You know better than to ask me questions like this that I can’t answer, lol.
Yeah, I have to agree. Firstly they ,make any ship bigger than a cruiser not worthwhile to make now they stupidly change the WCS rules.
Ive been playing since 2003 and the last few changes are killing this game, Ive never seen such stupidity for a long time.
Can Iask, who’s stupid idea was this??
5 Likes
on the opposite it makes their life harder, as now many more ships can go trough a bubble tn only ceptors did before. BR for example is way harder to get now. ratting ships will be the a thing as if its a drone ship, it loses a lot of bandwitch. ceptors and t3 are screwed to death.
More bubble camp loot.
In before smartbomb fleets.
1 Like
I usually don’t comment on changes to the game, I just adapt.
But this is crap.
A hunter with a faction scram don’t even have a suspense any longer, there is no counter anymore.
Three WCS in an astero for ex was crippling enough, but at least the option was there…
As for Crow, Stiletto, … a lot of their usefulness is dead…
8 Likes
The nullification and warp core stabilizers are live.
@Zoiie was talking about changes to cloaks, which is still on the test server as far as I know: Mobile Observatories – Live on Singularity
Смысл играть дальше все более угасает .
Сначала вы испортили подскан .
Потом приучили логистов читать по арабски .
Затем вы сделали из одного цептора бревно , потом из другого .
Теперь вы переделали половину кораблей так что они не могут ничего толком использовать, а те которые могут не имеют возможности .
Не знаю кто Вам эти изменения посоветовал , но его уровень образования вызывает серьезные сомнения .
Вы практически уничтожили разведчики и цептора как класс , а так -же поломали баланс тех кораблей которые и имели смысл только благодаря абилкам.
Грузовикам астеркам и прочим ваш нулифаер как мертвому помада.
Варпстабы - могли к ним просто прикрутить -50 бв дронов а не затевать этот бред.
3 Likes
If their recent pattern hold true it will be pushed live next Tuesday with little to no notice until after the fact.
We know you can’t answer anything specific like that. Hypothetically speaking, say you did have an opinion. Couldn’t you discuss your own personal opinion without disclosing anything protected. I’m pretty sure I read the highpoints of it in the way you didn’t answer anyway.
1 Like
Blockquote
You’ll have to forgive my ignorance; but I am not certain why this change was necessary? Anyone able to TLDR it for me, in such a way that a 5 year old can understand? Thanks
Blockquote
Yo, CCP, I actually like the WCS changes but I feel its lacking a key point of “counter-play”. May we CCPlease get some faction WCSs that give +3 core strength? I imagine the Intaki Syndicate would be a prime candidate for such a module. While we’re at it, can we get Officer ones with +4 strength too? As is, a faction scram is kind of an “I win” button when it comes to warp vs. don’t warp, but I don’t want faction scrams to get nerfed when there’s such a simple fix available. Axing the brain-dead “lets slap 4 WCSs on an epithal and call it a day” play style is nice and all, but as much as I love popping the occasional epithal, they deserve some way to escape if they’re willing to match me on the level of hardware.
Also, may we CCPlease get a balance pass on the various meta WCSs to trim it down to maybe a compact and a restrained variety?
On the ‘dic-null changes, I hate bubbles so I’m all for spreadin’ the dic-null love, especially giving it to shuttles inherently, that is beautiful and long overdue. I’m also glad blockade runners can now run blockades. I’m going to mourn this final and complete destruction of the Slippery Pete though. It was a doctrine that, while a pain to fight, really was beautiful in how it worked back in the day. Now that very idea of bubble-proof combat is pretty much dead. It was cheese, but I still can’t help but feel the game has lost some of its richness without it.
The deployment felt a little rushed too. I like what I’m seeing, but I feel the pacing was a bit reckless. Lot of folks I talk to were still in the “this is BS” phase and hadn’t gotten around to the “maybe I can use this” phase yet. Giving us time to adapt is giving yourself time to react.
4 Likes
I have been suggesting an extra point warp core strength for faction WCS.
2 Likes
You just know you’re hitting the nail on the head when they slo-mo the thread.
Indy production slows to a crawl, with reactions becoming a real bottleneck in low sec. Coupled with materials requirements being larger now to build a hull, and the number of ship types useful to Indy now being rendered all but useless in terms of operational security, hull prices are going to skyrocket even more. People will be more hesitant to undock. Content (the thing all the pvp’ers cry about and cause ■■■■ like this to begin with), drops sharply. People leave the game or go into blackout mode.
Never seen a company work against it’s own self-interests the way CCP does. The way they do things reminds me of the way HBO boned up the last season of Game of Thrones.
9 Likes
Lmao the salt this is causing is pretty good.
You won’t even need a proper gate ‘camp’ anymore. Two people can do it.
1 Like
Are CCP actively trying to push players back into high-sec?
2 Likes
QA are there to validate that the change requirements are implemented according to specs. So if specs are garbage, the QA only validate that the garbage is implemented as intended.
Challenging decisions and non sense is the whole dev team responsibility, not restricted to QA.
This change should never have hit TQ in the first place, had you been doing the job you were elected for properly this wouldn’t have happened, how about, you know, doing your damn job
3 Likes
We have been working on nullification and the WCS stuff with CCP for a while now - I think the first time we saw proposals that included anything remotely close to what went live to day was at least a couple of weeks ago, maybe longer. I can’t remember off the top of my head when it was, but we did have a meeting to discuss it as well, and I think that was in April.
I have told you guys before what I asked for - nullification on shuttles and to have nullification removed from shuttles if they had guns fit, so they’d be available as scouts and tackle, but not direct combat. This was obviously far beyond what I suggested.
I had less of an opinion on the WCS issue, as I felt they were useful for non-combat ships but bad on combat ships, but I did not have any design suggestions for fixing those.
As for what the rest of the CSM thought, it’s up to them whether they answer that question. As for CCP, I can’t talk about what they think, as anything they’ve said to me is NDAed.
3 Likes
The “restrained” variant does not reduce the penalties, as the name suggests; but reduces cap usage. According to the naming convention that should be the “enduring” variant. I think this exception causes confusion and breaks consistency with the tiericide naming convention for no reason.
2 Likes
Thanks for the insight.
Interesting… It seems you believe they have actual power. They, for the most part, do not.