Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Goldensaver
Lom Corporation Brothers of Tangra
369
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 03:10:00 -
[151] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Can someone explain the Amarr Mass/Speed thing in a way that a child could understand it? Or maybe a really dumb guy? Like me? I was going to do a spreadsheet for every Amarr ship that was affected, but I got lazy, so you only get this much.
It's a pretty thorough spreadsheet about how the changes affect the mobility of the Punisher, and compares it to now.
Edit: for the most part we have an average of a 95% align time for a slight improvement to the align speed, with a 0-2% increase in velocity under propulsion mods, and 7% without them active. |
Debir Achen
The Red Circle Inc.
82
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 03:57:00 -
[152] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Can someone explain the Amarr Mass/Speed thing in a way that a child could understand it? Or maybe a really dumb guy? Like me? Speed under prop mod = base speed * (1 + boost * thrust / (ship mass + prop mass))
So, at zero skill, a 1MN MWD increases your max speed by 500% * (1.5M / (500k + ship mass))
Thus, old punisher: mass 1047k, inertia 3.35, speed 330 New punisher: mass 1190k, inertia 2.90, speed 355
Under MWD: Old punisher: 330 * (1 + 5*(1.5M / (500k + 1047)) ~= 1929.8 New punisher: 355 * (1 + 5*(1.5M / (500k + 1190)) ~= 1930.4
So, baseline speed under MWD is the same (before skills and bonuses, but these all multiply linearly).
What about acceleration? Well, it's complex, but basically acceleration is a function of speed / (mass * inertia).
Old punisher: 330 / (3.35 * 1047) ~= 330 / 3507450 ~= 94u New punisher: 355 / (2.9 * 1190) ~= 355 / 3451000 ~= 102u
If you do the math under MWD (don't forget to include the extra mass) you will see similar numbers.
So, the "new" punisher is faster than the old one without prop mod, and slightly faster than the old one under MWD.
So what?
The trick is the effect of adding mass. You'll notice that adding mass makes all the above numbers worse. However, we've just increased the base mass by 10%, and compensated by tweaking the other values. As a result, the relative effect of adding more mass is lessened.
So, add 400mm plates, which increase mass by 375k. Originally, these were a little over 1/3 of the mass. Now they are a little under 1/3. This means that the net effect on speed under prop mod and on alignment is reduced. Aren't Caldari supposed to have a large signature? |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
247
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 04:34:00 -
[153] - Quote
Debir Achen wrote:Markku Laaksonen wrote:Can someone explain the Amarr Mass/Speed thing in a way that a child could understand it? Or maybe a really dumb guy? Like me? Speed under prop mod = base speed * (1 + boost * thrust / (ship mass + prop mass)) So, at zero skill, a 1MN MWD increases your max speed by 500% * (1.5M / (500k + ship mass)) Thus, old punisher: mass 1047k, inertia 3.35, speed 330 New punisher: mass 1190k, inertia 2.90, speed 355 Under MWD: Old punisher: 330 * (1 + 5*(1.5M / (500k + 1047)) ~= 1929.8 New punisher: 355 * (1 + 5*(1.5M / (500k + 1190)) ~= 1930.4 So, baseline speed under MWD is the same (before skills and bonuses, but these all multiply linearly). What about acceleration? Well, it's complex, but basically acceleration is a function of speed / (mass * inertia). Old punisher: 330 / (3.35 * 1047) ~= 330 / 3507450 ~= 94u New punisher: 355 / (2.9 * 1190) ~= 355 / 3451000 ~= 102u If you do the math under MWD (don't forget to include the extra mass) you will see similar numbers. So, the "new" punisher is faster than the old one without prop mod, and slightly faster than the old one under MWD. So what? The trick is the effect of adding mass. You'll notice that adding mass makes all the above numbers worse. However, we've just increased the base mass by 10%, and compensated by tweaking the other values. As a result, the relative effect of adding more mass is lessened. So, add 400mm plates, which increase mass by 375k. Originally, these were a little over 1/3 of the mass. Now they are a little under 1/3. This means that the net effect on speed under prop mod and on alignment is reduced. I need this. I'm saving it. Know any good sites or links that explain it in further detail? |
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
27
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 05:18:00 -
[154] - Quote
Sentinel Smith wrote:All this sounds good, I like the proposed changes.. but I have a very important question. Is THIS http://i.imgur.com/tZHUw8F.jpg The future of the Fed Navy Comet? Now CCP, before you answer, the only correct response is yes. For the love of god, YES. Please free those of us that love our Comets from the drab Jungle Camo and dull yellow light you have forced us to endure since it's last graphical update.
I love spacecamo as much as the next GIRL, but if you do this for the comet, I promise not to yell at anyone for at least a whole couple of seconds. maybe even a handful!
the old comet paint job was amazing, camo is niceish, but this looks great. also, flashing light!
|
Odithia
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
31
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 07:15:00 -
[155] - Quote
What is the effect of Armor rigs on the new updated heavy Amarr ships ? As they count as percentage and not fixed value of mass. |
Taoist Dragon
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
875
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 07:27:00 -
[156] - Quote
+1 for Rifter and Punisher changes.
+1million for not falling into the craptrap of thinking the punisher 'needs' a 3rd mid \o/ That is the Way, the Tao.
Balance is everything.
http://taoistdragon.blogspot.com.au/ |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
210
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 07:33:00 -
[157] - Quote
Goldensaver wrote:Michael Harari wrote:Malcanis wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Ransu Asanari wrote:I'm honestly not a fan of the Breacher ROF change. Having the damage bonus not be type-specific meant it was one of the few ships that could actually use the missile advantage of selectable damage, and was very versatile. I really enjoyed flying the Breacher during the Stay Frosty Frigate FFA and used this to great effect.
Changing this to a ROF bonus feels like a nerf, since it means you're doing less damage between reloads and you're running out of ammo faster. I think you'll find that the increase in dps will be significant enough to more than balance out the more common reloads. The DPS increase is tiny: 105.26% vs 105.00% I don't think that 0.26% extra damage over time is going to swing any fights. What is relevent is that the Breacher will get it's extra volley in more often. Its actually a 4% increase in dps. *6.4% Mr. President. (1/.75) / 1.25 = 1.33 / 1.25 = 1.064 = 6.4% for a 6.4% increase in DPS at level 5.
It is actually around 4% when you factor in the reload time. So Mr.President is right.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
Paragraph 22 Aureus Alae
35
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 08:42:00 -
[158] - Quote
how about finally give 5'th med slot to vaga ... this ship RELLY NEED 5 med slot
+1 for the speed of logi frigs |
Sway M4G
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 09:20:00 -
[159] - Quote
breacher for the king of frigates \o/ |
Loki Feiht
Feiht Family Clan
176
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 11:01:00 -
[160] - Quote
You have to be joking, more re-balances? more like overbalancing....
Are you guys thinking about actually putting in some content in the next patch or just changing a few numbers and calling it an expansion?
More NPC - Randomly Generated Modular Content-áthread https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=220858 |
|
Ultimate Tales
Depressed Noobs
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 11:45:00 -
[161] - Quote
I love Caracal changes! I go buy few now... THX CCP! Fix this reload time on rapid light missile launchers... Right now you kill one assault frigate and die when you reload 35 seconds and watch how your shield going down. If you wanna kill cruiser you need go for coffe, cigarets before you open pvp. |
Lilliana Stelles
1141
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 13:35:00 -
[162] - Quote
Jeez.
These were rebalanced so recently. Stop being World of Warcraft and leave well enough alone. We don't need everything balanced every patch.
Flavor of the month garbage. Not a forum alt.-á |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
180
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 13:47:00 -
[163] - Quote
Really is no pleasing some people.
Hi guys, welcome to Eve where regularly players ***** and moan constantly because the Devs are trying to make the game more fun for everyone. Keep it up CCP, I like the Amarr armour changes! |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
652
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 13:51:00 -
[164] - Quote
mm... the moa HP buff is nice along with much needed speed but... the attack cruisers could really use some HP themselves they are so damn fragile... also perhaps you could buff the stabbers speed so it is faster than the vagabond and or nerf the vagas speed .. the HAC's are supposed too be slower than the attack cruisers.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Gypsio III
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1133
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 14:47:00 -
[165] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Really is no pleasing some people.
Quite...
Old CCP: makes imperfect changes, leaves certain ships broken for years, people complain about lack of reviewing/tweaking...
New CCP: makes imperfect changes, reviews and tweaks them after a few months, people complain about reviewing/tweaking...
|
Lugalzagezi666
219
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 15:40:00 -
[166] - Quote
Im wondering, why did they even bother with changing anything on punisher - and then keeping it 2 mids... |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
652
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 15:41:00 -
[167] - Quote
there was no mention of the other amarr frigates ... they all plate fit too .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
seth Hendar
I love you miners
476
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 15:50:00 -
[168] - Quote
Elewem wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
RIFTER: Removed +7.5% Small Projectile Turret tracking bonus Added +10% Small Projectile Turret falloff bonus +10 m/s velocity +0.01 inertia
Will I have to ship my USB desk ornament back to you for the changes to be made, or will they occur when I patch? :D you will need to plug the USB rifter after the update hit, then run the "usb_rifter_update.exe" located in /bin |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2974
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:15:00 -
[169] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Elewem wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
RIFTER: Removed +7.5% Small Projectile Turret tracking bonus Added +10% Small Projectile Turret falloff bonus +10 m/s velocity +0.01 inertia
Will I have to ship my USB desk ornament back to you for the changes to be made, or will they occur when I patch? :D you will need to plug the USB rifter after the update hit, then run the "usb_rifter_update.exe" located in /bin Followed by "repair.exe". If that doesn't work, reinstall your operating system and try again. Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - lowsec pirate operation, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com |
Onnen Mentar
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
84
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:59:00 -
[170] - Quote
\o/ for a rebalancing pass!
On a more critical note: please change the rifter to the attack class. Nerf its HP accordingly.
More importantly: you're forgetting the vigil! At the very least give it some flexibility and give it turret hardpoints. ;) |
|
Platypus King
Aunenen Civil Liberties Union
16
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:04:00 -
[171] - Quote
Thank you so much for that caracal buff. Everything rise ruined is fixed by fozzie and the law of inertia |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
247
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:11:00 -
[172] - Quote
Onnen Mentar wrote:On a more critical note: please change the rifter to the attack class. Nerf its HP accordingly. I didn't know the rifter ever was attack class. It's the heaviest hitter and as i recall was always combat. The attack ships were the breacher and the slasher. I don't see why minmatar need a third attack frigate or why the rifter needs to get nerfed. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13965
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:28:00 -
[173] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Jeez.
These were rebalanced so recently. Stop being World of Warcraft and leave well enough alone. We don't need everything balanced every patch.
Flavor of the month garbage.
Well that's too bad because rebalancing is now a process, not a project with a defined end-state. It's going to continue indefinitely.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
346
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 17:34:00 -
[174] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lilliana Stelles wrote:Jeez.
These were rebalanced so recently. Stop being World of Warcraft and leave well enough alone. We don't need everything balanced every patch.
Flavor of the month garbage. Well that's too bad because rebalancing is now a process, not a project with a defined end-state. It's going to continue indefinitely.
Would agree with you if these changes didn't come off as "we need to change something/anything" type changes. Nothing really noteworthy at all as far as balance is concerned within this thread.
IMO it amounts to wasted time, which is pretty **** when you consider there are some 80K dudes waiting for a meaningful sov system overhaul and have been requesting CCP work on the sov system for several year now. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2974
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 18:16:00 -
[175] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Onnen Mentar wrote:On a more critical note: please change the rifter to the attack class. Nerf its HP accordingly. I didn't know the rifter ever was attack class. It's the heaviest hitter and as i recall was always combat. The attack ships were the breacher and the slasher. I don't see why minmatar need a third attack frigate or why the rifter needs to get nerfed. Each race has two combat frigates and one attack frigates. The Minmatar combat frigates are the Rifter and the Breacher. The breacher may be "light" and fast-ish, but it does have a tank bonus, and it lacks the attack frigate feature of reduced cap usage for points. The Slasher has this bonus, as it is an attack frigate. Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - lowsec pirate operation, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13967
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 18:35:00 -
[176] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Malcanis wrote:Lilliana Stelles wrote:Jeez.
These were rebalanced so recently. Stop being World of Warcraft and leave well enough alone. We don't need everything balanced every patch.
Flavor of the month garbage. Well that's too bad because rebalancing is now a process, not a project with a defined end-state. It's going to continue indefinitely. Would agree with you if these changes didn't come off as "we need to change something/anything" type changes. Nothing really noteworthy at all as far as balance is concerned within this thread. IMO it amounts to wasted time, which is pretty **** when you consider there are some 80K dudes waiting for a meaningful sov system overhaul and have been requesting CCP work on the sov system for several year now.
Small changes imply that the previous rebalance was close to the target. That should make you happy.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Lilliana Stelles
1142
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 19:27:00 -
[177] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lilliana Stelles wrote:Jeez.
These were rebalanced so recently. Stop being World of Warcraft and leave well enough alone. We don't need everything balanced every patch.
Flavor of the month garbage. Well that's too bad because rebalancing is now a process, not a project with a defined end-state. It's going to continue indefinitely.
I feel like the whole thing was provoked by a vocal minority post-incarna, and CCP's mislead thoughts that their game would die if they didn't have quarterly rebalances of various ships. Old feature iteration is great, but this is excessive and sandbox-breaking when the tools available to you are constantly subject to the whims of CCP intervention. You find something that works, and then they go back and just rearrange it needlessly. Not a forum alt.-á |
Lilliana Stelles
1142
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 19:37:00 -
[178] - Quote
It's the extremism of the game that keeps it interesting. Covops titans (before the ship restrictions were added), 10mn afterburner frigates; things that a tiny little change of 5% powergrid can royally mess up.
Less than 12% of Eve players vote for CSM. An equally small percentage are regular forum users. Yet after every rebalance help chat becomes flooded with complaints of "Why can't I do ____ anymore WTF guys!?"
CCP is pretending that players want something that the majority of them never asked for. Not a forum alt.-á |
scimichar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
151
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 20:32:00 -
[179] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Covops titans (before the ship restrictions were added)
You just invalidated your entire argument by thinking covops titans were a good idea. |
Petrus Blackshell
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
2974
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 20:42:00 -
[180] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:It's the extremism of the game that keeps it interesting. Covops titans (before the ship restrictions were added), 10mn afterburner frigates; things that a tiny little change of 5% powergrid can royally mess up.
While I get your point that it's bad to stifle player innovation and creativity by changing stuff around too often, it is equally bad to allow a state in which there is only one clear "best" solution to problems. That might cause innovation and creativity at first, but then becomes a rigid meta that just gets everyone to be doing that one "best" thing, while swathes of other content are just ignored.
As a concrete example, the state frigates were in for years had the Rifter being the king of PvP. There was no innovation, no choice, and a very shallow pool of new options and new strategies to try out, simply because everything else was that much worse. Post-tiericide, for any given task that a frigate may perform, there are multiple contenders, of which none is clearly the best in all/most situations. There are multiple good brawlers, multiple good fleet tacklers, multiple good scram range kiters, etc.
The balancing passes that CCP is doing now addresses edge cases where a ship is overshadowing others in the same role "pools" (Vexor), or a ship that simply is not good enough to make it into role "pools" (Punisher). These sorts of changes preserve choice and variety, and over time offer lots of opportunities for inventing new strategies.
Side note: 5% is a very big change.
Lilliana Stelles wrote:CCP is pretending that players want something that the majority of them never asked for.
CCP have statistics, routes of feedback, and other information that you and I do not have access to. If CCP were to listen to vocal minorities, a lot of stuff would have been implemented a long time ago. Refer to this thread here for what the vocal minorities want: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6342&find=unread
Last CSM election, CCP put adverts in the Eve launcher, sent e-mails to player accounts, and publicized widely about the election, complete with lots of details about each candidate. After all of that, I'm afraid I don't have much sympathy for the 88% of non-voters who are surprised that not speaking their minds leads to them not being listened to.
Malcanis here can probably give you a better perspective on that though. Rifterlings - small gang frigate PvP - lowsec pirate operation, newbie-friendly, free ship program; Join today! www.rifterlings.com
Accidentally The Whole Frigate (blog) - Learning how to pew pew, one loss at a time - www.thewholefrigate.com |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |