Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Meyr
SiN Corp Black Core Alliance
251
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:54:00 -
[121] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Harvey James wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.
We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.
Thanks for the feedback so far. any discussion of the strength of webs? which kind of obsolete TP's atm.. We're not going to change webs in 1.1, but webs are a big part of the target painter picture and we're putting thought into it.
There's a discussion I'd love to listen to...
You're willing to put TIME and THOUGHT into Stasts Webifiers and Target Painters, enough to consider them as a package deal.
Hooray.
On the other hand, you're willing to **** over drones in a piecemeal, slapdash, shoddy, poorly-thought, ALMOST arbitrary manner, simply to appease the loudest of the few voices that you actually listen to.
Your biases and prejudices are showing a bit too clearly, Fozzie. |
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:16:00 -
[122] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers. yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang.
That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:51:00 -
[123] - Quote
Capt ****** wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers. yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang. That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down.
Bellicose for tp. Rapier/huggin for web |
Zand Vor
Imbrium Clan
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:58:00 -
[124] - Quote
I had already taken my TP off in place for a web....damn.
*switches back* |
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 14:58:00 -
[125] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Capt ****** wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers. yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang. That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down. Bellicose for tp. Rapier/huggin for web
Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh. vs The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose.
Go figure.
|
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
484
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:02:00 -
[126] - Quote
For giggles, I ran the numbers on a Domination Target Painter (best faction) using the newest numbers 1x and overheated at 1.2x. On a best bonused ship with all level 5s and max links you can currently you can get the Domi TP up to 83.22% effectiveness. That is a 2.5218x increase due to links, skills, and ship.
Overheated, you should see an effectiveness of 99.86328%. So almost a doubling of signature radius. I like this (almost) big round number. Now if we could get similar effectiveness at base values like a meta 0 webber in the hands of a total noob using a noob ship. (-50% velocity)
Ah, well. At least it still works from half the grid away. Free Ripley Weaver! |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
226
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:54:00 -
[127] - Quote
Capt ****** wrote:
Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh. vs The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose.
Go figure.
Why not the Vigil/Hyena?
You can make very very successful TP fits with them that can sit 175-200km from the fight, go 4.5km/s with decently small signature, and have excellent scan res so you can actually leverage the advantage of helping your heavier ships to lock better. Same strength bonus as the larger ships but also get a very very useful range bonus.
Theyre small and dont have much (any) tank, but I still find them very enjoyable to fly even with hundreds of billions of isk and with 100m+ SP characters at my disposal. It's a different sort of game than flying a bog standard DPS ship, as you need to be careful with your positioning and recognize potential threats (namely interceptors/dramiels that are slightly faster than you with links) as they appear.
It would be nice to get the TP range bonus on one of the cruisers, but the minmatar EW frigates is where TP's belong. |
Capt Retard
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
59
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:35:00 -
[128] - Quote
Destoya wrote:Capt ****** wrote:
Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh. vs The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose.
Go figure.
Why not the Vigil/Hyena? You can make very very successful TP fits with them that can sit 175-200km from the fight, go 4.5km/s with decently small signature, and have excellent scan res so you can actually leverage the advantage of helping your heavier ships to lock better. Same strength bonus as the larger ships but also get a very very useful range bonus. Theyre small and dont have much (any) tank, but I still find them very enjoyable to fly even with hundreds of billions of isk and with 100m+ SP characters at my disposal. It's a different sort of game than flying a bog standard DPS ship, as you need to be careful with your positioning and recognize potential threats (namely interceptors/dramiels that are slightly faster than you with links) as they appear. It would be nice to get the TP range bonus on one of the cruisers, but the minmatar EW frigates is where TP's belong.
Sitting at 170k? Painting with what - max boosted Nhawk and domination painter - at the far end of falloff. Nope - your doing little to nothing at that range. And for most others, having a max skilled, max boosted ... its painfully situational. Warp on top and kill it.
Yes - I can imagine how useful it is at 90k even to 120k, and its quite safe out there .... sentries cant shoot ... oh **** (the Omni changes might help though).
|
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:42:00 -
[129] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.
We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.
Thanks for the feedback so far.
Glad to see you guys listen to reason. |
Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
226
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:56:00 -
[130] - Quote
Capt ****** wrote: Sitting at 170k? Painting with what - max boosted Nhawk and domination painter - at the far end of falloff. Nope - your doing little to nothing at that range. And for most others, having a max skilled, max boosted ... its painfully situational. Warp on top and kill it.
Yes - I can imagine how useful it is at 90k even to 120k, and its quite safe out there .... sentries cant shoot ... oh **** (the Omni changes might help though).
They are 81+90 with a single T1 range rig and no links, or 107+90 with EW links. 2 range rigs is 95+90/120+90
Even just hitting with 2-3 of your TPs is fine becuase of the stacking penalties, so it all works out in the end. |
|
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
119
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:32:00 -
[131] - Quote
Not a fan of these changes...
As others said, no one should ever be overheating in PVE. Yet TP's are mostly used there, and not only with missiles (there's a non-small difference between TP and not-TP when using turrets or drones too).
I personally wouldn't include TP's on the modules able to be overheated, therefor not nerfing their usual stats. |
Maggeridon Thoraz
Anomalous Existence Surely You're Joking
83
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:42:00 -
[132] - Quote
How will this nerf pilgrim and curses ?
Anybody thought that we have now even more micro management to do ? aslo a nerf to all ships and pvp action, imho |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
16
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:10:00 -
[133] - Quote
Capt ****** wrote:Stitch Kaneland wrote:Capt ****** wrote:Kagura Nikon wrote:Lephia DeGrande wrote:Sure the bigger the fight the better the TP gets, but in small gang or solo its simply more effective to use webs and scrambler instead of TPs and dont gain any advantages of the longer range because you gimp it anyways by using points and scramblers. yes, but there is still place for 1 or 2 TP in a gang. That place wont go to the ship that has bonuses for it sadly, because the web one wins hands down. Bellicose for tp. Rapier/huggin for web Sad huh - T2 ship - expensive, sexy, full of fun. Bonuses for special painting ewar .... meh. vs The least used ship in eve. The Bellicose. Go figure.
Lol true. But I fly around in a solo belli. Its pretty fun. Easy to get fights in. Double Lse + single tp and some nanos make it decent for defrigging. |
Arthur Aihaken
The.VOID
2781
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:11:00 -
[134] - Quote
When's the riot? Can I bring missiles? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Kirren D'marr
State Protectorate Caldari State
285
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 18:24:00 -
[135] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.
We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.
Thanks for the feedback so far.
I'm glad to see that you have reversed your decision regarding TPs, however I am troubled that such a reversal was necessary.
Lately, there seems to be a trend in EVE's development:
1. CCP spends a period of time (presumably months?) working on a new feature
2. CCP announces said new feature
3. Players complain about new feature, and in the space of hours point out all of the flaws/unintended consequences of the new feature
4. After having the obvious issues the feature would introduce pointed out to them, CCP adjusts or retracts the new feature in an attempt to avoid disaster
This pattern really raises a lot of doubt among the players as to how well you (the devs) know your game, and it really does not help customer confidence to see you constantly having to reverse decisions. With large sweeping changes, it makes sense that no matter how much internal testing you do, you will need the test and feedback of the playerbase. However, with such minor and direct changes as the recent Rubicon 1.1 announcements (module overheating, deployable structures, etc.), it appears that barely any thought or consideration was given to the impact these changes would have on any aspect of the game in which they would be used.
If you have any other changes planned for Rubicon 1.1, can I suggest putting them on hold until you've had time to review them again and really evaluate whether they are a good idea in their planned versions? You don't want to come back here with more egg on your face. Your development cycle needs to move beyond just the "hey, this is a cool idea," phase, and spend more time on the "how will this change the way the game is played, and will the effect be good or bad for the health of the game as a whole?" before pushing anything out the door.
From a player's perspective, right now it looks like you're just throwing everything at us and seeing what sticks, and there is little vetting being done and no long term plan to guide these changes. That gives the appearance of desperation; like there is a whole department just trying to churn out as much stuff as possible in order to justify their jobs, rather than there being any true sort of development going on. I may be wrong, but if so, then it's because you've done a poor job of disuading that view.
Anyway, that's my .02 ISK, take it for what it's worth. Just keep in mind the cummulative effect each of these blunders has on your customers and their faith that the game they are paying for will continue to improve. Why a switch on/off? Because the new animation doesn't add anything to gameplay and it's graphically annoying. In other words, it's worse than bad: it's useless. Simple as that.-á-á-á-á-á - Kina Ayami |
I am disposable
Republic University Minmatar Republic
70
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:27:00 -
[136] - Quote
Kirren D'marr wrote: Anyway, that's my .02 ISK, take it for what it's worth. Just keep in mind the cummulative effect each of these blunders has on your customers and their faith that the game they are paying for will continue to improve.
Speaking for myself, I have zero confidence in the current balance team's ability to improve the game. I tend to think the best we can hope for is that they won't completely **** it up. |
Inspiration
104
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:38:00 -
[137] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.
We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.
Thanks for the feedback so far.
I never saw the strength (or lack of)...as a problem. The main issue with TPs is their long cycle time in respect to their intended use. I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor Cosmic Consortium
4798
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 19:42:00 -
[138] - Quote
The only buff I've ever wanted for TP was to have them moved to high slots. Day 0 advice for new players: Day 0 Advice for New Players |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
632
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:00:00 -
[139] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Good morning everyone. I've been chatting with Rise and Ytterbium a bit this morning and we've decided to leave the change to the base strength of Target Painters out of Rubicon 1.1. You'll still be able to overheat them, but their base values will remain the same for now.
We're going to reevaluate the peak strength of these modules after the patch and I won't rule out making changes in the future if deemed necessary.
Thanks for the feedback so far. This is good news. Thanks for listening! Remove insurance. |
Dariusz Betonowy
Psychopathic CareBears Hand of Despair
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:55:00 -
[140] - Quote
Yay, Fozzie cares! Now, could you PUH-LEEZE get SoniClover to rethink just as you did? ;) |
|
|
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
780
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:18:00 -
[141] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The rules: 4. Personal attacks are prohibited.
Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.
30. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.
CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties. Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts. ISD Ezwal Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
149
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:56:00 -
[142] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The only buff I've ever wanted for TP was to have them moved to high slots.
TBH, this would quite nicely fix the fact that almost no one running a huginn or rapier uses them due to lack of midslots. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1133
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 01:08:00 -
[143] - Quote
Wrayeth wrote:Mara Rinn wrote:The only buff I've ever wanted for TP was to have them moved to high slots. TBH, this would quite nicely fix the fact that almost no one running a huginn or rapier uses them due to lack of midslots.
But would make the rapier incredbly overpowered :P "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Shade Millith
Fortis Defensor.
119
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 05:29:00 -
[144] - Quote
Well, that's another nerf to solo! Thanks CCP.
I've always wanted to have EWAR more powerful for short fights, but weaker for longer fights. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
937
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 05:45:00 -
[145] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:
I never saw the strength (or lack of)...as a problem. The main issue with TPs is their long cycle time in respect to their intended use.
Unless I'm crazy, didn't they halve cycle time in 1.0? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
308
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 05:48:00 -
[146] - Quote
Mara Rinn wrote:The only buff I've ever wanted for TP was to have them moved to high slots.
This would be a great change.
I am convinced that CCP is trying to reignite interest in the game by irritating as many people as possible. These collective changes are designed to recreate the stunning success of Incarna and end the stagnation in Eve. Well played, CCP. Well played. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
198
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 10:34:00 -
[147] - Quote
Dear Fozzie,
Since your eyes are slightly on Target Painters, I would like to point out following change for them:
Make TP"s scripted. But only let bonused ships use scripts, and remove their TP bonuses
Non-scripted, it would act like a regular target painter.
First script is the painter bonus script. It gives a 50% boost to painter strength Second script, however, is reversal of process. It turns painter to a logistics module that reduces targets signature.
Numbers are up to you, stacking penalty for sig reduction script should be quite large so that it wouldn`t get abused. |
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED
1060
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 13:18:00 -
[148] - Quote
Deerin wrote:
Numbers are up to you, stacking penalty for sig reduction script should be quite large so that it wouldn`t get abused.
What |
Andy Landen
Sub--Zero Catastrophic Uprising
487
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 14:05:00 -
[149] - Quote
Dato Koppla wrote:It's not a bad change, but why? I've never felt that these modules needed overheating, they worked fine as they were. Why "fix" what's not broken? I understand the whole Omni thing as sentries are overpowered, but why did painters, TD, RSDs have to be nerfed? So now, is it expected that eWar must by overheated for general usefulness? I remember the days when overheating was considered the tactic for extreme measures like when your ship was going to explode. Now you have to overheat just to make a module perform as good as it used too (plus a little)? I always thought that sensor damps were used too little, but now are we trying to make them even less used? Who is behind all these nerfs and why are we letting them mess up drones and capitals and eWar, oh my!
Sentries are not OP. They are most costly weapon system in the game. You have to leave them behind to maintain alignment. You lose them to drone aggro. You have to warp back to pick them up or lose them altogether. Sentries are the stupidest weapon system around and Omnis were the only redeeming quality for them until the domi bonuses came and then got nerfed. Poor Gallente getting the shaft time and again with this last year of nerfs; and just when things were starting to look up for drone users last January. My oh my! "We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them." Albert Einstein-á |
Inspiration
109
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 14:58:00 -
[150] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Inspiration wrote:
I never saw the strength (or lack of)...as a problem. The main issue with TPs is their long cycle time in respect to their intended use.
Unless I'm crazy, didn't they halve cycle time in 1.0?
No you are not crazy, after checking they are indeed better noways in terms of cycle time, which removes my main complaint :).
Not that i would be against an even shorter time! That improves the usability of the module without making it more powerful. Which in my book sounds always like a great idea! I hate arguing with static minds that relate everything relative to the status-quo. By definition these minds oppose logic, reason, posses a narrow view and object against solutions for issues that have half an existing workaround. Left up to them, nothing would ever progress!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |