Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 03:03:00 -
[1]
That was an excellent blog.
Almost all the changes not only address longstanding community concerns, but do so in a reasonable and balanced way. I particularly approve of the fixes to the Amarr boats, the gimped caldari/missile split systems boats (all but the Merlin, anyway), and the changes to the TD.
But also,thanks for going out there and laying down your reasoning for why things were changed.
That helps so much when evaluating and trying to accept changes.
I'm sure lots of people will just scream that you don't play the game, but by giving your rational, you provide a lot more scope for reasonable players to discuss changes and provide informed feedback.
Again, thanks. I eagerly look forward to this patch coming out.
Now just please address AF's :)
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 03:07:00 -
[2]
"Now just please address AF's :)"
Patience, brother - our day will come.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Enough Fiber
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 03:24:00 -
[3]
bah.
I think they should have given the muninn some love with an extra mid slot at expense of 2 missile launcher hardpoints.
|
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 03:44:00 -
[4]
I would like to know why the Devs suddenly - after all those years - think that TD needs to affect falloff. You'd think that it was like that for a reason for several years.
But then again many recent changes look like the game design was taken over by some people who haven't really played EVE much ...
I wonder what Oveur is doing these days, at least he knew the game well.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Istvaan Shogaatsu
Guiding Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 03:50:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Pan Crastus I would like to know why the Devs suddenly - after all those years - think that TD needs to affect falloff. You'd think that it was like that for a reason for several years.
It was because certain turrets did not rely on optimal range nearly as much as they relied on falloff. These turrets were pretty much un-affected by the TD, which is an ewar device designed to screw up turrets. Now, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense, that all tracking disruptors affect all turrets? I think you'd agree. I'd agree.
|
Pan Crastus
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 03:59:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Pan Crastus on 03/02/2008 04:03:32
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Originally by: Pan Crastus I would like to know why the Devs suddenly - after all those years - think that TD needs to affect falloff. You'd think that it was like that for a reason for several years.
It was because certain turrets did not rely on optimal range nearly as much as they relied on falloff. These turrets were pretty much un-affected by the TD, which is an ewar device designed to screw up turrets. Now, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense, that all tracking disruptors affect all turrets? I think you'd agree. I'd agree.
It makes no sense to change this now after it has been in the game like this for years, being an essential advantage of Minmatar against this particular form of EW and working as intended.
Next thing we know, they'll remove explosion radius because "certain ships are not affected as much by missiles as others".
I can't help it, these changes look like "hey we just found out that ... yada yada ... so we need to fix this", i.e. Devs working on a game they have very little knowledge about.
EVE Online: a cold, cruel world where (RL-)rich people replace their losses with GTCs sold to poor students who need to farm ISK to afford their play time ...
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 04:00:00 -
[7]
oh, woh is me, woh is minmitar! Where's our damn boost?
Nanophoons need to make a comeback
Originally by: Avaricia look a goon lol
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noir.
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 04:05:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Kyra Felann on 03/02/2008 04:05:59 .
|
Siddy
Minmatar Evolution Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 04:18:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Siddy on 03/02/2008 04:18:51 Edited by: Siddy on 03/02/2008 04:18:20
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Originally by: Pan Crastus I would like to know why the Devs suddenly - after all those years - think that TD needs to affect falloff. You'd think that it was like that for a reason for several years.
It was because certain turrets did not rely on optimal range nearly as much as they relied on falloff. These turrets were pretty much un-affected by the TD, which is an ewar device designed to screw up turrets. Now, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense, that all tracking disruptors affect all turrets? I think you'd agree. I'd agree.
Can i has then anti missile ECM flares please to, o wise sir?
The minmatars get double nerf in the case of TD.
Minmatar arties will be nerffed by tracking (wich suck allredy), optimal AND fallof.
Someone, played as long as you shuld know these things, srsly...
|
Verx Interis
Amarr Aurora Security The Cyrene Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 04:30:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Verx Interis on 03/02/2008 04:31:49
Originally by: Enough Fiber bah.
I think they should have given the muninn some love with an extra mid slot at expense of 2 missile launcher hardpoints.
Muninn got another turret.
Originally by: Siddy Edited by: Siddy on 03/02/2008 04:18:51 Edited by: Siddy on 03/02/2008 04:18:20
Originally by: Istvaan Shogaatsu
Originally by: Pan Crastus I would like to know why the Devs suddenly - after all those years - think that TD needs to affect falloff. You'd think that it was like that for a reason for several years.
It was because certain turrets did not rely on optimal range nearly as much as they relied on falloff. These turrets were pretty much un-affected by the TD, which is an ewar device designed to screw up turrets. Now, wouldn't you agree that it makes sense, that all tracking disruptors affect all turrets? I think you'd agree. I'd agree.
Can i has then anti missile ECM flares please to, o wise sir?
The minmatars get double nerf in the case of TD.
Minmatar arties will be nerffed by tracking (wich suck allredy), optimal AND fallof.
Someone, played as long as you shuld know these things, srsly...
Someone who has played as long as you, which you claim to have played, should know that AC's are barely affected by optimal loss because 90% of their range is in falloff, and blasters has such short optimal you're almost always in falloff -----sig-starts-here------
|
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 05:06:00 -
[11]
Quote: I would like to know why the Devs suddenly - after all those years - think that TD needs to affect falloff. You'd think that it was like that for a reason for several years.
Devs realized that TD pretty much suck as a form of EWAR. It doesn't matter if they realize it the day the game launches or a decade later - when they realize there is a problem, they should fix it.
The fact that almost no one uses TD's probably clued them in.
At any rate, you didn't see this coming? I'm almost positive I remember the players being shocked at the nerf TD's got when scripting was introduced, and the response was "Yes, but this allows us to boost them later"
So you can't claim this came out of the blue.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 05:26:00 -
[12]
I'd much rather see amarr ewar TD's affect missiles . . .
|
Espejo Roto
The Azimuth
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 06:23:00 -
[13]
"we looked into boosting its defenses so it had a fighting chance." (about the deimos)
I don't know if anyone else has already had an issue with this. This is the first thread I've read on the changes, and the only thing that I read when I saw the devblog was "To make you tougher, we are going to take away a tankslot."
Don't get me wrong, I do see the good in the changes, but there are the other issues: - To keep the best dps, you need an ancillary current router instead of an rcu (tiny cost difference there) - The slot was added specifically for a capacitor booster, but the pg remains insufficient to support a medium without severely dropping the damage output, or adding a second ancillary and kissing off all rig flexibility. - The mwd bonus loss is still less cap after the cap modification, but that is okay as long as you have boosters, I know. - How many boosters are you going to carry in a cargo of 315 - ammo space?
I may be viewing this wrong, but to me, This is how I see the change. The deimos will survive better than it does now, until you chew through your short supply of boosters. At that point, you are flying the same ship as before, but with about 60m worth of rigs to fuel the blue flash. Otherwise, you could just get in a phobos if all you're going to fit is ions anyway, and have a better tank. At least you could have rig options on the phobos.
Don't be too harsh on this noob's evaluation. I am just curious to see if any other deimos pilots are gonna miss that lowslot as much as I am, and whether they think the mid will be worth complicating the already tight-fitting ship.
-roto
|
Agor Dirdonen
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 11:02:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Agor Dirdonen on 03/02/2008 11:01:56
Originally by: Siddy
The minmatars get double nerf in the case of TD.
Minmatar arties will be nerffed by tracking (wich suck allredy), optimal AND fallof.
Someone, played as long as you shuld know these things, srsly...
Siddy,
you do realize that with a Turret Disruption, you also have to choose between either going for full range reduction, full tracking reduction or a reduced reduction on both at the same time?
These modules use scripts too!
|
Caleese
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 11:21:00 -
[15]
I think these changes are awesome, TD's seem to be very rarely used, so this boost is cool, without being over the top. Now if only we could find some reason for people to use target painters
Oh and I swear some of you will complain about anything
|
Kyoto Luyi
Army Of Angels
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 11:29:00 -
[16]
Quote: However the Ferox lacks the power output to properly support an additional turret and has thus been increased. Ferox:
Hardpoints: 6 turrets (+1) Power output: 1075mw (+75mw)
Lub... pure lub. I've always been a huge Ferox fan - it has to be the sleekest looking ship out there.
|
Finuval
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 11:37:00 -
[17]
Everything I ever read in the Dev blogs is taken with a hefty grain of salt. Nothing is of any value until it's in the game after a Tranquility patch.
Having said that, the new changes look promising and yes, keeping a very close eye on the Deimos' performance is a good idea.
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:16:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I'd much rather see amarr ewar TD's affect missiles . . .
Sure. If missiles can have a mid-slot module that improves explosion velocity and missile velocity like tracking computers improve tracking and range for turrets, then I'm all for that. Good idea, in fact.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 13:19:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Kyoto Luyi
Quote: However the Ferox lacks the power output to properly support an additional turret and has thus been increased. Ferox:
Hardpoints: 6 turrets (+1) Power output: 1075mw (+75mw)
Lub... pure lub. I've always been a huge Ferox fan - it has to be the sleekest looking ship out there.
God knows it's about time the Caldari railboats got something. You know it's bad when people just fit missiles instead of rails
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2008.02.03 14:29:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin I'd much rather see amarr ewar TD's affect missiles . . .
Yes, you can take away as much tracking on my missile launchers as you like. Or optimal. Or ermm yeah, ok. Falloff too. But only if you really insist. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |