Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Stephar
The High Priest
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:00:00 -
[271]
This thread is hilarious. Minnies are mad because alpha strike is nerfed, and Gallente & Amarr are worried about running out of cap. Considering that rails use more cap than blasters, you would think that Caldari would be worried too. I think it's safe to say that nobody has a clue how these changes will impact the game.
|
Zhaine
B e l l u m
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:03:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Tehra Neru
Do you see me insulting him? No.. so stop acting like a stuffed up bottle.
Bit about insulting wasn't aimed at you, apologies.
And what do you mean "more empty words" Testy? The Devs here are not saints, they're just a Dev team with one of the best records in the world for forthcoming-ness and honesty. - - - - - - - - - -
Quote: I don't even want a ship, ships are for carebears. Give me a fish bowl for my head (to keep space out) and smear me with lard, then armed with a toasting fork-
|
Asuo
Elite United Corp Antigo Dominion
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:04:00 -
[273]
Sooo, a 50% increase to ship hitpoints. Will we see an increase in Sentry gun damage or was it part of the plan to make it easyer for pirates to operate in low sec.
How will this affect pos warfare, tanking in a bs' swill get a lot easyer. ----------------------------------------------- EECC recuitment thread. |
EvilNate
Caldari Coreli Corporation Corelum Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:04:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Stephar This thread is hilarious. Minnies are mad because alpha strike is nerfed, and Gallente & Amarr are worried about running out of cap. Considering that rails use more cap than blasters, you would think that Caldari would be worried too. I think it's safe to say that nobody has a clue how these changes will impact the game.
I think be giving everyone more HP is actualy gonna make people setup for more DPS and less tank, cause everyone now has a bigger buffer to play with. Add to the fact that cap is a worry in regards to tanking, remove the tank and you don't have to worry about your tank.
Should be interesting I think.
Nate
|
Tasty Burger
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:04:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Testy Mctest
Originally by: Zhaine Edited by: Zhaine on 20/10/2006 12:40:54
Quote:
We're actually quite aware of the alpha-strike effectiveness after the current changes and although we haven't really got anything concrete we feel happy with, we have some changes we want to check out in public testing.
And yeah, I'm fine with you having an opinion, whatever that may be, but tux doesn't deserver that, he's very meticulous in how he works and if anything, he's always picking up leads, testing them out and seeing if the concerns are valid. At least, I get boatloads of emails from him with issues and conclusions drawn based on delving into it.
See you on Sisi mate Wink
Senior Producer EVE Online
Should be quoted in here I think
That's from where? Link?
To be honest though, it's more empty words unless something is actually done about it.
Maybe they notice that artillery will suck, but these HP changes do alot more than nerf artillery, they nerf an entire playstyle.
Every change the devs make slowly moves EVE even further into blob warfare.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:06:00 -
[276]
Originally by: EvilNate
Originally by: Tuxford
Inertia stabilizers give decrease in mass as well as agility and give a penalty to signature radius
First off, thanks for the info and loving the stabs change.
I have a question about the quote above. Does a penalty to sig mean that if I use a inert stab, I will have a smaller sig radius or a bigger one? If it's bigger, I'd like to understand why this is so, as it seems logical if you reduce mass, you reduce the effective "size" of your ship, hence reducing the sig radius?
Thanks
Nate
Your sig will increase (get worse). On the other hand, your mass and agility will improve, so your MWD speed and acceleration should be better. How much better vs. the penalty will decide if these modules become widely useful or not. If the bonus is good and penalty not too bad, I can see a *lot* of close-range MWD battleships fitting these.
If you want a reason for the sig rad increase, try this: size and mass are not the same thing. Also, the signature radius of the ship is *not* the size of the ship, it's how "loud" the electromagnetic emissions from it are (making it easier to "see" and target). Various modules generate various weird field effects (MWD for example), increasing the EM visibility of the ship = increasing sig.
Now, a magic-tech module that could actually decrease mass would be using some very funky physics, so it seems quite reasonable that it would generate weird effects in the local spacetime, i.e. increase sig.
Other explanation: it's just a game, and this seems like a suitable penalty to give to the modules (compare to nanofiber reducing your hull amount).
|
Testy Mctest
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:09:00 -
[277]
Originally by: Zhaine
And what do you mean "more empty words" Testy? The Devs here are not saints, they're just a Dev team with one of the best records in the world for forthcoming-ness and honesty.
I mean that promising a look at something, or promising a change will come, has happened a lot in this game. Just because (insert dev here) says they're looking at something, doesn't mean it'll come to pass, and certainly doesn't mean that even if it does that it will happen within a reasonable timeframe. Actions speak louder than words.
Originally by: RUNYOUFOOLS
wrong on so many levels you could only be more wrong if you were tuxford.
|
Rexy
DarkStar 1 Ascendant Frontier
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:14:00 -
[278]
wonder if the typhoon is still up for more boosting, sure you can get nice theoretic damage out of it when you fit the biggest guns and nothing else, but in reality fitting siege's t2 with big autocannons just isnt gonna work. it was made a better ratter last patch, lets hope it gets a nice boost for pvp also ( yes i'm sure your pvp fit with nosses on it rocks, but that's more the mod then the ship) <We showed ours, where is yours> |
MECTO
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:17:00 -
[279]
all changes are "ok" instead of 50% ones. They Suck Hard. don't get them ingame please.
Originally by: Kusotarre I am awesome in fleets, everyone on teamspeak trembles in fear as my battlecry blasts through their headphones, heralding a new era of target-less randomosity.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:24:00 -
[280]
Originally by: MECTO all changes are "ok" instead of 50% ones. They Suck Hard. don't get them ingame please.
Well, seeing as nobody really has a clue on how they will affect the big picture (despite lots of screaming and frothing at the mouth ), how about we test the changes first and then say "they suck", if needed?
Yes, ships will be a lot harder to instapop. On the other hand, most combat ships won't be fitting stabs anymore.
Oh sure, it sucks if you're a stabbed-up lowsec sniper pirate. My heart bleeds for those (not).
|
|
Lord Violent
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:25:00 -
[281]
So other more important points aside. You give T2 ships a lower HP increase realizing that their inherent resistances would make them overpowered.
Stop to think about all ships that get a bonus to resistances ie ferrox, prophecy. these ships get a huge buff from this hp increase where as ships like the cyclone and brutix with active tanking bonuses become imediately sub par.
The HP changes are unecesary, of all the problems in eve HP is not one of them (Capitals excluded). These changes cause all manner of problems and inbalances and this should definately not be rushed into kali 1 if it ever comes in at all.
|
Ysolde Xen
Minmatar Liberal Trading Co Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:32:00 -
[282]
(having trouble posting replies)
I do have to say that I am rather uneasy about another HP increase all round. No-one likes being insta-popped but unfortunately whenn one weapon class is designed to do that and pretty much suck at all else (Artillery) then I wonder how their increase in uselessness is going to be compensated for.
-----
It's not a crap ship, you're just flying it all wrong. |
MECTO
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:33:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Oh sure, it sucks if you're a stabbed-up lowsec sniper pirate. My heart bleeds for those (not).
read post. i wroted that wcs are "ok" first read then post - so hard on forums today
Originally by: Kusotarre I am awesome in fleets, everyone on teamspeak trembles in fear as my battlecry blasts through their headphones, heralding a new era of target-less randomosity.
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:35:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Ysolde Xen (having trouble posting replies)
I do have to say that I am rather uneasy about another HP increase all round. No-one likes being insta-popped but unfortunately whenn one weapon class is designed to do that and pretty much suck at all else (Artillery) then I wonder how their increase in uselessness is going to be compensated for.
Is this really true, though? I've been given to understand that artillery is actually pretty close to railgun DPS (with the added bonus of being somewhat able to choose your damage type, which you cannot do with railguns).
Is artillery actually useless work anything but alpha-strike, or is it another one of those persistent myths?
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:37:00 -
[285]
Originally by: MECTO
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Oh sure, it sucks if you're a stabbed-up lowsec sniper pirate. My heart bleeds for those (not).
read post. i wroted that wcs are "ok" first read then post - so hard on forums today
Ah, I wasn't aiming that comment at you, I was just commenting that the typical stabbed-to-the-hilt sniper pirate is the one being hit hardest by this change (wcs penalty, more ship hp = less chance of killing targets before they make it to gate/warp).
|
Khabok
Dark Lancers
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:38:00 -
[286]
Edited by: Khabok on 20/10/2006 13:39:20 Personally, I think all of these changes will mean a major improvement for the game, as far as PvP goes.
1) The nerfing of WCS means that certain ships won't be able to be 'gank and run' ships anymore. Now, engaging in combat pretty much guarantees that you'll be scrambled yourself, as well. How many people will have ot learn how to effectively fight instead of relying on the 15 second gank?
2) To all the people whining about the stealth nerf to cap (the battles will take longer, so they'll run out of cap before it's over): You need to learn how to adapt to the new situation. There isn't a single ship out there that can't be fitted to run permanently. So instead of fitting three Magnetic Field Stab IIs and going for the insta-gank, maybe fit a couple of Cap Power Relays and have your cap last long enough to get the kill.
3) PErsonally, I feel that the extenders and plates shouldn't get the same 50% across the board bonus to HPs. The example has been given a few times already, but it bears repeating: Look at what happens to your typical cruiser with a 1600mm plate NOW... now imaging that after a 50% increase to the plates HPs. That is unbalanced. Keeping the extenders and plates the same will balance them more favorably with resistance modifiers, especially with the additional base HPs for the ships themselves. It will no longer be a matter of "must have 1600mm or I lose". Now, it will be more of a personal choice... "Can I fit the resistance modules or that extender/plate? What will be better for my own personal playstyle and fitting?"
While I admire some of you guys for pointing out the problems that you see, and offering solutions and suggestions to a thread that the devs are most likely keeping an eye on, the rest of you that are saying "omg nerfage CCP suck!" need to tone it down a notch, think through some of your responses, and maybe even wait to play the changes before you post.
I for one am looking forward to the changes. I think they're going to make the game at least 25% to 50% better <wink>.
Khabok
There are only four things in life.The first one is Love: Cherish that one, and keep it safe, for the other three are Fear, Hatred, and Sorrow. |
Flabida jaba
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:41:00 -
[287]
I am almost certain the EvE online is not a democracy especially when it comes to things like ship and modual changes!
However I will cast my vote anyway for the sake of posterity.
50% HP boost will most certainly change the face of eve as we know it. Affecting combat of all types across the board in ways that must be hard to comprehend in fullness even by those that propose the changes.
It is said that the desired outcome is to prolong combat engaugement time..... but it is not hard to see that the side effects of this move will be more numerous and far reaching than the scope of the original intent! by even the most noobish of the noob
Futhermore, the question must be asked what is the benifit/reason for desiring longer combat times???
If i am to be gunned down by a ruthless pirate while i fly my WCS's mining barge..which can now only target rocks at 5kms..please let it be quick...so i can get back to never being able to kill anything with tech 1 wepons.
In conclusion I agree that a HP boost is BAD idea...unless it can be explained more substantially why it has been proposed
|
Ysolde Xen
Minmatar Liberal Trading Co Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:43:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/10/2006 13:37:17
Originally by: Ysolde Xen (having trouble posting replies)
I do have to say that I am rather uneasy about another HP increase all round. No-one likes being insta-popped but unfortunately whenn one weapon class is designed to do that and pretty much suck at all else (Artillery) then I wonder how their increase in uselessness is going to be compensated for.
Is this really true, though? I've been given to understand that artillery is actually pretty close to railgun DPS (with the added bonus of being somewhat able to choose your damage type, which you cannot do with railguns).
Is artillery actually useless for anything but alpha-strike, or is it another one of those persistent myths?
As a fan of artillery, I can only really find 1 or 2 ship/config situations that make artillery worth using over ACs. The rest of the time the DPS is poor - I don't mind a low DPS because of a high alpha but when the alpha is even further reduced in effectiveness (unless there's 15 of you and someone's calling primary) it becomes even more, err, specialised. Right now trying to use Artillery in anything but a fleet support role is an exercise in consciously choosing a worse setup for no real reason. I end up using it out of stubbornness and on those few ships in those few situations where it's still a worthwhile choice. Mostly ACs are the no-brainer choice.
On the other hand using artillery in fleet support in numbers is pretty effective. Well, if you're flying a Tempest at least.
-----
It's not a crap ship, you're just flying it all wrong. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:43:00 -
[289]
"Warp Core Stabilizers now give penalty to targeting range and scan resolution, about 50% for tech 1"
Someone has considered the effect of this in level 4 missions, where you are warp scrambled by the enemyes? It will mean you have longer locking time, and less range against a good number of scrambling enemyes, and a much reduced chance to retreat. If the cost of a lvl 4 combat mission is a 10% chance of losing a BS what must be the reward to balance that? Or you will change all the missions so you warp at long range from the enemyes and not right on them?
|
Alex Harumichi
Gallente Gradient Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:48:00 -
[290]
I'll just insert a quote from another thread here:
Originally by: dalman So what exactly is your 'alphastrike problem'? That you can't one-volley an industrial from 150km range with the HP boost?
Cause for sure you must know the (1400)tempest does almost exactly the same dps as a (425)megathron, without using any cap?
|
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Cosmic Odyssey Chorus of Dawn
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:49:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Tuxford I've been replying to the forums today. I'm just gonna list some of the smaller tweaks and changes here.
Ships Powergrid of Sacrilege, Deimos and Muninn increased to 1100MW, 950MW and 1100MW respectively CPU of Sacrilege and Deimos increased to 350tf for both ships CPU of Anathema, Helios and Cheetah increased to 280tf, 290tf and 275tf respectively bonus of covert ops ships changed so it reduces cpu need of covert ops cloaking device from 98% to 100% Agility of battlecruisers and command ships boosted by 20% Nighthawk's explosion velocity changed to launcher rate of fire bonus Ship hitpoint increase, about 50% for tech 1 and about 25% on tech 2. A bit more on battlecruises/command ships and destroyers/interdictors I didn't really check it but I'll probably increase shield recharge rate by about 50% as well just to be on the safe side
Modules Inertia stabilizers give decrease in mass as well as agility and give a penalty to signature radius Warp Core Stabilizers now give penalty to targeting range and scan resolution, about 50% for tech 1 Super weapon damage increased by 50% as well Shield extenders and plates increased by 50% ECM changes - I'm blogging about that one, hopefully comes later today
I think this all of the stuff that is not big enought to deserve its own post. Btw I did mess a bit with tech 2 ammo, I'll post a bit about that later.
Here my 2 cents worth. On reading through this & most of the replies. In my opinion most of these changes target the right problems, but the numbers & % changes being proposed sound like the Dev team were bored & just shouted numbers out loud. Frankly it reads like Caldari get another boost to their already overinflated omfgiwin status. Minmatar get nerfed & Amarr & Gallente once again sit in the middle not sure what theyre meant to think.
& the WCS thing...although a nerf is great from a PvP point of view, its penelties make no sense from a rp perspective (y would your ships targeting computers be affected?). It also seems a rather universal nerf for something that (ppl claim) only really needed changing when snipers used them to run away. Course it solves that problem, but now NPC hunter's& mission runner's only real defense against hostiles has also been removed. Highsec becomes even more appealing for all but the PvPer in me...& he rarely shows his face.
|
Greyshadow
Yesodic Nomads Corp Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:51:00 -
[292]
Should be interesting to see the outcome of this, 50% in HP is a large jump I agree! and it could well unbalance everything but 'seeing is believing' and until the changes are in place then is the real time to test it.
Forum worrying is just a way of making people panic, and panicing is a bad thing as people make silly decision based on that they believe.
I'm not saying there aren't some valid points out there but worry about it when we are able to test it and really discover the errors that truely will help balance it (if there is a balance problem that is)
"We need you!" |
Ysolde Xen
Minmatar Liberal Trading Co Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:05:00 -
[293]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi I'll just insert a quote from another thread here:
Originally by: dalman So what exactly is your 'alphastrike problem'? That you can't one-volley an industrial from 150km range with the HP boost?
Cause for sure you must know the (1400)tempest does almost exactly the same dps as a (425)megathron, without using any cap?
Why is it people assume that we only have 1 ship that is capable of using artillery (the Tempest) and trot it out at every available opportunity as if it's the only ship in the entire minmatar fleet?
Oh, that'll be because it's the only one that can make artillery work on an effective and competing scale.
Some love for the smaller ships attempting to try and use the artillery weapon system would be nice, or do us smaller ship pilots not count or something?
-----
It's not a crap ship, you're just flying it all wrong. |
Flabida jaba
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:10:00 -
[294]
Edited by: Flabida jaba on 20/10/2006 14:12:15 Edited by: Flabida jaba on 20/10/2006 14:10:49 The wsc nerf has also rendered ecm jammer's the best defence against scramblers pending their nerf...and will prevent low sec mining en masse
just speculation of course
will there be a corsponding nerf to scramblers? A mod specificly designed to prevent ships running away Vs a mod designed to let ships run away
|
Verone
Veto.
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:14:00 -
[295]
Every change coming is fantastic... can't wait
BACKSTORY AND FAN FICTION
|
Capt Harlock
Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:17:00 -
[296]
Burn Eden with no stabs
|
MurderCityDevil
HariKari And Combines
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:25:00 -
[297]
The need for longer battles just seems in place for Eve. In a battle, I could see ships pounding away at each other for a long time. IT doesn't seem right that a fleet of battleships Vs battleships slugging it out should only last 15 seconds. I am of the school of thought where the size and bulk of battleships and capital ships should prolong battles and increase the epic quality of the struggle between two forces, not reduce it to a split second melee.
Old school series like StarBlazers had a wonderful mix of suspense and epic battles. One thing they did have to shorten battles was the Wave-Motion Cannon(Doomsday Weapon) and I think a balance for Eve's battles is in order. Maybe a "luck shot" could destroy a ship in one shot, or cripple it, but the majority of battles need to be longer.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:26:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Ranger 1
The abuse of Stabs is primarily done by extreme range snipers and extreme speed ships like the stababond. Occasionally by the BE Raven types.
All of these types can still use the stabs, but they will have to rethink how they are going to do it. The possibility of retaliation is higher with this nerf. Few things are more frustrating to an experienced PVP oriented player than to be unable to do anything other than be a sniper target. Tacklers can't close and stop them, cloaked vessels can't close the distance fast enough to be any good as the sniper spots are all over the place. Standard game mechanics begin to break down. No one should be untouchable and still lethal. The level of risk goes up for those using them for these purposes.
Most importantly, the person using them for travel purposes is not affected.
Carebears may rejoice. I don't think you understand the nature of the nerf.
Not a bit. Now to travel you need 2 stabs to have a chance with gatecampers. So far if you were attaccked by a single pirate while moving a comabt ship you had the chance to figth (with 2 less low slots) or run. Now for the time you can lock the target you will be in the hull. So even more the only choice is to run (increase crying of vile carebeear). Naturally you will find the nice gankers in group of 3 or more and get 3-6 poit disrupters on you. Again you have 0 chance to lock and kill even one of them before being destruct. At this point really if I am moving an industrial is best. It will cost less to replace. Or maybe I should get 2 friend and start to gank. BTW: a standar sniper ganker will have his bookmarked sniping point and be pre aligned. So the effect on him is nihil.
|
Leshrac Shepherd
Amarr Shinra Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:29:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Stephar Considering that rails use more cap than blasters, you would think that Caldari would be worried too.
the average caldari pilot (and that is almost the same as saying the average eve player) has no clue on what a "Railgun" is or how it works, so it is completely normal that they aren't worried.
|
BABARR
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 14:39:00 -
[300]
WCS nerf, at least. But i think whith the boost of HP and plate/shield extander, you should have a look on the agro timer on gate and station. It's too easy to attack and tanking during 1min and dock/take the gate.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .. 19 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |