Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
836
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:56:00 -
[91] - Quote
Rook Mallard wrote: We went down this road when you messed up the AB and MWD names a while back. It seems that the feedback you got back then was quickly forgotten.
You are now getting rid of trademark names like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth'. Moreover, the "standarized" names you chose are hideous. Use the description tab for each module to explain what they do and stop screwing up names and killing immersion. What type of dark hard-code sci-fi setting are you turning EVE into when you start naming everything using just 4 words??
Also, Ample? Really?
I'm going to clue you in on something: the people who get very, very mad when you change a name are a loud, tiny minority. I'm glad CCP remembers that.
The name change is great. Nane changes seem to be one of those things that really triggers some hard sperging but they're solidly good: I hate having to look up which one of four random names is the 'good' meta module. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:56:00 -
[92] - Quote
on the weapon systems .. ammo needs a big revisit .. people use the T2 guns as soon as possible because T1 ammo has very poor choice ...
T2 should be a long train lv5 skills with spec skills/ T2 ammo .. meta/roles should be viable alternatives using T1/faction ammo providing useful alternatives .. like
- ammo capacity - cap usage - lower fittings - better tracking etc..
but making T2 just better at everything makes the choices .. non choices 95% of the time 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 ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Lexiana Del'Amore
Nouvelle Rouvenor Monkeys with Guns.
84
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:15:00 -
[93] - Quote
so CCP logic is now meta 0, meta 1, meta 5, meta 6... brilliant.... |
Cae Lara
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:15:00 -
[94] - Quote
I'll have to dissent from everybody crying 'muh immersion'. Clicking through show info->variations->compare->click meta level to literally look at a spreadsheet on every item type is not immersion and is not enjoyable. Great, current players had to go through that nonsense so surely every player should have to from now until the end of time? How about no, but I can dig people asking for some of the flavor text to be retained on item names in addition to clear and consistent markers of what a module is and does.
+1 to finding better adjectives. Ample sounds goofy and scoped doesn't even begin to make sense. |
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
11
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:16:00 -
[95] - Quote
The 'Restrained' Capacitor Flux Coil I feel has an issue. The 'restrained' should have lower drawbacks, right? but it has the worst drawback in the group, as well as the best T1 bonus! Wouldn't the name Enduring be a bit more.. fitting ? |
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
4430
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:25:00 -
[96] - Quote
Hey guys, it's like 7:30pm and I'm about to go be on TV with CCP Guard and co so I can't do a lot right now, but it's safe to say there's some weirdness with the flux coils.
We may switch the restrained so it's actually LESS drawback rather than more, even though both potentially have applications. The way the attributes are titled and communicated in the dev blog is also kind of strange and I'll try to get that cleaned up tomorrow so it's a bit more clear.
All said and done, there's nothing broken going into the game so bear with me for a day while I get the post cleaned up and maybe the restrained attributes cleaned up. @ccp_rise |
|
Mauvian
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:28:00 -
[97] - Quote
So.... back to Cap Flux coils again.....
Fozzy you said... "Capacitor Flux coils ... and a second that has a reduced capacitor capacity drawback amount (but similar overall cap recharge)."
Restrained Capacitor Flux Coil 41% 10 -25% 1
Yet the numbers on the restrained Cap Flux Coil instead show more recharge and more draw back.
Were you intending those stats? Or were you intending something more along the lines of....
37% 10 -15% 1?
Either your paragraph describing changes should be edited or the stats should :D
Edit: looks like CCP Rise got in before I did! |
TigerXtrm
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
877
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:32:00 -
[98] - Quote
scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2.
Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out.
Valterra Craven wrote:Man, the market sure reacts quickly to changes... oh well not fast enough for this one :(
I do see a couple problems.
1. The meta layout of your re balance makes no sense. a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers) b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1...
Because Legacy Code. Dun dun dun!!!
Good balance pass overall, will be interesting to see how modules are going to be used. What I don't get is two things:
1. Who possibly uses 'Civilian' type modules and why are they even in the game (and why haven't they been taken out during this pass?)
2. The hell are basic modules? Something from the 2003 era? Again, why not just take them out of the game completely if no-one ever uses them? My YouTube Channel - EVE Tutorials & other game related things! |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:33:00 -
[99] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, it's like 7:30pm and I'm about to go be on TV with CCP Guard and co so I can't do a lot right now, but it's safe to say there's some weirdness with the flux coils.
We may switch the restrained so it's actually LESS drawback rather than more, even though both potentially have applications. The way the attributes are titled and communicated in the dev blog is also kind of strange and I'll try to get that cleaned up tomorrow so it's a bit more clear.
All said and done, there's nothing broken going into the game so bear with me for a day while I get the post cleaned up and maybe the restrained attributes adjusted.
what about the weapons .. Lml's ... i've made a few posts about T2 weapons etc.. 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 ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Mauvian
1st Steps Academy Fidelas Constans
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:39:00 -
[100] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out. Valterra Craven wrote:Man, the market sure reacts quickly to changes... oh well not fast enough for this one :(
I do see a couple problems.
1. The meta layout of your re balance makes no sense. a. Why have meta gaps? (shouldn't the number increase like power does and not skip numbers) b. Why are basic modules meta 6 and t1 mods are meta 0... basic should be meta 0 and t1 should be meta 1...
Because Legacy Code. Dun dun dun!!! Good balance pass overall, will be interesting to see how modules are going to be used. What I don't get is two things: 1. Who possibly uses 'Civilian' type modules and why are they even in the game (and why haven't they been taken out during this pass?) 2. The hell are basic modules? Something from the 2003 era? Again, why not just take them out of the game completely if no-one ever uses them?
I use Civilian type weapons on my Drone boats for ratting. Gives me something to gain aggro with, that doesn't use ammo.
|
|
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4146
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:45:00 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hey guys, it's like 7:30pm and I'm about to go be on TV with CCP Guard and co so I can't do a lot right now, but it's safe to say there's some weirdness with the flux coils.
We may switch the restrained so it's actually LESS drawback rather than more, even though both potentially have applications. The way the attributes are titled and communicated in the dev blog is also kind of strange and I'll try to get that cleaned up tomorrow so it's a bit more clear.
All said and done, there's nothing broken going into the game so bear with me for a day while I get the post cleaned up and maybe the restrained attributes adjusted.
Thank you for your hard work! |
Longdrinks
Love Squad Pasta Syndicate
102
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:46:00 -
[102] - Quote
Looking forward to becoming ninth dan black belt in eft-fu when these hit tranquility. |
Schmata Bastanold
Black Rebel Rifter Club The Devil's Tattoo
2778
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:56:00 -
[103] - Quote
Wake me up when you move to something actually useful like tackle, tank, propulsion and gank. Which one of 50 shades of fuse to use is not exactly most exciting part of fitting my ship. Invalid signature format |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:57:00 -
[104] - Quote
multiplies instead of percentages on the cpu/RC doesnt help either 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 ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
KIller Wabbit
The Scope Gallente Federation
760
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:07:00 -
[105] - Quote
Updating fits every 6 weeks for months on end .... who's not going to love that? CCP .. always first with the wrong stuff CSM .. CCP Shills with a vacation plan
|
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:22:00 -
[106] - Quote
Change the Meta levels, as well, getting rid of the to-be-empty groups. Tech 2 would then be Meta 2.
...Halflife 2 confirmed? |
Summer Isle
Autumn Industrial Enterprises
73
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:29:00 -
[107] - Quote
Schmata Bastanold wrote:Wake me up when you move to something actually useful like tackle, tank, propulsion and gank. Which one of 50 shades of fuse to use is not exactly most exciting part of fitting my ship. Oh, god, everyone, Schmata isn't interested in the current modules. We need to fix this, stat! Burn the bridges and get rid of any module she doesn't use, we need to focus only on her boring-ass tackle ship! Go! Go! Go! Go! Let's move, people! |
Leyete Wulf
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Redux
59
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:30:00 -
[108] - Quote
Restrained Cap Flux is still wacky and out of line with the other mods in its category. If the point is to scale the 'main stat(s)' along the meta then its regen stat is way to high (higher than all the others). And the penalty still doesn't correlate since fitting multiple restrained units would yield better performance than multiple tech two units.
Also, I think you just murdered my arbalest LML fit frigs as they will now take a hit in ROF (~6.66) reduce damage modifier (brought to par with meta 1) and reduced comparative bay size vs former limos and TE series launchers (also reducing sustained dps). I love the module tiericide but can I at least have my arbalests converted to the large bay versions? |
Ponder Yonder
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
42
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:37:00 -
[109] - Quote
Hi CCP,
Looking at the LML changes,this strikes me as odd:
Meta 0 should be the baseline. It should define the balance between PG/CPU and damage application. Meta 1+ modules should be harder to fit, with corresponding increases in damage application. This is very important for ships where PG/CPU is tight, providing players with decisions and trade-offs. It is also very important for new chars to be able to increase their damage application as their fitting skills improve.
Now look at the new LML's:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity 48
That's it for the Tech 1 launchers!
Both Compact and Ample are the same or easier(!) to fit than meta 0, and provide better damage application. There is therefore no reason to fit meta 0 ever.
What makes this worse, is that there is no progression available for a character as their fitting skills increase. They are stuck with Compact or Ample until they hit Light Missiles V, when Meta 5 becomes an option. All the fitting skills will make absolutely no difference because there is no choice.
My suggestion would be that: a) Meta 1+ should be harder to fit than meta 0, with corresponding benefits. b) There should be a ladder of meta modules, with corresponding increases in benefits, that players can progress to as their skills improve.
It should be turned around as follows:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48
Now there is a trade-off between fitting and damage application.
Absolutely make the benefits clear in the descriptions, but don't remove player choice. This is Eve. Players should make decisions. And decisions should have consequences. |
Tsukinosuke
Id Est The Volition Cult
16
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:47:00 -
[110] - Quote
better idea than current, so it seems an improvement.. anti-antagonist-á "not a friend of enemy of antagonist" |
|
Mequen Wheeler
CT Industries LLC UMBRELLA C0RP0RATI0N
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:50:00 -
[111] - Quote
Great. How will merging all the Meta 'Named' modules into 1 'Meta 1' category affect those of us who buy and sell in these modules? If I'd know this was to happen I'd have cancelled a LOT of buy orders. Oh ... right, that's not PvP so doesn't matter?
|
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1344
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:52:00 -
[112] - Quote
Great dev blog and good direction. But I really don't like the naming conventions. Just re-purpose the existing named varieties for each group rather than generic 'scoped', 'restrained' etc. It removes too much depth. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
899
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:53:00 -
[113] - Quote
yes... meta 0 needs too have some function/role .. otherwise people will skip it entirely and go too the next meta up - lower fittings or better performance ... and then T2 it seems as T2 seems too be even better in performance than the best performing meta... some rethink is needed i think 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 ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
459
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:55:00 -
[114] - Quote
TigerXtrm wrote:scimichar wrote:Still no reason to use T1 over scoped, ample, or T2. Try cost. Supply and demand will sort it out. Actually, no, it won't.
In most cases, the NPC drop rate and current supply of metas is so high that the market price of low metas is as low, or lower than, the build cost of T1.
Low meta module price, when the market supply is saturated, is roughly based on its reprocessing value. When the reprocessing numbers were cut by 50%, the price of most of the metas also dropped, but the cost of building T1 modules remained the same, which made the situation worse.
So, since most T1 modules always have (1) worse stats and (2) comparable or higher cost , when compared to low metas, they simply do not get used (when was the last time you saw someone post a T1 fit?) Which also means, ofc, no reason to build them, except as an ingredient in building T2 modules. This has also been one of the reasons that there isn't much noob manufacturing, outside of T1 ammo and rigs.
Combining the low and high metas into a single meta should further degrade the situation, since, effectively, all of those over-abundant low metas are becoming high metas, flooding the market.
CCP - any plan to address this issue? |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
791
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:55:00 -
[115] - Quote
Aquila Sagitta wrote:Could we get some numbers on the new cap flux coil vs cap power relays?
You nearly doubled the regen but you also doubled the penalties which makes me think they will still be useless or even worse then before.
The only time I've ever been interesting in using Cap Flux coils was when nos got rebalanced. Cap Flux coils reduce total cap but increase cap regen, allowing for some interesting niche fits. Those fits might be worth another look.
GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
snorkle25
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 20:58:00 -
[116] - Quote
Glad your cleaning up all these modules, there really is no need to have multiple varieties that no one uses (inertia stabs, I'm looking at you...).
That said, WTF?! When are you going to finish up fixing ships?! You go and buff the F out of the marauders but how about the black ops?! I'd really like to be able to have a Redeemer, Panther or sin that is actually worth the isk and SP I've invested into it instead of having a mini mobile bomber bridge.
Please finish up what you started and balance out the rest of the ships, up through Titans, thanks.
Yours truely, a customer. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
791
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:09:00 -
[117] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:Rook Mallard wrote: We went down this road when you messed up the AB and MWD names a while back. It seems that the feedback you got back then was quickly forgotten.
You are now getting rid of trademark names like 'Arbalest', 'Limos', 'Malkuth'. Moreover, the "standarized" names you chose are hideous. Use the description tab for each module to explain what they do and stop screwing up names and killing immersion. What type of dark hard-code sci-fi setting are you turning EVE into when you start naming everything using just 4 words??
Also, Ample? Really?
I'm going to clue you in on something: the people who get very, very mad when you change a name are a loud, tiny minority. I'm glad CCP remembers that. The name change is great. Name changes seem to be one of those things that really triggers some hard sperging but they're solidly good: I hate having to look up which one of four random names is the 'good' meta module.
I couldn't agree more. There's nothing worse than having to go to the comparison tool and select meta level to find out which item is the meta 4 one. Even after 5 years I still don't have them all memorized.
But I will genuinely miss the Arbalest launchers and meta 4 ECM when that one happens. Speaking of which... can I assume that this set of rebalances and renaming will include fixes to meta 4 items like ECM that are strictly better than T2? I want to know what to buy on the market. GÇ£I personally refuse to help AAA take space from itself so it can become an even shittier version of itselfGÇ¥ -Grath Telkin, 2014.
Free PASTA! |
Daimus Daranius
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:13:00 -
[118] - Quote
Hey CCP, I was hoping to see Shield Flux Coils fixed as part of module rebalance, since they are currently the most useless modules in EVE (I can't think of a single application where they would be useful). My suggestion - replace the shield recharge bonus with a reduction to either duration or cap use of shield boosters. |
Rain6637
Team Evil
19885
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:15:00 -
[119] - Quote
+1 for this new balancing philosophy, that preserves preceding ship balancing philosophies. President of the Commissar Kate Fanclub | Rainfleet on Twitch | Twitter | Rainfleet mk.III | Imgur |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
728
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 21:24:00 -
[120] - Quote
Ponder Yonder wrote:Hi CCP,
Looking at the LML changes,this strikes me as odd:
Meta 0 should be the baseline. It should define the balance between PG/CPU and damage application. Meta 1+ modules should be harder to fit, with corresponding increases in damage application. This is very important for ships where PG/CPU is tight, providing players with decisions and trade-offs. It is also very important for new chars to be able to increase their damage application as their fitting skills improve.
Now look at the new LML's:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity 48
That's it for the Tech 1 launchers!
Both Compact and Ample are the same or easier(!) to fit than meta 0, and provide better damage application. There is therefore no reason to fit meta 0 ever.
What makes this worse, is that there is no progression available for a character as their fitting skills increase. They are stuck with Compact or Ample until they hit Light Missiles V, when Meta 5 becomes an option. All the fitting skills will make absolutely no difference because there is no choice.
My suggestion would be that: a) Meta 1+ should be harder to fit than meta 0, with corresponding benefits. b) There should be a ladder of meta modules, with corresponding increases in benefits, that players can progress to as their skills improve.
It should be turned around as follows:
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 13.6s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48
Now there is a trade-off between fitting and damage application.
Absolutely make the benefits clear in the descriptions, but don't remove player choice. This is Eve. Players should make decisions. And decisions should have consequences. While I somewhat agree with you. It looks like there realy isn't a choice, go 'Ample' or go home, with the numbers as presented by CCP.
The numbers you put out realy even things out as far as balance and choice, but I would say that there is room for a third meta item in that list.
'Light' Meta 0: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Compact' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/16, ROF: 16s, Capacity: 40 'Ample' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF: 16s, Capacity 48 'Augmented' Meta 1: PG/CPU: 6/21, ROF 13.6s, Capacity 40
There you go, a choice between fitting, capacity, or ROF.
"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka-á |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |