Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
LT Alter
Ouroboros Research and Development
118
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 15:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
Black hole changes - Very nice set of changes, I like the look of it.
Magnetar changes - Pretty small change but it seems beneficial.
Red Giant - Oh dear, I'm going to need a bomb shelterGǪ I suppose it's a good thing you can't overheat bombs. (Fozzie don't you dare take that as a suggestion!) I like the change although isn't the change irrelevant? The max damage with bombs is still the same (Per volley) as the bombs destroy themselves after a certain amount of damage. Also won't people utilize the smart bombs to just destroy all the volleys of bombs, with their range and damage a few smart bombs would kill them before they can explode.
Pulsar - Very interestingGǪ Shield tanked bhallgorns anyone? Not a bad change I feel for pvp. For pve I must ask, will the nos and neut changes be applied to the sleepers?
Wolf Rayet - Hmmm, I don't like the armor Hp change all the much. Granted holy ridiculousness of ehp with a slave set, but it's pretty pricy to take those into a wormhole. How about a change to self armor repair amount, maybe increase the cap requirement of them at the same time? Just something I thought of off the top of my head, may be stupid I haven't really thought about it much.
Cataclysmic - Very clever changes, I like the way it doesn't destroy cap stability t2 logistics, while it pretty much removes any hope of cap chaining with capitals. Very good change.
Overall not bad though I think there should be a few changes to iron it all out. |
Janeway84
Its a good day to die
91
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:02:00 -
[32] - Quote
Best one of the changes imo! I forsee a increase in mordus legion ships flying in wh space after this change Feels like the different wh bonuses are more thought through more carefully now wich should be good. Im sure if players manage to create something game breaking ccp is going to tweak some stuff. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
10909
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:02:00 -
[33] - Quote
To clarify, wormhole effects do not apply to NPCs. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
LT Alter
Ouroboros Research and Development
118
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:10:00 -
[34] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To clarify, wormhole effects do not apply to NPCs.
Wouldn't it be a more so balancing factor for pve if this were the case, maybe if they got a smaller bonus. It is incredibly safe to do pve in pulsars and incredibly fast to do in magnatars, there is nothing counter balancing the effects of these wormholes and their effect on how safely or quickly you can run sites. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
691
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:13:00 -
[35] - Quote
LT Alter wrote: Pulsar - Very interestingGǪ Shield tanked bhallgorns anyone? Not a bad change I feel for pvp. For pve I must ask, will the nos and neut changes be applied to the sleepers?
Shield tanked bhaals in a pulsar die stupidly fast to dreads even without webs/tps heh.
|
na'Vi Ronuken
Louis Nothing And Nobody
11
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:15:00 -
[36] - Quote
Traiori wrote:20km or 40km, the time it takes a dread to warp off a hole and back to the hole remains the same. All the issues that we've brought up previously are still problematic, so I'll bring them up again on behalf of the community: 1) Rage rolling becomes much more annoying for large groups. This limits their ability to find content that they can take, whether it be site-runners to kill (which you *have* to rage-roll for, incidentally) or other large groups. The proposed change slows down chain-rolling, slowing down the speed at which content can be found. This also has the side effect of making farming safer, because the probability being rolled into whilst running sites comes down to how many holes can be opened whilst your caps are not in their POS. Less holes=less chance of dying to everyone else. 2) Rage rolling becomes essentially impossible for small groups. They also have to find content, and rolling the chain is often the only way to reliably find content of interest - whether that be PvP or PvE or anything else. The proposed changes stop you from being able to do this without fighting the larger groups... which you can't do because numbers are important in every case. Small groups can no longer rage-roll consistently, especially given that most larger groups will seed scouts into their chain. 3) Committing capitals to wormholes outside of home systems requires winning the fight or losing the cap... which in turn means that it won't be committed by anyone that hasn't already got the forces on-grid to win it. The proposed change ensures that capitals shoved into another wormhole can't get back into home system. Whereas we currently see Triage used to balance out fights against bigger entities, smaller entities can't afford to lose the triage carrier every time, so they'll just stop bringing them. Less fights is bad for everyone. 4) Using our capitals in nullsec (and arguably losec) means losing them. We're not stupid. The proposed change would strand our capitals 15-20km away from the hole. The fight would become a race against time: will they be able to form up capitals/supercapitals to kill our triage archon before we get it back into the hole? In most cases, the answer will be no. Power projection means that we can no longer commit capitals. It's bad enough at present, without increasing the scope of the problem. Once again, less fights is bad for everyone. 5) Sub-capital wormholes also suffer from the problem because orcas land far away too. The major difference between rolling C4 wormholes and C5 wormholes is that C4 wormholes use Orcas. If those orcas are guaranteed to be in danger, they're also guaranteed to die. We'll take orca kills any time of the day. So will other groups. This means that C4 groups also need to be fielding support fleets for their orca if they don't fancy losing them daily. Bad for small groups, which means they'll leave, which means we lose more groups and hence, lose content. The error here is the belief that all groups can afford to field support groups. We can't. We aren't 10000 man coalitions, because wormholes can't support that kind of lifestyle. There is a maximum limit to how many people can fit into a wormhole, and unless we're now expecting all pilots to be on all of the time, that means that this change will make smaller groups increasingly unfeasible. I originally made most of these points on a reddit post here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2cro9k/where_are_the_devblogs/cjihkl9. Some inital discussion over it can also be found. EDIT: A better solution would be to invert the numbers: have distance landed be proportional to a function of mass and speed, making it so that lighter and faster ships landing further away from the hole. This would allow us to use kiting HACs as well as brawling T3s. EDIT 2: In the interest of clarifying my suggested change, I propose that distance landed from the hole should be inversely proportional to mass (higher mass=close) and directly proportional to maximum speed (higher maximum speed = further away).
dropping this megacomment here -- i agree with Traiori |
Lux Libertine
Prosperity Fighters CZECH Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:19:00 -
[37] - Quote
Black hole - why only Missiles? Lets extend it to all weapon systems as it is now penalised in range. This will make every missile ship OP in this enviroment. Kiting c2/c3/c4 in cerebuses, tengus and other ships. While making armor tanking ppl in legions and proteuses and similar ship subpar. |
Torval Shank
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
7
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:19:00 -
[38] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:To clarify, wormhole effects do not apply to NPCs. Thank you for the clarification. Appreciate the response. |
Longinius Spear
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi
284
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:19:00 -
[39] - Quote
The change to Black holes might be one of the best yet. I never saw the reason in making one type of hole actually worse than not having an effect at all, but o well.
These changes turn a black hole system from Baltic Ave to Pacific. Not quite Park Place but a nice money maker just the same.
Its like you just added more wormhole systems to the game!
+1 great change!
Read more of my ramblings on my blog www.invadingyourhole.blogspot.com |
Adarnof
Free Trade Monopoly You Are Being Monitored
20
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:25:00 -
[40] - Quote
If I didn't have a deeply rooted hatred of missiles I'd be all over those black hole bonuses. Very interesting. |
|
Verran Skarne
4 Marketeers
21
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:28:00 -
[41] - Quote
Black Hole = Mordu ship doctrine :)
Overall I like the changes. Right now w-space fleets seem to skew heavily toward armor-based brawling. I like that we're giving skirmish fleets a place where they'll really excel. It means that WH corps will want to have their pilots cross-trained, but that's not really a bad thing. |
Bob Artis
Into the Ether RAZOR Alliance
69
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:29:00 -
[42] - Quote
I actually have no complaints here. Looks good. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1679
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:37:00 -
[43] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Gorski Car wrote:Does the wolf rayet small weapon damage bonus apply to rapid light missiles? Yes, since it applies to the light missiles themselves.
Sounds like the cruisers that get bonuses to light weapons are going to ruin your plans. +1 |
Volcan Roubartzan
Island Life Capitalist Bastards Chained Reactions
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:47:00 -
[44] - Quote
I would like to believe that your intention isn't to prevent emergent game play but I have been playing this game for almost a year and every time I find something that works for me, you guys go ahead and Nerf it. I am getting very sick of it. The fact that the first third of the blog post is you trying to assuage us that you are not in fact trying to kill the current gameplay says a lot about the pill you are making us swallow.
I train drones, I start hearing sentry cruisers will be getting nerfed, I move into a Cataclysmic wormhole, you set out to nerf the RR, I look to use my otherwise completely useless and overpriced Legion in a Wolf-Rayet, you change the Wolf-Rayet bonus to something that again is totally useless. No armour ships buffer tank sleeper sites because they don't passively regenerate. Rolling wormholes is already hard enough for a small corporation and now you are making it untenably risky for a small corporation like mine to do it. We already only just get by in our WH. Where do we go? We can't make any isk in HS and nullsec is dominated by a few mega alliances to whose every need and whim you pander to. Do you nerf everything I try so I have to go buy plex? Did I join a game or a pyramid scheme? as an illustration here is how I've felt in my first year of eve. |
jonnykefka
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
270
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 16:58:00 -
[45] - Quote
90% love it. Especially on board with the new black holes, exactly the kind of unique environment I wanted to see.
My one point of concern is the energy transfer in Cat Vars. I recognize the worry about spider-tanking carriers, but I feel like this is going to hurt logi cruisers a lot and make it hard to have subcap fights in these systems. I can easily see people trying to avoid fights the way they avoid black holes now if it becomes impossible to maintain a logi chain.
If carriers are the primary concern, why not make the nerf specific to capital energy transfer arrays? That way subcap logi are as effective as ever and the spider-tanks are nerfed to an acceptable degree. |
Teoshen
Transcendent Innovations Incorporated The.Spanish.Inquisition
6
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:13:00 -
[46] - Quote
As the CEO of a small corp, I have very mixed feelings about these changes.
Some of the changes I see don't look to me to be content friendly. Rolling WHs will be more risky, require more people, and take more time than it currently does, and none of that is good in my opinion.
Sadly, eve is largely a numbers game. Most fleets of 5 are met with at least double that when a fight is actually found. I like WHs because they are an environment where a small corp like mine can be somewhat relevant and effective with the right choices and tactics. Numbers still win, but we at least we don't have to worry about the kind of fleet escalations that are often found in low/null.
Taking away our ability to be effective content creators for our members (and those we engage, btw) is a death sentence for both sides. Not every corp wants to be hundreds or thousands of people. I accept this limits our options as size is the main barrier to entry in Null sec. Please don't make that barrier also apply to WH space. |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:14:00 -
[47] - Quote
I have a concern related to cataclysmic variable system, particularly the highest classes.
By adding a debuff to remote cap transfers any logi from a carrier would require triage. This negates all potential dps from the carrier. You would therefore need a larger group of players than is currently needed to run any given site in C5-6 space as capitals are a vital part in making those sites interesting (ie capital escalations). Large groups will no doubt have the numbers needed to work around this, but I fear that medium sized groups could find this game-breaking. |
Threll Lornax
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:17:00 -
[48] - Quote
Teoshen wrote:As the CEO of a small corp, I have very mixed feelings about these changes.
Some of the changes I see don't look to me to be content friendly. Rolling WHs will be more risky, require more people, and take more time than it currently does, and none of that is good in my opinion.
Sadly, eve is largely a numbers game. Most fleets of 5 are met with at least double that when a fight is actually found. I like WHs because they are an environment where a small corp like mine can be somewhat relevant and effective with the right choices and tactics. Numbers still win, but we at least we don't have to worry about the kind of fleet escalations that are often found in low/null.
Taking away our ability to be effective content creators for our members (and those we engage, btw) is a death sentence for both sides. Not every corp wants to be hundreds or thousands of people. I accept this limits our options as size is the main barrier to entry in Null sec. Please don't make that barrier also apply to WH space.
We are in agreement, my interpretation is also that smaller groups will suffer a lot more from this. |
Gizznitt Malikite
agony unleashed Agony Empire
4057
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:44:00 -
[49] - Quote
LT Alter wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:To clarify, wormhole effects do not apply to NPCs. Wouldn't it be a more so balancing factor for pve if this were the case, maybe if they got a smaller bonus. It is incredibly safe to do pve in pulsars and incredibly fast to do in magnatars, there is nothing counter balancing the effects of these wormholes and their effect on how safely or quickly you can run sites.
Doesn't that result in "coveted" space that entities might fight over?
|
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
209
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:49:00 -
[50] - Quote
No major objections reading the proposed changes for the system effects..... Will post again / update if I change my mind. |
|
Missy Bunnz
Team Pizza The Hole Next Door
12
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:53:00 -
[51] - Quote
The pulsar changes will not have the effect you plan. The increased effectiveness of NOS/Neut will actually be detrimental to a fleet trying to engage in cap warfare as it will also double the effectiveness of cap batteries on the defending ships. Fitting a battery will be essential in these environments, meaning the bonus to nos/neut is negated. |
Cylin Rath
17
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 17:53:00 -
[52] - Quote
It will be interesting to see how Phoenixes with Huginn support will be in Black Holes. |
Cirillith
Bean-shidh The Nameless Alliance
20
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:00:00 -
[53] - Quote
First of all - Thank you CCP Fozzie for publishing that Devblog.
Now to the point :)
I think those changes are quite OK with few small concerns:
1. Black Hole - all is nice and balanced I guess in matter of PvP way, on the other hand penalty to web strength might be a problem for PvE content: for example on site with capital escalations dreadnoughts will need double number of webifier ships, but this is a minor issue, which can be easy countered by changing in tactics. So basically its OK.
2. Magnetar - like in the case of black hole - all seems to be balanced and ok. Again - minor issue with PvE but like above minor change in tactics and all ok :)
3. Red Giant - perfect change. Being honest with you CCP Fozzie - smartbomb bonus which existed there was kinda lonely without bomb bonuses ^^ - of course I agree with issues wrote above - removing POS modules will be easy with bombers, such as bombing someone on hole. Is that bad - honestly I do not know, but I hope someone maybe will find some nice solution to that.
4. Pulsar - very nice change which leads to an end of "immortal" Chimera's and Phoenix'es - now Bhaalgorns will be insane inside there ^^ - very encouraging to PvP.
5. Wolf Rayet - this is a strange change for me, but at the end I think it will serve as good as it works inside pulsar. Of course I'm a bit concern about those Revelation or Archon pilots with Slave implants and armor riggs - it will take forever to burn through their buffer, but like i wrote kinda same mechanics exists in pulsar (maybe Slave implants should be changed so they bonus armor repping just like Crystal ones - and please fellow capsuleers don't try to kill me - its just loud thinking :) )
6. Cataclysmic Variable - this is the most controversial change, because in c6 class it will put a lot of pressure on conventional logistic ships, no matter if it will be PvE or PvP Content, and since this effect encourage using of that kind of ships I think it is a big downside (I lived for like 1,5 year inside c6 Cataclysmic Variable WH), Maybe this should be implemented for capital ships only (if main reason of that change was counter capital spider fleets)?
Well - big picture here looks very nice, as this changes in my opinion makes stuff more balanced and adds some downsides where there was none - its fair in my opinion, but Cataclysmic Variable needs more love. |
De'Veldrin
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
2752
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:03:00 -
[54] - Quote
After you've played a few more years you'll level up to then to and finally to .
Keep going, you're almost there.
(Also, no one really cares about your self-entitlement whine.)
De'Veldrin's Corallary (to Malcanis' Law): Any idea that seeks to limit the ability of a large nullsec bloc to do something in the name of allowing more small groups into sov null will inevitably make it that much harder for small groups to enter sov null. |
Loris Fritz
Negative Density No Response
11
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:05:00 -
[55] - Quote
I can get behind this change.
Putting g all the effects in line with each other will now allow you to choose a system based on a gameplay aspect instead of which hole is best.
I think the wolf rayet and black holes will synergize well with the new dynamic wormholes. |
Samsara Nolte
Sternenschauer AG W.A.S. Alliance - Weapons Armor or Shield
11
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:10:00 -
[56] - Quote
Well - considering your chart Cataclysmic Variables are disliked second to only Black Hole and your idea to fix that is keep it exactly the same except for a nerf on the one attribute you shouldn-¦t have touched "Remote Capacitor Transmitter amount" the sole reason for the few who are living in there is that their carriers are pretty good inside - and after this change everybody living inside in one is pretty much flying them out, well except the ones needed in higher class holes for escalations.
No matter how hard i try to find any reason at all, that someone not already living in a cataclysmic is wanna live in one now, im unable to - without any exagggeration i think you just created the new "Black Hole" |
Alien Squirrel
Forever Winter Absolute Zero.
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:14:00 -
[57] - Quote
If the small weapons bonus affects rapid light missiles, does it also affect drones? |
Volcan Roubartzan
Island Life Capitalist Bastards Chained Reactions
0
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:24:00 -
[58] - Quote
Quote:After you've played a few more years you'll level up to then to and finally to . Keep going, you're almost there. (Also, no one really cares about your self-entitlement whine.)
With these changes I simply won't be able make isk in WH in a small corp without sinking more in than I get out. I don't want to do incursions and I don't want to be a goon. If emergent game-play is so important, they shouldn't be forcing us into bigger and bigger corporations and alliances for every single type of play. If I can't play this game in a small corp without buying plex, or multiboxing several accounts, I'll find another mmo. |
Chaotic Past
Mutual Disruption
2
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:29:00 -
[59] - Quote
Love the changes coming to black holes, giving missiles and shield pilots in higher class wormholes a better chance of changing the overall Armor T3 meta. |
forsot
Resurrection Ventures Un.Bound
20
|
Posted - 2014.08.06 18:34:00 -
[60] - Quote
Alien Squirrel wrote:If the small weapons bonus affects rapid light missiles, does it also affect drones?
no it would also be kind of op tbh |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |