Ok now we are getting into eve's setup and that I really hate. Training only one type of skills for a year then switching attributes to train another type for a year is really annoying when ur stuck in that attribute for awhile

Remove nav and you just make range that much more important

Marlona Sky wrote:

If anyone asks, 'What skill should I train up first?'

No matter what race you pick, no matter what robot, no matter what your profession is; everyone always says get navigation up to level 10 asap.  Every time.

That tells you something.  If everyone has to get that skill to level 10 as soon as they start the game, why even have it in the game?  Like it has been said before, navigation in this game has become the learning skills of EVE-Online.

Remove the navigation.

Eh i guess you are talking to the wrong ppl, the exact things i say to new players are get it to 7 or 8 asap, then get it to 10 later when your other skills are semi there. Honestly i found basic robotics 6 was more important than nav 10 to start with. That right there made my life a hell of a lot easier than my nav skill to start with. I could kill things decently fast as a newb cause of it and it increased my survivability. Also usually say some fitting skills so you can fit an assault fully instead of not being able to fit the 5 weapons its suppose to have.

4

(46 replies, posted in General discussion)

Well thats a little odd. I can't see them doing that could be a bug or a random observer pathed threw.

I kinda miss the way the spawn were before last patch. They were so much more of a challenge and fun.

Lonely Boy wrote:

DEV Zoom yr asnwer to my request is than a NO. i do have to keep a wreck instaed of a bot as i had before. ok, take notice, yr not the only game around, bye fm four accounts of mine.

imho you should solve the evident crash problems that you know you have (you know you have!),
before being so rigid with yr customers. in the meantime, in case of crash, you could
check if someone else looted wreck or not, it would be a service to players who pay to play and crashed. i know of people who don't rats for fear of crash. dows it say nothing to you?

You have 4 accounts? Hmmm I have 3 and one is always logged off or at the ratting site i was at so if something does go wrong and i lose a mech I recover my missing moduals instantly. Think about how you go about things maybe? If it was a crash then it should have been 1 account that went. If all accounts crashed at once then I'd probably say it was something on your end. I for one haven't crashed in quite a long time since the docking and undocking crashes.

Nat4raya wrote:

Then they are not must, are good or relevant or important, no same.
No need to have a penalization in Nav, u alrrdy have penalty with lwf & extensions dont have a penalty, why should nav?.

Do not enter endless tweaks pls, if nav its broken remove it (again, or give everybody enough ep at the start to rise it), if not leave it that way as there are plenty of more urgent things.

Nav 10 isn't a must either but ppl say it is. Cause us as the players put the importance on it. I for one went most of the 1 month playing without Nav 10 and found no problems. I started with 7 I think. Then slowly got it to 10 as other things came into focus. Had it at 9 by the time i started PvPing then finished it off after.

I have corp mates that have been playing just about the same length of time as me and still don't have Nav 10. Few have 9 some have 8 cause they just cant justify the importance of spending that much EP there when they can raise other things.

7

(41 replies, posted in Guides and Resources)

Robophiliac wrote:
Howard Quartz wrote:

This is the material equation I'm using in my spreadsheet at the moment.

Amount Required = Base Amount / CT Efficiency / (1+(Material Efficiency Extensions / 50)) / (1+( Sum of Corp Relations / 3))

For the above example 400 / 0.5 / (1 + (12 / 50)) / (1+(5.61/3)) = 633
I'd be interested to know how well it holds for other people.


I'm trying to use this but I'm messing something up and I'm pretty sure its the part in bold above.

For "Sum of Corp Relation" do you mean add up the 3 industrial corps associated with the megacorp who's facility your using?

For example I'm producing out of Tellesis which is ICS.  So for that part of the equation do you mean add up the total relation between DFI, V and N, the 3 ICS industrial subcorps?


ok i was playing around with the relations calculations a little and it would always be off by about 2% i found this equation to work. Tested it out on small stuff like ammo and also Mech sized CT's and it gave me dead exact numbers every time for what i was looking for. Now this number might change tho based on your relations %. Mine was 15% i need to raise it a little to see if changes anything.

Amount Required = ROUND(BASE/CT%/(1+(ME EXTENSION#/50))/(1+(RELATION%/8)))

Examples:
104 = ROUND(100/80%/(1+(9/50))/(1+(15%/8)))
18350 = ROUND(15000/0.68/(1+(9/50)/(1+(0.15/8))) - Decimal % Form

If you don't have a way to do % with base numbers then use decimals for %

Hugh Ruka wrote:

Industrialists won't care, they just need to run as fast as possible, thus nav 10 is still good for them. PvE/PvPers have to check their effective speed limits and train Nav to an effective level for their mech size.

One problem with that then you'd need to be able to have nav extension adjustable cause you change mech sizes and all of a sudden you have to much nav? How can you make that work unless the extention can be changed at will.

Now the tracking idea a good one. But this will then make Missile guidance or Percision Firing 10 a must have skill with nav 10. And that isn't no 1x skill like Nav is or you would have to introduce a new extension to semi counteract it which would become another must have at 10 asap.

Line wrote:

Careful here, there is alots of skills which are should be raised to %level_number% as a RULE. Why can't we then just start with basic robotics at 4 on al chars? or combat skills at 5 on combats?

There are and if you remove Nav from the picture completely then you'll find another extension turn into the must have 10. I know a few that I've found from changing pvp fits around that really could turn into must have skills at 10. Just ppl don't put emphasis on them as much but that would probably change when you get rid of Nav.

ok i dont see the point of this. Nav 9 to 10 takes 4-6days total (A hell of alot cheaper than most of my skills i'm trying to get past 6 or 7). You don't need nav 10 to be effective, to start with. I think i had Nav 7. Took it to 9 soon shortly after then by about 3-4 weeks of playing i finished it off at 10. My one alt that doesn't have it will it finally after 2 months.

I actually like this idea. The attributes really don't affect me one way or another but it would give more freedom. I do have one concern tho if the attributes get removed and the Extension amounts get tweaked no one should end up with negative EP no matter what. It was time paid for under the previous system and it shouldn't effect the changes unless there is an EP reset involved. Now I really don't like the account reset idea myself. Hate that everything disappears about the character. You should be able to check their profile and get a hint at how old they are. It gives a person an idea of how big of a threat they possible could be.

As for the whole idea with bonuses to sparks and so forth, if the attributes are removed its a great idea it still gives people bonuses for choosing a path and a little advantage or disadvantage over a person who went a different route but with that you'd probably require to introduce a one time Race/Spark/Corp/Sub-Corp change. Since you'd be revamping the whole system and introducing stuff that older players wouldn't have access to which could very much change the way people choose their whole setup.

11

(11 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

I'm getting it right now in my Cam off high way doing 130kph with just a T4 lwf on

Triglav wrote:

While i quite like what you're suggesting, I'm confused on one point: you would not allow any intra-continent teleports in this system?

If so - awesome, ppl should slowbot more in this game. If not - then nothing really changes from the current system.

And yes larger land masses (or tbh current land masses with MANY MORE teleport accesss points (but then this would also kill the meaning of separate defensible islands)) would solve a lot in ways of player interaction.

i'm just unsure as to how the current game engine can support it? iirc each island is a NxN height map with fixed N? If i'm wrong, then there's no problem smile

I'd have to agree with beta islands needing more land mass and maybe 3-4 more access points from other islands. Along with more teleports for internal travel inside the islands with each on having 3-4 different destinations giving small roams more options to move around and pick targets.

Bldyannoyed wrote:

It's not a finished idea Arilou but how about this:

When you invade someones influence you get their Sparks at the reduced value as if you were in an area of no influence, but each Spark gathered also destabilises the enemies influence. So you'll stregthen your own and weaken theirs and also get a shot at blowing up some of their shiny stuff.

Problem with this idea is it really encourages people to blob so you have less risk of losing influence.

The bad ping spikes and lag are happening at random on my end. Ive noticed even with 2 accounts up the N/A and ping spikes differ on each client sometimes at the same time but a lot of the time I'll have good ping on one while the other goes from good ping to a N/A but both don't get the N/A which really confuses me.

15

(7 replies, posted in Feature discussion and requests)

i like this idea, it would be fun

Goblin wrote:

Terraforming?
Improved reset system?
New fun & dynamic pve encounters?
Interesting lore and mission development?

Nah, let's work on alliances instead. Who cares about the health and longevity of the server. We need to make CIR more powerful !!!!!!!!

No one is saying we need an alliance system this second unless the intrusion changes happen. Put the intrusion changes off for awhile focus on other things along with the stuff you said up there. But when they change intrusions they need to add an alliance system.

Well let me give you the views from being in a smaller corp on the server that was trying to make a life on beta till we pulled back recently.

There are corps out there that take all incentive to ruin the PvP experience by running from fair fights that could have an outcome that turns out either way and are fun or use log-off and bait tactics just to catch a small number of ppl with a overwhelming force. All and all yes if i get caught by a bigger roam or I am out mining and die its part of the game and its going to happen more times than enough. I get in a fight where numbers were pretty close and we lose it was fun. If a small roam runs away from my bigger roam and gets reinforcement by all means. I would run too. But if you run away and get numbers that could make the fight fun for both sides and then just run around while we try and get an engagement out of you till you get 2:1 numbers or more and then just smash us. What was the point? Worst part is some of these ppl that do this are ones that are complaining about blobs and wanting pvp to be fun. Well you aren't helping the situation at all if not your making it worse. People are trying to have fun and enjoy pvp while taking you on. Don't get me wrong i've had some good fights with these ppl also.

Well what I'm trying to put into perspective is that without the Alliance system all the smaller corps have no chance on their own out in beta unless they band together to be able to fend off stuff like this. This won't happen if people can't work together and hold an outpost as an alliance with the benefits being shared equally.

ah didnt the put a network routing statistics tracker in the game a patch or two ago?

19

(14 replies, posted in Resolved bugs and features)

Idk my timings work themselves. Might not be displaying right for some ppl

If you think that not having an alliance system is going to fix pvp think again. Corps will blob into mega corps or the naps will just be 2hr camp fests to protect friends naps and that'll decrease pvp even more.

21

(23 replies, posted in General discussion)

still here myself and don't plan on going anywhere anytime soon just waiting on my eve subs to run out and i'll be done with it probably for good

22

(106 replies, posted in News and information)

In all honesty it wont matter if you allow alliances or not. All in all the Power house blobbed-corps/alliances will be able to lock down 1 island have at least their staging point at 100% or near 100% all the time and be able to control the rest of the island so others can't dock. Along with being able to make it living hell for corps on connecting islands to be able to control docking. You will get the corps and people that will do everything possible to be able to and the ones that don't want to band together.

23

(106 replies, posted in News and information)

Thing is people will want to try and keep the 100% mark so they will get the most benefit which means the alliances around will merge into 500 man corps instead so they can. It don't matter if you allow alliances or not, people will either merge as 500 man corps if alliances don't get to be able to have the benefits also. Either way things will change, I'd rather see a bunch of individual corps with their own identity vs 1 massing of corps into one.

Lupus Aurelius wrote:

After reading some of the posts, I have noticed some misconceptions about the data, so let’s re-summarize and clarify the issues:

-All calculation were based on only weapons fitted to the heavy mechs, no head slot or leg slot modules were included.  This was to show the base characteristics of each heavy mech
-All calculations were based on pilots having the same skill levels, or in the case of launcher vs. turret, equivalent skills
-All calculations were based on the innate bonuses that apply to each heavy mech, with that heavy mech being fitted with the weapon type it receives bonuses for
-All calculations were based on the maximum range capability of the heavy mech.

To summarize the data:

Gropho
Accumulator recharge                7.00 AP recharged/sec
6X Weapon Accumulator consumption    1.429 AP used/sec
Top speed                    52.00 kph
Using Heat IX Ballistic            589.05 m optimal / 81.18 DPS Seismic

Seth:               
Accumulator recharge time            10.23 AP recharged/sec
6X Weapon Accumulator consumption    51.47 AP used/sec
Top speed                    46.80       
Using Crypto                    514.5 m optimal/ 118 m falloff  134.59 DPS Thermal

Mesmer                   
Accumulator recharge time            8.89 AP recharged/sec
6X Weapon Accumulator consumption    35.29 AP used / sec   
Top speed                    56.16       
Using UDC                    393.7 m optimal / 94.8 m falloff  159.67 DPS Kinetic

What does the data say?:

-Gropho  is the only heavy mech that has an AP surplus when running all 6 weapons
-Gropho has an AP recharge 4.89X greater than it’s weapon usage
-Seth has an accumulator usage for weapons 5.03X it’s AP regen
-Mesmer has an accumulator usage for weapons 3.96X it’s AP regen
-Gropho has the longest innate optimal range
-Seth does more DPS than the Gropho, and Seth is slower than the Gropho by 5.2 kph , which means that a Seth cannot close the distance to effectively appy DPS
-Mesmer does more DPS than the Gropho, and is 4.16 kph faster than the Gropho, and has a 195.35 shorter range than the Gropho
-Mesmer and Seth are turret based, any bump or bush in the landscape will interrupt weapon fire
-Gropho is launcher based, slight landscape rises and bushes do not interrupt weapon fire

Such is the data, not opinion, not point of view. Hard solid data, thus, inarguable  As far as roles in combat, that is defined by head slot and leg slot layout, but certain things will remain true.
-Seth, and Mesmer, will be burning AP like crazy, Gropho will start off with an AP surplus. 
-Seth will not be able to close on the Gropho,
-Mesmer will, but at 4.61 kph speed base. 
-Seth’s shield bonus is unique in the Thelodica line, all other bonuses for Thelodica are either resists or AP regen.
-Gropho is the only heavy mech that has an AP regen surplus to apply to defensive modules.

EDIT:  The recharge per second is based on dividing the AP capacity by the recharge time, but the highest regen actually takes place at 50% of the AP supply.  Once you drop below that point, the regen rate actually slows down, which means on any bot/mech, you want to slow down or stop consumption at 50%.  Effectively, what this means is that you only have the initial 50% of your AP to work with, and past that breakpoint you need to start shutting things down, or slowing consumption.

The problem with those calcs is did he take into the mass consideration of the weapons? Launchers are the heaviest of them all which means they slow the bots down the most.

-Edit-

Ok did some more research Lasers are the Lightest of them all at 330kg per.
Launchers and Magn are the heaviest at 500kg per.

i got an idea why dont we give all bots the same range, dps, speed, rof, and los advantages just say they are using different weapons and give different animations? Come on think here. I've got numerous different ideas of how to counter it. Maybe start playing in the sandbox a little before you start thinking something is OP'd and try some counter tactic first.

And Accum recharge is not a valid argument cause:

#1 You/They will be dead before it becomes into play.
#2 Energy Injectors nullify the problem