was at one point a Khanid patrol frigate (or something similarly-named) in the DB, using the Cruor model (but naturally with Khanid textures).
Khanid black cruors are still patroling around Khanid stargates iirc.
-
The Gnosis bonuses o.o Basically no reason to fly anything else if that goes through as-is.
25% bonus to all medium guns, HMs and HAMS, 37.5% increase to scan probe strength. Battlecruiser level ehp and fitting. Well then :l
That thing better be hard as fuck to get hold of.
There was a time when CCP was stupidly naive enough to think that 'the immense costs of making Titans' was going to keep their numbers low. Have a look at null-sec today.
50m3 Drone bandwith, 75m3 bay. so a light and medium team, or any combo that fits.
4000 HP hull, armor and shields, equal resists across the board for hull, armor and shields. Equal bonuses for any weapons and 5 turrets and 5 launchers on a 6/6/6 configuration means you can fit it however the hell you want and still have maximum effect on any setups, 3 rig slots.
Basically, if this thing goes live as-is, there will only be a question of time until the null-powers don't fly anything else below capitals, and then shortly after that, you find them all over the rest of EVE and anyone who DON'T fly them is an idiot waiting to get killed.
*THIS* is the I-Win button that has not existed until now. *THIS* is the kind of idea that will, without a doubt, kill EVE.
AND I LOVE EVERY SINGLE MOLECULE OF IT. NNNNNGGGGHHHHH. NNNGGHHHH! NNGGHHH!
-
A few more little things (or not so little): https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2495573#post2495573
CCP Fozzie
Hey all. Quick related update now that I'm finished some backend refactoring work that opened up those 'options' I was so cryptic about earlier:
We have also refactored the methods used to limit older modules to certain ships. Most of the ships changed by this will simply have a more clear description (Can fit module X rather than -99% CPU to module X) but there are two gameplay improvements this change allowed us to make:
Change the CPU requirements of Covops cloaks to 100 and change the bonus on coverts, recons and blockade runners to "-20% CPU needed for cloaks per level". This means that cloaks will use the same CPU at level 5 (0) but the CPU use at lower levels is less crippling, making the use of these ships at less than level 4-5 more viable.
Open up the use of Covert Cynosural Field Generators on any Strategic Cruiser that has the Covert Reconfiguration subsystem fitted, as well as on Blockade Runners. This means that the availability of covert cynos is consistent and simple. If you can jump through the bridge you can light the cyno.
- As a more neutral side effect that is still worth noting: the Combat and Attack Battlecruisers, as well as the Blockade Runners and Deep Space Transports, will now be in separate groups. This means anyone with custom overviews will need to add the new Attack Battlecruiser group and the new Blockade Runner group to their list of groups that show up on the overview. The default overviews will be adjusted automatically.
Some of you may also find this interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=DMCbkJ_NkS0
-
Armour Tanking 2.0: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2496241#post2496241
Is my title pretentious enough?
We've got the resources all properly committed so I'm now ready to share with you all our initial plan to fix some of the biggest problems that face armor tanking in this game. Sorry for the extended period of teasing, hopefully the happy ending will make it all worthwhile.
I was going to go into this big spiel about all the problems with armor tanking in general and active armor tanking in particular, but you all know this so I'll jump straight to the interesting bits.
Here's what we're looking for feedback on:
Armor Rigs
- New rig called the Nanobot Overcharger that increased the overheat bonus on your local armor reps by 30% (40% for T2). So with one of the T1 rigs overheating gives the rep 13% more rep amount and 19.5% faster rate of fire instead of the default 10% and 15% respectively. This effect is stacking penalized and gives no bonus when the reps are not overheated. Same calibration and build costs as a Aux Nano or Nanobot Acc rig.
- Change the penalty on all active armor rigs (Aux Nano Pump, Nanobot Accelerator, and the new Nanobot Overcharger) to increase the powergrid use of local armor reps by 10% instead of reducing ship velocity.
Plates
- Add a new skill to the game called Armor Upgrades. This skill reduces the mass penalty of all armor plates by 5% per level. (Int/Mem, rank 3, requires Mechanics 3) This skill affects all plates and is unconnected to the stat change listed below.
- Reduce the base mass penalty on all 800mm, 200mm and 50mm plates by 20%
Ancillary Armor Repairer
- Not the same mechanic as the ASB, please read to the end.
- Always uses the same cap as a normal (T1/T2/Named) Armor Repper
- When not loaded with a cap booster, has 3/4 the rep amount as a T1 Armor Repairer
- Loaded cap boosters triple rep amount (so reps 2.25x a T1 repairer when loaded)
- Same cycle time as T1 reps
- Same capacity, charge restrictions and reload time as an ASB, but the longer cycle time of armor reps means it goes longer between reloads
- Limited to one per ship
Quick Q&A about the AAR:
Why limited to one per ship?
The longer time between reloads is a big part of the playstyle we wanted to give the AAR, but that with multiple copies would completely negate the burst tanking ideal. In addition, there is more of a tradition of lowslot tanking modules restricted to one per ship so I made the call that in this case the restriction would be worthwhile. The ASB debate is a separate issue unconnected. Please note that nothing is preventing current dual or triple rep fits from swapping one of their reps into an AAR.
Why keep the cap use consistent?
The elimination of cap consumption when loaded is a huge advantage of ASBs, but we decided with the AAR to build the strengths in another direction, focusing on greater stability instead. In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. This works ok for the ASB but I am not inclined to expand that mechanic further.
Why not just buff all armor reps?
One of the aspects I really like about the ASB is that it allowed CCP to decouple burst tanking from sustained tanking in a new and interesting way. Burst tanking is key for most PVP active tank scenarios while sustained tanking is more common for PVE. We wanted to carry that aspect over to armor tanking, allowing us to create new burst tanking gameplay without making current sustained tanking gameplay overpowered.
So we are very interested in hearing your feedback on this proposal. Expect at least most of these changes to make it into the next Sisi build for playtesting (the AARs might not catch this upcoming build but they should at least be in the one after that).
-
So, if I understand correctly, an ASB tanks not a lot more than a standard shield booster but uses no cap until it gets out of boosters. An AAR tanks twice more than a standard armor rep but uses cap.
Am I right ?
Also, I dont understand that part : "In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. "
Isnt that an upside actually, not to be sensitive to neuts ?
-
So, if I understand correctly, an ASB tanks not a lot more than a standard shield booster but uses no cap until it gets out of boosters. An AAR tanks twice more than a standard armor rep but uses cap.
Am I right ?
Also, I dont understand that part : "In addition, one downside of the ASB's zero cap use is the inability of one player to influence the tank of another through neuts. "
Isnt that an upside actually, not to be sensitive to neuts ?
For the user yes, not for game balance. At least according to the complainers and CCP.
-
At last.
-
I'm oh so very excited.
-
I like it
-
General info about the armour tanking changes: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2503173#post2503173
Ok I'm going to respond to some themes from the thread so far.
Firstly I want to assure everyone that whatever we end up releasing in 1.1 will not be the end of the line. We'll be continuing to iterate on tanking in many different ways from patch to patch.
Also yesterday I was overly curt and snarky with some of my replies, I apologize for that as it made our communication more difficult instead of easier.
Resist Bonus vs Rep Bonus
There's a couple issues here that I'd like to address.
I completely understand that resist bonuses are stronger than active tanking bonuses. Resist bonuses are just about the most powerful bonus we ever give T1 ships in fact. That being said ship balance can incorporate bonuses of varying degrees of power as long as the complete ships end up in the right place. The desire to move rep bonuses back to 7.5% comes from the desire to ensure that active tanking is at least somewhat viable on non-bonused hulls. I would rather see active tanking mods and effects balanced to the point where 7.5% bonuses are enough than rely on the bonuses entirely and essentially disallow active tanking elsewhere.
In addition, my comment about the power level of active bonuses applying to remote reps was both unclear and exaggerated which was a mistake on my part. I have absolutely no desire to increase the effectiveness of T2 Logistics ships in fleets beyond their current state, or to push fleet warfare further in the direction of alpha being the only resort for breaking reps. Filling in the lower-end with less powerful repping ships that provide an upgrade path is another story, but I don't want to move beyond the current maximum. The extension of active rep bonuses to remote reps is something I feel would take fleets in the wrong direction, and if anything I am investigating ways to make resist bonuses a bit less powerful in those environments.
Differences between Shield and Armor tanking as a whole
There has been a lot of discussion around the major differences between shield and armor tanking. The use of lowslots vs midslots, reps hitting at the start vs end of cycle, sig vs mass, crystals and slaves are some of the splits that separate armor and shield tanking and that can seriously complicate balancing. I am of the opinion that as much as possible the armor and shield tanking need to stay distinct, but this does not mean there are not areas where changes must happen. The gap between low and midslot tanking is affected by the balance between low and midslot modules such as for instance the TE and TCs. The rep at the start of the cycle is a major advantage for shield tanks that needs to be countered by corresponding advantages for armor tanks and armor tanking ships. Both signature and speed play major roles in the tracking formula, but the ability for the faster ship to dictate range, control the engagement and manipulate transversal more effectively make speed the much more important attribute overall. Getting signature where it needs to be in more situations is a longstanding desire of mine that is going to take time. These changes as proposed do not get us all the way there, will likely require changes before release and even then will only be one step forward that must be followed up on later.
Addition of new skills and modules
Many people have expressed objections to the addition of new skills and modules to the game rather than rolling all the changes into existing modules. I understand the feeling many people have that skills create a gap between older and new players, but that logic can be applied to any existing skills as well. Skill systems in games like Eve do provide a certain advantage gained over time, but the diminishing returns over levels helps to balance the playing field. I disagree that Armor Upgrades is any more a "must train skill" than any other support skill, and many players will find quickly training it to level 2-3 will get them most of the way to the bonus enjoyed by an older player at a far lower time commitment. Also note that half the plates are receiving mass reductions completely unconnected to the skill.
As for the new module and rig, I agree that in general having fewer modules/ships/features that all work is better than having many that don't. However we feel that these additions open up useful design space by allowing the tanking mechanics to be influenced in different ways. As flawed as it was in many ways I do think the ASB provided a useful service by adding a new line of burst-oriented tanking modules that can be balanced in their own way. Modules built towards burst tanking will be definition overshadow other tanking types in many pvp scenarios, but I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing as long as sustained tanking systems have their own effective uses in the game. The AAR is a unique mechanic that fills the same general game niche as the ASB while remaining quite different in operation and gameplay. It does put more pressure on cargoholds, however keep in mind that an AAR goes through cap boosters much much slower than an ASB.
Heat is a mechanic that I think has been underutilized over the years by CCP, but I don't want to rely on it as the only method of burst tanking.
Powergrid usage penalty on active rigs
When looking for a replacement for the speed penalty on active tanking rigs our goal was for the penalty to be something significant (useless penalties are something we want less of) without being onerous. The rep PG penalty had the advantage of being much easier to work around through fitting adjustments than the speed penalty, while being significant enough that it could not be completely ignored. I'm open to possible changes to that mechanic, either through changing the penalty itself or adjusting the PG use of medium and large reps a bit.
Reducing ganglink bonuses and increasing effectiveness in other ways
As I've said before, this is something we definitely want to do. Links are both too effective in their direct bonuses as well as their ability to be used off-grid. However getting this specific issue fixed is going to need to wait until after 1.1. Once we have the room to implement some changes to the way warfare links work from the ground up, expect changes to a lot of other modules and mechanics to happen at the same time.
Limiting oversized mods as a way to simplify balancing
I completely agree that limiting more modules to certain ship sizes would make my life easier. :)
However giving people the freedom to be creative with fits is part of what makes Eve so great and I don't want to lose that. It's going to take more work and more time but finding a balance without unnecessarily removing player choice is the ideal we're shooting for.
The overheating rig
Modules and rigs that interact more explicitly with the heat mechanic are something I think Eve can really use, and I am a big fan of the concept of making synergy with heat part of armor tanking's advantages. The rig as initially proposed would not have served the goal adequately but we're working on retooling it in a more balanced way and I'll bring it back if possible.
-
Huuge post :D
Continued updates, first on Armour Tanking: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2507395#post2507395
A few updates:
We're switching the AAR to use nanite repair paste instead of cap boosters. What we're looking at now is for them to hold 8 reps worth of paste, with the smalls eating 1 per cycle, the mediums eating 5 and the larges eating 10.
I'm also investigating our options for reducing the base powergrid need for medium and large armor reps a bit.
We're aiming to have all of this on Sisi before the weekend. Please note that just because things are on Sisi doesn't mean they can no longer change. It just means we want to give people a chance to try it out in the game client.
and also the Battlecruiser changes: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2507518#post2507518
Ok time to get feedback on the next iteration.
Once of the things we have refocused on since this thread started is that with warfare link changes potentially on the not too distant horizon we needed to build these ships for the warfare links we want rather than the warfare links we have. The ability to use warfare links is a key part of what gives these ships their identity, even if that has been watered down in recent years.
As such we're working to ensure that each of these ships can fit a warfare link without sacrificing a bonused highslot. We eventually want links to be something you use on field and part of that will be ensuring that you can use links while also also enjoying the normal on-grid gameplay.
To get these highslots back we've moved the new slot on the Ferox from low to high, and given the Brutix and Drake the "double damage bonus fewer weapons" treatment.
We've also taken feedback from this thread and Sisi testing to make some adjustments to some other ships.
Most notably:
- The Harb was simply too hard to fit, and I had been too aggressive in reducing its fittings to go along with the slot change. So we've returned some fittings and brought it back to its old align time (while keeping the mass a bit higher).
- The Myrm was suffering too much from not being able to hold two full flights of drones, so we've doubled the dronebay buff to ensure that you can always have a full set of spares
- The rep bonuses on both Gallente combat battlecruisers remain in this version. I do feel that they can be well served by the bonus and still remain unique to each other's playstyle. I am however not set in stone on the issue and won't rule out changing it either before or after 1.1 if it appears the current bonuses are not able to keep them both fun and unique enough.
I'm about to update the OP to the new values, our changes in this version relative to the originally posted version are:
Prophecy:
Hull: -250
Harbinger:
Powergrid: +100
CPU: +25
Agility: -0.014
Align time: -0.2s
Ferox:
Highslots: +1
Lowslots: -1
Powergrid: +150
Hull: -250
Agility: +0.01
Mass: -260,000
Drake:
Change Kinetic Missile damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Launchers: -1
Powergrid: -40
CPU: -15
Hull: -250
Brutix:
Change Medium Hybrid damage bonus from 5 to 10% per level
Turrets: -1
Powergrid: -75
Hull: -250
Mass: +250,000
Align time: +0.01s
Myrmidon:
Dronebay: +25
Cyclone:
Powergrid: -100
Shields: +250
Armor: -250
Hull: +250
Capacitor: +600
Cap Recharge time: +158s
Sensor strength: +1
Hurricane:
Lock Range: +5km
Updated BC stats:
Prophecy:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Armor Resistances
10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 5 H (-2), 4 M (+1), 7 L (+1), 4 turrets (-2), 4 Launchers (+3)
Fittings: 1100 PWG (-200), 415 CPU (+75)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-419) / 5500(+617) / 4000(-395)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.704 / 12900000 (-600,000) / 8.5s (-0.4)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 75 (+50) / 225 (+200)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km / 210 / 6
Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1)
Signature radius: 270 (+5)
Cargo capacity: 400 (+50)
Harbinger:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Energy Turret Damage
10% bonus Medium Energy Turret capacitor use
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets (-1)
Fittings: 1425 PWG (-75), 375 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3000(-516) / 5000(-469) / 4500(-188)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3125 / 822s(+72s) / 3.8 (-0.366)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 150 / 0.69 (-0.014) / 13800000 (+300,000) / 8.9s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 75 (+25)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km (+5) / 210 / 6
Sensor strength: 17 Radar (+1)
Signature radius: 270 (+5)
Cargo capacity: 375 (+25)
Ferox:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 8 H (+1), 5 M, 4 L, 7 turrets (+1)
Fittings: 1250 PWG (+175), 510 CPU (+35)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+117) / 3500(+81) / 4000(+94)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2750(+250) / 723s(+56.33s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.66(+0.06) / 13250000 (-760,000) / 8.2s (+0.3)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 65km (+5)/ 195 / 8
Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 295 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 475 (+130)
Drake:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to all Shield Resistances
10% bonus to heavy and heavy assault missile kinetic damage
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 6 M, 4 L , 6 Launchers (-1)
Fittings: 800 PWG (-50), 500 CPU (-25)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5250(-219) / 3250(-658) / 3750(-156)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2500(-312.5) / 658s(-92s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 140 / 0.64(+0.012) / 14810000 (+800,000) / 8.9s (+0.7)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 25 / 25
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 60km / 195 / 8
Sensor strength: 19 Gravimetric
Signature radius: 295 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 450 (+105)
Brutix:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
10% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret damage
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H, 4 M, 6 L (+1), 6 turrets (-1)
Fittings: 1125 PWG (-25), 435 CPU (+10)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(+135) / 4750(-133)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 3000(+656.25) / 789s(+164s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 155 / 0.704(+0.0352) / 12500000 (-750,000) / 8.2s (-0.1)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 / 50
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7
Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 305 (+5)
Cargo capacity: 475 (+75)
Myrmidon:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
7.5% bonus to Armor Repairer effectiveness
10% bonus to drone damage and hitpoints
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 5 H (-1), 5 M, 6 L, 5 turrets (-1)
Fittings: 1050 PWG (-125), 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 3500(-406) / 4500(-188) / 4750(+453)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+37.5) / 750s(+108.75s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 145 / 0.704 / 13100000 / 8.6s (-0.1)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 100 (+25) / 200 (+50)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 55km / 200 / 7
Sensor strength: 18 Magnetometric
Signature radius: 305 (+5)
Cargo capacity: 400
Cyclone:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Heavy Missile and Heavy Assault Missile rate of fire
7.5% bonus to shield boosting amount
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 5 M, 5 L (+1), 2 turrets, 5 Launchers
Fittings: 1100 PWG (-110), 525 CPU (+100)
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 5000(+605) / 3750(-156) / 3750(+331)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2850(+662.5) / 750s(+166.67s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12500000 / 8.2s
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 50 (+10) / 50 (+10)
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 45km / 220 / 6
Sensor strength: 17 Ladar (+1)
Signature radius: 250 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 450 (-25)
Hurricane:
Battlecruiser skill bonuses:
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret damage
5% bonus to Medium Projectile Turret rate of fire
Fixed Bonus:
Can fit Warfare Link modules
Slot layout: 7 H (-1), 4 M, 6 L, 6 turrets, 3 Launchers
Fittings: 1125 PWG, 400 CPU
Defense (shields / armor / hull) : 4250(-47) / 4500(+188) / 3500(-16)
Capacitor (amount / recharge rate / average cap per second): 2250(-562.5) / 592s(-158s) / 3.8 (+0.05)
Mobility (max velocity / agility / mass / align time): 165 / 0.704 / 12800000 (+300,000) / 8.4s (+0.2)
Drones (bandwidth / bay): 30 / 30
Targeting (max targeting range / Scan Resolution / Max Locked targets): 50km (+5) / 220 / 6
Sensor strength: 16 Ladar
Signature radius: 250 (+10)
Cargo capacity: 425 (-50)
-
I am still not happy with the prophecy. It's underwhelming compared to the myrm.
-
I am still not happy with the prophecy. It's underwhelming compared to the myrm.
DPS wise, probably, but it's tank is incomparable. The Prophecy can easily get up to over 125k ehp while still having two damage mods. Only real issue I can see with the prophecy is that even with an mwd, a frigate with an afterburner will outrun it :P
-
The myrm too has a tank bonus. Not for eHP, true, you may be right.
-
The myrm too has a tank bonus. Not for eHP, true, you may be right.
Resist bonus trumps the Rep bonus when numbers become involved. Also Proph has more base fittings and the ability to hold a lot of spare drones.
Myrm isn't all bad after patch but I expect to see a lot more prophs.
-
You do realise that with the new armor ASB's the myrmidon will have a cap independant tank rivalling that of a triaged carrier, right? :lol:
Also, who the flour flies tier 1/2 BC's outside of lol-small-gang?
There's absolutely zero reason to do so.
Tier 3s are way superior for kiting + dps/alpha.
Which is the only thing that matters anymore.
This is armor rebalance is a farce.
Unless armor tanked ships become faster than shields it doesn't matter how well you tank.
The shield tankers will simply disengage and move on.
This is why it's called 'winmatar' by the way. :psyccp:
-
You do realise that with the new armor ASB's the myrmidon will have a cap independant tank rivalling that of a triaged carrier, right? :lol:
It is a relatively reasonable assumption to not read devposts and assume that CCP is shit. However, in this case, it is worth to note that AAR does not work the same way as an ASB. I assume that if you're still interested, you can read for yourself, so I won't bother to play a broken telephone and the mechanics here.
-
You do realise that with the new armor ASB's the myrmidon will have a cap independant tank rivalling that of a triaged carrier, right? :lol:
:bash:
-
You do realise that with the new armor ASB's the myrmidon will have a cap independant tank rivalling that of a triaged carrier, right? :lol:
The prophecy too then. Armor resist bonus = huge (active) tank too, especially with one more low slot.
The difference being that you can also fit it for a huge passive armor too.
-
New dev blog: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74215
Pop-quiz: What do the Autopilot Route, Current System, Factional Warfare, Incursions, Agent Missions and Planetary Interaction have in common? I’m sure it’s possible to engineer various clever punch lines to that question, but the boring, logical answer is that they all fight to conquer the screen real estate next to the Neocom. To avoid casually referring to them as the user interface widgets that fight to conquer the screen real estate next to the Neocom (it really slows down meetings) we decided to re-brand them as the Info Panels. Even though our uncanny ability to give shorter names to things would easily justify a dev blog on its own, I’m happy to announce that this is not all! As with many other parts of the UI, things have grown somewhat organically here, and we are currently in a situation where the worst case scenario (all panels visible, lowest screen resolution) will fill up the screen vertically, effectively inhibiting us from introducing new panels if needed. Also, there was almost a complete lack of a clear system; some of the panels could be configured, others couldn’t and the aesthetics didn’t really match up so well in many cases. To amend this, we’ve designed and implemented a new mechanism that gives you the power to decide what information is important enough to you, and your play style, to have it in front of you at all times. Also; sexier look and feel.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64141/1/screenshot_1.png)
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64141/1/screenshot_2.png)
Configuration
To begin with, each panel now comes in three flavors; normal, compact and collapsed. Normal mode is the most verbose one, compact mode only displays the most relevant stuff, while collapsed mode will minimize the panel to the top icon row, where it can be accessed by hovering over the relevant icon. Going between normal and compact mode is accomplished by single clicking the panel header or the arrow in front of it, while collapsing is done either by double clicking, or single clicking the top row icon. We’ve also introduced the ability to re-order the panels, which is simply done by dragging the top row icons around.
We are also recognizing that the importance of information is highly scope specific. What I mean by that is that information that’s relevant to you while your viewing the space scene, may not be important at all while you’re, say, navigating the map, or clicking around in PI, and vice versa. Hence, the info panel configurations are view state specific, meaning that your configurations are persisted per view (the different views include station, space, PI, map, etc.). We have designed what we think are good defaults for each view state, but there is absolutely no need for you to agree with that verdict since configuration is so easy.
That’s fine, now get to the new features
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64141/1/screenshot_3.png)
Sure thing, boss. While we were mainly focused on getting the old content into a shiny new system, we did manage to drag in some cool new stuff, the most significant thing arguably being the migration of the autopilot settings from a place that makes practically no sense at all (the map panel) over to a place that actually does (the new Autopilot Route Info panel). As a result, the old routine of multiple clicks, confusion and moderate swearing has been replaced with a single click. We must admit that we were very tempted to do a more extensive cleanup of how you manage the autopilot route (see mockup below) but that will have to wait its turn.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64141/1/InfoPanels_WIP_Autopilot.png)
Another neat new feature, which is toggled through the new autopilot settings menu by selecting “Show route path in space”, will reveal one of our best kept secrets; the stars in the space scene nebula actually represent the solar systems of New Eden. By plotting the route in space you’ll feel more like you’re actually travelling through space while burning up your route, rather than just appearing at arbitrary locations. In the near future we’re hoping to add some neat stuff to this feature such as making the stars interactive. Also, we (as in Team Game of Drones) didn’t really do any of the hard route plotting work. CCP Mannapi did. We’re just here to rob the credit. That’s how we roll.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64141/1/route_WEB.png)
Other minor tweaks include clearer, more iconic icons, smoother animations and improved UI layouts.
More later
Finally, I might tease you that we’re already plotting to do more Info Panel work in the future, both introduce completely new ones (a new notifications panel that would allow you to read the headers of all incoming notifications without opening a separate window), improving current ones (adding current system location entries to the System Info panel) as well as migrating old UI over to the new system (map panel anyone?). Here are mockups for some of those; it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64141/1/GOD1.png)
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64141/1/GOD2.png)
The new Info Panels are already live on our test server, Singularity, so please give them a spin and report back to us with your delicious feedback.
Hope you enjoy!
-
absolutely gorgeous development, unifying stuff like this only spells good news for both users and programmers alike.
-
If you aren't hoarding or building black ops battleships get on that bandwagon. There is a killing being made the things have jumped something like 250m per just since the announcement on speculation alone.
-
You do realise that with the new armor ASB's the myrmidon will have a cap independant tank rivalling that of a triaged carrier, right? :lol:
Don't panic, this will not be the case. The AAR (damnit) will use cap the same as any non ancil armor repper would. It has been through two drafts so far.
In the first draft it would be loaded with cap charges, and while cap charges last it would repair significantly more efficiently than a normal repper. When it ran out of cap charges, it would be about 75% as effective as a normal repper. In all cases it will use ship's local capacitor.
In the most recent draft it will load nanite paste instead of cap boosters. Logic behind this seems to be that ships using an AAR will need local cap injection anyway, and it'd have been silly to make pilots load 800s for their cap injector and 400s or whatever for their MAAR.
Oh, and ofc they made it to where a ship will only be able to fit 1 AAR at a time. Chances are you will see old dual and triple rep fits simply replacing one of the reppers with one of these, and will otherwise function only a little better than they used to.
Summary:
Empty Ancil Armor Repper = 75% of a T1 Armor Repper, uses normal cap
Loaded Ancil Armor Repper = 225% of a T1 Armor Repper while charges last, uses normal cap
Best way for me to wrap my own mind around this is: You could replace two of the MAR on the present-day standard triple-rep Myrmidon with one of these MAARs and have roughly the same rep power as before, only with significantly better cap stability. Or, assuming the fit works, you could replace one of the MARs with the MAAR and have the cap stability of the old triple rep set-up, but have effectively 4 reps while charges last.
-
The AAR (damnit)
I had an identical reaction. Those poor FCs ;)
-
The AAR (damnit)
I had an identical reaction. Those poor FCs ;)
Well, I don't write AARs anymore. When we do them, it's done tribunal style on teamspeak. But I know of an alliance that will probably be a little annoyed by this "new" acronym...
Oh, and speculation in my circles about the new hulls has been something like this:
Gnosis = 10yr anniversary gift. Rarity will mean it will not have any impact on the current fleet meta. Alternatively, it could become an LP reward for SOCT LP, or BPCs will drop from a new round of SOCT exploration sites. If we think about Vigilant and Cynabal prices, and then apply a proportional cruiser -> faction cruiser mark-up, you could guess the Gnosis market value to potentially exceed a billion ISK, or on the conservative side to be worth something between that of a pirate cruiser and a pirate BS, so 300mil-1.3bil.
Even if it had the exact same drop rate and/or LP exchange rate as a pirate cruiser, it'd still be about 30mil more expensive mineral-wise, so it would be competing with things like the Sleipnir (260mil) and the Loki (400mil) with at least a 350mil price tag.
I would consider either of the existing alternatives to be more effective at most tasks than the Gnosis, at the only expense of being less versatile.
Does not strike me as a balance killer or even a meta-changer if these price estimations are at all accurate.
My favorite theory on the pirate rookie ships is that CCP will be releasing the option to begin your career in NPC null-sec, but I kinda doubt that.
I think it's more likely that they will add 4 new low-sec epic arcs (or maybe just 1 with 4 branches) and introduce them to new players at the same stage as they are presently introduced to the Sister's arc, and they'd be designed around a similar but somewhat more rookie friendly principle as the existing pirate arcs, meaning that they can be completed in a PVP-ready or at least MWD fit.
Another possibility is that they hope to either introduce something like pirate militias, or PVP-geared live events, or different rookie ships depending on the faction affiliation of the station that issues the ship. This would at least cure the silly little problem that somehow Amarr Navy stations have an unlimited supply of Reapers for me.
-
Beginning new players in nullsec as pirates would be too difficult without giving them an exceptional 'protected' area to run through the tutorials. The same is true for lowsec as well.
I am hopeful they're looking at developing the pirates into full fledged military line ups, and not just 'shiny pimp ships'.
-
Minor changes to the AAR: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2562971#post2562971
A lot of questions have been coming in concerning alternate modes for the AAR such as being able to toggle the more powerful rep. That's not something we can do for 1.1 and we'd have to take time to consider it more fully but I won't rule out the idea.
One change we have decided to make is slightly decreasing the Paste consumption of the medium and large AARs. We'll have the mediums eat 4 per cycle and the larges eat 8.
-
Tried them on Sisi, wasn't impressed. Medium AAR costing the same in nanite paste as navy 400s in a XLASB is rather :psyccp:
-
Little Things Dev Blog: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74232
Hi!
Team Super Friends has been working on some Little Things for Retribution 1.1. We decided to focus a bit on making the war experience better since there were a few things we knew we could do better. Now lets get to it!
War Things
Group wars in the war history
The war history in the info window for corporations and alliances was getting kind of crowded for active corporations/alliances. So we now group the wars by:
- Active Wars
- Factional Wars (active)
- Pending Wars
- Finished Wars
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64156/1/DevBlog_Grouping.png)
War cost
Inactive characters don't count in war cost any longer.
Allies join war faster
Currently, allies have to wait 24 hours to join a war.
Ain't nobody got time fo dat!
Let's make it 4.
Naming and shaming
When it comes to dealing with wars, it is impossible to know which character in a corporation took some actions. We've now added notifications that are sent to directors of the corporation/alliance, which tell you who did the following things:
- Declared war
- Offered surrender
- Accepted surrender
- Made war mutual
- Retracted a mutual war
- Offered to ally
- Accepted ally
Browsing wars
In the all wars list in the corporation window you could only see the 50 most recent wars. That's no fun! So we added paging so you can browse all the wars, 50 at a time.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64156/1/wars.jpg)
Forced Peace
To make the surrender option in a war more meaningful, we've now made it so that if one entity surrenders to another, those two have a forced peace period of two weeks.
Other Things
See corporation and alliance logos clearly
When looking at the most wanted alliance and the top bounty hunting alliance in the bounty office we realized there was no other place you could see alliance logo in that size in the client. Since most of them are really cool and a lot of work was put into them, we made it so that when you click the alliance logo in the info window, you'll see a larger version of it (without the WANTED banner for wanted alliances).
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64156/1/DevBlog_BigLogo.png)
We did the same for corporation logos because it makes sense
Current skill points in Medical window
Your current number of skill points wasn't being displayed in the Medical window for some reason. This had been annoying me for some time until I figured.. wait.. why don't I just add it? So that's what we did!
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64156/1/DevBlog_SkillPoints.png)
Better descriptions
Tuxford was playing EVE and got lost in some exploration fun and told the team about it. He was so angry he was about to press the big red button, so we decided to do something about it quickly.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64156/1/tuxford.jpg)
Tallest convinced us it would be a great idea to give the exploration probes and launchers better descriptions so you can easily read what they do in very simple terms. No Big Red Button was pressed.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64156/1/DevBlog_Description.png)
That's all for now, fly as safe as you like and party on!
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64156/1/TSF.png)
Punkturis on behalf of Team Super Friends (missing SoniClover in the picture)
I hope you people appreciate just how much formatting I had to do in this post :eek:
-
Tuxford nooooooooooooo
-
Two major Dev Blogs in one day, what is this: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74236
Good news everyone! We here at Team Pony Express are continuing in our mission to revamp, rework and improve parts of the EVE Online client which haven't been touched in a while or just need some more attention.
As many of you will know, we completely rebuilt the Corporation Finder (http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=73535) with our Winter 2012 expansion EVE Online: Retribution (http://www.eveonline.com/retribution/). In addition to those changes we planned on streamlining the recruitment management process for corporations. Although we were unable to release these changes in Retribution, we are delivering them now to you as part of our Retribution 1.1 point release in February!
Our main goals with these changes were to provide better visibility for the player looking to join a corporation and to improve the tools used by Recruiters and Corp Directors by displaying information more effectively and in greater detail.
Let's go through some of the nitty-gritty details:
CCP Prism X re-worked and revamped the backend and cursed the living daylights out of it while doing so. His new and improved code makes much more sense and helps us developers delivering better features to you.
The flow of an application is mostly unchanged: a character sends in an application, the application gets reviewed and the applicant then is accepted or rejected. The main change is that the player who applied to join now has to confirm that he wishes to join the corporation after their application has been accepted. This change fixes a few loop-holes that were present in the system; now the player has extended control of all their character’s movements to every stage of the process. Some of these loop-holes could cause a character to jump between corporations, or to join a corporation which was not their first choice and could subsequently be stuck in if they were assigned roles.
By asking you to confirm that you will join a corporation which has accepted your application, we put you in the driving-seat in determining where your next destination will be.
Applications now have a single status which is descriptive enough for everyone to understand:
- Unprocessed - Application has been sent to the corporation for review.
- Invited to join - Application was accepted by the corporation and an invitation has been extended to the player allowing them to join.
- Rejected - Application was rejected by the corporation.
- Accepted – Player has accepted an invitation to join the corporation and has joined it.
- Withdrawn - Player has withdrawn the application, which can be done at any time.
- Corporations can use the status to filter and manage applications.
To save you from lengthy loading times we only show applications from the past 3 months, but there is an option available to see older messages upon request.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64160/1/CorpApplications.PNG)
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64160/1/PlayerApplications.png)
Welcome Mail
This is a bit you’ll also like a lot. Currently all players receive a standard mail message upon joining a corporation. This can now be edited by the corporation to include any and all information you wish to send to new members.
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64160/1/Welcome_Mail.PNG)
The Singularity public test server has been updated with these changes and we would love to hear your feedback!
Until next time,
CCP Fear
Team Pony Express
-
The welcome mail pleases me in so many different ways.
-
Patch notes are up, but if you think I'm formatting all of those bullet pointed lists you're going to be sorely disappointed :lol:
Enjoy: http://community.eveonline.com/updates/patchnotes.asp
-
Radio Laser Color incorrect 2013.01.11 19:46
Reported by Katrina Oniseki .
This report has been attached to a defect
Description:
Tranquility - EVE-EVE-TRANQUILITY - 8.2.467201
Radio laser crystal colors are using the incorrect shade of red. Instead of using the correct shade of red (which can be viewed by watching certain BLood Raider or Sansha NPCs firing), it uses the Infrared crystal color. Screenshot attached.
Screenshot shows four turrets firing, two using Radio, two using Infrared. Colors are indistinguishable.
Reproduction Steps:
Can be reproduced on any ship using any laser weapon fitted with Radio crystals.
Build 476047 to 485433 addresses Patch Notes for Retribution 1.1
To be deployed on Tuesday, 19th of February 2013.
CHANGES
Graphics General
- The Infrared laser effect color has been updated to better distinguish between Radio and Infrared effects.
You're welcome.
-
And another Dev blog: http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&nbid=74273
Hi all and happy New Year!
I would like to tell you about a cute little change we will be making in Retribution 1.1.
First off, I know for a fact that all the fleet leaders out there just love to move people around in fleet. I mean, what is there not to love about the 5-layer right click menu they get to use for every single pilot they want to move?
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64186/1/movingbefore.png)
Well, as great as it is now, it appears that not everyone loves those menus, as some of you have been asking us to implement drag and drop to move people around in fleet. When I read the first post suggesting that, I thought to myself, "Yes of course we should do that, it makes perfect sense and would simplify this moving business so much".
So that is the cute little change: after Retribution 1.1 you will be able to drag people in the fleet window, and drop them on the wing or squad you want them in.
It's worth noting that this change will only simplify the process, but the rules for the organization of fleets are still the same. To refresh your memory, here are the rules:
- there can be at most 10 pilots in a squad, including the Squad Commander
- there can be at most 5 squads in a wing
- there can be at most 5 wings
- a fleet can only have 1 Fleet Commander
- each wing and squad can have only 1 commander
- the commander positions do not have to be filled
- Wing Commanders can move pilots around in their own wing, including making people Squad Commanders
- Fleet Commanders and Fleet Bosses can move anyone around in the fleet, including making people Squad and Wing Commanders
- Fleet Bosses can make a pilot a Fleet Commander
- when free move is on, anyone can move themselves in any squad, but cannot appoint themself as Wing or Fleet Commander (unless the rules listed above allow them that)
So how does this drag/drop business work? It's very simple:
- when you (as a commander or Fleet Boss) try to move people around, the "cell" you drag them over is highlighted white if you can drop the pilot there, otherwise it's highlighted red (meaning you are not allowed to move them, the position is filled or the squad is full)
- if you drop a member on a Fleet/Wing/Squad Commander "cell" and there is not member in that position, the dropped member will be moved to that position
- if you drop a member on a Fleet/Wing Commander "cell" and there is member in that position, nothing happens ("cell" would have red highlight)
- if you drop a member on a Squad Commander "cell" and there is a member in that position, the dropped member is added to that squad if there is room in it
- if you drop a member on a squad member, the dropped member is added to that squad the other member is in
*cell = an entry in the hierarchy view of the fleet.
Move not allowed
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64186/1/movenotallowed.png)
Move allowed
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64186/1/moveallowed2.png)
And where do you find those people to drag?
The most obvious place would of course be in the fleet window itself, but you can also drag people from the watch list, channel member list, contacts list, fleet composition window, and pretty much anywhere you have a character listed.
One of my favorites about this feature is that you can drag and drop a character link from chat, which can be pretty handy when you ask people to "x up".
(http://cdn1.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/64186/1/moveallowed1.png)
Up to this point I have been talking about moving pilots who are already in the fleet, and that is what I originally set out to do.
When I was testing my work, and I was dragging people from all over the place to move them in the fleet, I felt it would be a bit strange to leave out those poor souls that were not lucky enough to be in the fleet already. If I'm organizing my fleet and I want my dear friend skills as a Wing Commander, who cares if he's already in the fleet or not? I'll just drag him over there and if he's already in the fleet he's moved, but otherwise invited to the fleet as a Wing Commander and will fill that position if he accepts the invitation.
Additionally, if you just want to invite someone to be in your fleet as a general member, and don't really care in which squad they land, you can drag them onto the "My Fleet" tab and they'll be invited to your fleet.
I think it would be super cool if it was possible to mass-move members, for example to select and drag all the logistic pilots in the fleet composition window and drop them in a squad, but that improvement will have to wait for now.
I hope you like this feature and that it will make your lifes easier when you are organizing your groups to go kill others (or hug, or whatever it is you like to do in your fleet ops).
In addition to these awesome enhancements, we have done a few other Little Things recently:
- When you drag a fitting to the Quickbar tab in the market, the ship itself is now included in the folder that is created in the Quickbar and contains all the fitted items
- Logs in the Notifications and Log window are not cleared anymore on session change, so you can try to figure out what the hell happened when you got podded without having to find the log file for the fight
- The module tooltips were added to the fitting window (and actually A LOT of new tooltips were added, but that was continuation of a work done in the fall). This will for example allow you to easily see how damaged your weapons and crystals are while docked
- The windows to edit corporation and alliance details are no longer modal, which means you can add links (such as Kill Reports, websites, corporation recruitment ads) to their descriptions.
With lots of love and all that stuff,
-CCP karkur
♥ CCP Karkur blogs, they're so easy to replicate :)
-
Funny; I actually tried drag-dropping people around in fleet yesterday evening, because it'd been a while since I last fiddled with it much, and it's such a natural evolution I was expecting them to have it working by now. Was a little disappointed that they hadn't gotten around to it yet.
-
[bug reports]
You're welcome.
The Tranquility constellation typo fix was mine. :3
-
Once the patch hits tomorrow, would some folks please be so kind as to post here what size they estimate the patch was? I'm on metered data, and have to watch what I download. I'd like to know what I am getting into before starting.
Was it 250MB? 500MB? 1GB? 2GB?
-
365MB from the last functioning client.
Not sure if that's just my machine or not; judging by a conversation I just had with CCP Paradox on Twitter, YMMV.