| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
|
CCP Tenitigo
    |
Posted - 2008.08.24 17:48:00 -
[1]
The speed changes are currently live on Multiplicity.
Go here for the latest Multi patch.
To connect to multi you will need to create a shortcut of the Eve.exe file and add /server:87.237.38.51 to it. This will connect the client to connect to Multiplicity when it is started (instead of Singularity).
|
|
Sgt Napalm
Synergy Evolved
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 00:13:00 -
[2]
How about the updated blog Nozh promised?
|
Roemy Schneider
BINFORD
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 04:34:00 -
[3]
currently:
- former mass reducers not doing anything (except penalties)
- warp scram got new thumbnail, but isnt working at all
-
 putting the gist back into logistics |
Mira O'karr
Minmatar
eXceed Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 16:00:00 -
[4]
what is up with the minnie BS line up ?
they all have the same mass and the maelstrom looks to be the most agile ?
was this an oversight ?
a lot of people complained about the mass changes but minmatar battleships are still looking to be the heaviest ships ... why is that ?
will start testing again but just looking at the changes i dont think the results will be much different from before.
definately nice to see the mwd react delay gone.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 09:06:00 -
[5]
i dont see misile changes at all. Minmatar is heavier and caldari is much lighter. What devs think up?
 |
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar
Phoenix Tribe
Valhalla Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 23:02:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Sgt Napalm
How about the updated blog Nozh promised?
Yes please. Would like SOME form of communication regarding what you're doing.
|
Gragnor
Groove Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 15:00:00 -
[7]
Dear CCP
Please explain in clear terms what you hope to acheive with the speed objective. The current direction is unclear and the final outcome is simply not understood.
Having determined the objectives, how about you ask us to provide you with feedback as to how you could acheive the objectives.
Then you take it away, invesiutage and report openly and frankly. How hard is that?
|
Jordan Musgrat
H A V O C
The Requiem
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 15:41:00 -
[8]
I think that most likely, a lot of people at CCP are having a good old fashioned soul searching time. It should be clear to them by now that the proposed changes will change the foundational mechanics and strategies of EvE, when all that needs to happen is a nano nerf. Hopefully, CCP will soon come back to the playerbase with open minds and try to rustle up some sort of a nerf that keeps nano pvp/speed tanking alive to some extent, but does not allow dps hacs to zoom zoom orbit around targets at 25km.
If you want my opinion, here it is.
1) Keep the warp scramblers just as they are. Fitting one on a normal ship will not change pvp much, and the Lachesis/Arazu will just be slightly less dangerous than a Rapier to nano gangs.
2) Fix the Pilgrim/Curse. Maybe give them a bonus to large neuts or something, but an Amarr recon needs to be death to a Zealot/Ishtar/Vagabond. They don't need dps, just neuting power.
3) Keep the mass effect of polycarbons, nerf them slightly to be inline with nanofibers. Nobody ever complained that nanofiber IIs were overpowered.
4) Nerf the general speed of mwds by 10%, and half the variation of speeds with T2, faction, and officer/deadspace.
5) Take a look at each individual HAC/Recon, and nerf them accordingly, but not so much that any one of them cannot do 3km with a lot of isk invested in hardwirings and rigs.
6) Leave the speed gang mods alone.
7) Your general outlook on the whole thing needs to be that nano gangs are fine, but they should not be able to zoom around owning BC/BS gangs without risk. These changes will roughly reduce the speed of the average nano gang by 30%, without much coding, and if you make every recon virtual death to nanos, you kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
8) Realize that sure, there may still be people that sink 3bn into a vagabond and go 8km/second, but that is the exception, not the norm.
-----------
Primary is family values, secondary is 0.0... |
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 20:12:00 -
[9]
Most of the changes are fine, except:
- X-Instinct boosters don't need nerfing.
- Aux Thrusters and Overdrives don't need nerfing.
- Faction/Deadspace MWDs don't need nerfing.
Snakes, Skirmish Warfare links, Polycarbs, Nanos and Webs IMO are getting a well-deserved nerf however.
Scrambler change is also good, as it counteracts the Web nerf to some degree but also broadens flexibility on the fitting screen moreso than the current MWD+Web+Point. I like it.
- Infectious - |
spazoxlabanias
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 17:42:00 -
[10]
so after most of e/w was nerfed, nos also, now this is not a speed nerf.. it's a "no speed feature". So press F1-F8, activate repairers and this is PvP?
@if neither ceptors can speed tank what's their role again? get the enemy for 4-5secs.. until enemy locks them?
@if even vaga cant be nano.. what is it? they will put plates on it? (4km/s vaga with all hardwing+faction modules+snake+lvl5 skills+... is not nano of course..)let alone new align time...
@you jump a gate.. 2 enemies behind--> you loose .. no escape
@90% stasis is a problem with nanos.. so 60% stasis isnt? when you cant run at all..
there are lots of more examples but generally the game will become super static..
i think only tank is left to be nerfed now and then who locks first "pops" the other
it's also a pitty to train so many skills and spend so much time.. and then a nerf comes and you are the stupid again
of course you made your decisions, but many things are gathering and some people loose their interest
|
|
prospectress
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 23:57:00 -
[11]
I want to support the above reply - I trained a lot to both get into a nano ship and a webber recon - it's personal, but how do you suggest to fly an interceptor now?
Unrelated to that, I got the general feeling, that your adjustments overshoot: what is a sensor dampener good for now? (leaving aside your probably bugged NPC effects who didn't get nerfed ;-)
What you create by coarse changes is a scenario, that makes orientation difficult for newer players while not hurting ppl who
can fly any type of ship (not so far from that hehe) - yes everyone will need to adapt, but if you just pull the other vessel from hangar, fly a few test rounds and that's it - you get the picture
- if nano gangs are no more: my Hype and Rokh are ready ;-) |
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 02:31:00 -
[12]
Originally by: prospectress
if nano gangs are no more: my Hype and Rokh are ready ;-)
Not to rain on your parade, but I hope you aren't planning to put blasters on those battleships. As shown in the blasters thread here in Gamedev, blasters aren't going to survive the patch either.
On an unrelated note, is anyone else having trouble connecting to multi?
-Liang |
Manchu Farmer
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 15:34:00 -
[13]
Wondering if the Nano speeders will be able now not able to out run missles?
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:31:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 02/09/2008 16:32:14
Originally by: Manchu Farmer
Wondering if the Nano speeders will be able now not able to out run missles?
No, they can't. In fact, I was doing some testing and my Raven can 100% alpha strike through the shields of the standard nano ishtar, and Vagas take 2-3 volleys to die (even when they're up to speed). Nano HACs are 100% dead... find another way to fit ships.
-Liang
Ed: And by 100% dead, I mean that max skilled snaked ganged pilots are just wasting their time and ISK. They'll die to the first Raven they engage.
--
I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.
-- Mahatma Gandhi |
Trellish
Ten Ton Hammer
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:23:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Trellish on 02/09/2008 17:23:54
Isn't that kind of the point? that a HAC shouldn't be the Uber ship of the game? Solo cruiser class ships constantly beating Battleships seems to be exactly what the problem is. Isnt a HAC supposed to be beefing up a cruiser so that it's in between a cruiser and a Battleship? I don't think the designers intent was that the HAC be capable of defeating any battleship it runs across, and right now, that's entirely possible.
|
spazoxlabanias
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:46:00 -
[16]
you kno.. no cruiser or hac can kill a bs... except if you fit the bs shitty...
i have soloed and killed vagas with raven so easily
and i cant understand why many are complaning about nanoing, when a nano-hac beats them or they cant hit it while flying t1-50mil (or less) ships and the nano-pilot has spent SO much more in implants and hardwiring and polys and ship cost and maybe faction modules... let alone skills
i didnt hear anyone complaining about excessive tank too.. why cant i kill a heavy dictor (-cruiser class also-) with my bs????????? isnt my bs outclassed in this case??
CCP wants a variety but pushes everyone to BS or super tanked ships.. no nano, no e/w.. only tank left right?
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:11:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Trellish
Isn't that kind of the point? that a HAC shouldn't be the Uber ship of the game? Solo cruiser class ships constantly beating Battleships seems to be exactly what the problem is. Isnt a HAC supposed to be beefing up a cruiser so that it's in between a cruiser and a Battleship? I don't think the designers intent was that the HAC be capable of defeating any battleship it runs across, and right now, that's entirely possible.
Of course that's the point. My point is that nano HACs are 100% dead. I'm not complaining, I've got BS5 across 3 races. 
That said, I don't think it's the designers intent to 100% remove Minnie HACs/Recons from the game either (because this patch really does do that).
-Liang |
Nexus Kinnon
A Few Good Men.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:28:00 -
[18]
I just can't work out why you changed the minmatar BS' mass, it just makes no sense.
NONE.
NO SENSE WHATSOEVER. |
Spurty
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 19:08:00 -
[19]
minnie ships barely look heavy enough to be paperweights what with the majority of their models being 'sails'.
The mass of a minie ship makes no sense unless its around 2/3 that of any other races variant.
Nano-fibers:
Replaces some of the heavier structure components with lighter, but more fragile material. Decreases ship's mass at the expense of hull strength.
Tat's not really a decent 'con' to fitting them (loss of completely inert and no tactical pro/con advantage structure). If they ate 'armor' then cool too. Most minie ships are shield tankers anyway.
As for a nano-fiber no longer offering a mass reduction, this doesn't make any sense with that penalty (if you reduce some material, your mass decreases).
Whats the multiplicity info for nano-fibers anyone? Whats the pro/con characteristics, I forget.
|
Isaac benyamin
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 20:41:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Isaac benyamin on 02/09/2008 20:41:19
I'd like to reply to those that say that HACs are overpowered in relation to battleships.
First and foremost to put it dead simply, right now... they damn well should be. As a HAC pilot, I can tell you every battle I commit my HAC to, I commit over 150m ISK. If I die, I get NOTHING. A Battleship pilot, can put on the best insurance and be essentially guaranteed at least a marginal return on their investment. Any pilot ballsy enough to step into battle and risk a total loss deserves a good chance to win.
The first part of this argument is irrespective of the Sheer time put in Training Cruisers to 5 and Heavy Assault ships. To put it mildly, how could CCP possibly consider it "fair" that a dedicated and determined pilot who devotes a long span of time to specializing in a specific ship type be on scale penalized by saying that their dedication doesn't deserve reward. Tell me, how long does it take to train Battleships to 4 in relation to how long it takes to get HAC to 4???
unfortunately I think the devs are working on these patches with no real vision toward the overall realities of battle in EVE. This patch caters to the group of people who feel that their marginal skills should win out over a more dedicated and more specialized pilot. If CCP wants to address the issue of nano as a tanking method... attack the real problem, which is the excessive stacking of speed bonuses.
random idea: why not make it so that speed implants are ineffective on ships or in gangs with speed bonuses already applied? why not make gang speed bonuses not apply to ships with speed bonuses already applied? work on the stacking problems, not the mods.
|
|
Han Job
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:08:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Isaac benyamin
Edited by: Isaac benyamin on 02/09/2008 20:41:19
I'd like to reply to those that say that HACs are overpowered in relation to battleships.
First and foremost to put it dead simply, right now... they damn well should be. As a HAC pilot, I can tell you every battle I commit my HAC to, I commit over 150m ISK. If I die, I get NOTHING. A Battleship pilot, can put on the best insurance and be essentially guaranteed at least a marginal return on their investment. Any pilot ballsy enough to step into battle and risk a total loss deserves a good chance to win.
The first part of this argument is irrespective of the Sheer time put in Training Cruisers to 5 and Heavy Assault ships. To put it mildly, how could CCP possibly consider it "fair" that a dedicated and determined pilot who devotes a long span of time to specializing in a specific ship type be on scale penalized by saying that their dedication doesn't deserve reward. Tell me, how long does it take to train Battleships to 4 in relation to how long it takes to get HAC to 4???
unfortunately I think the devs are working on these patches with no real vision toward the overall realities of battle in EVE. This patch caters to the group of people who feel that their marginal skills should win out over a more dedicated and more specialized pilot. If CCP wants to address the issue of nano as a tanking method... attack the real problem, which is the excessive stacking of speed bonuses.
random idea: why not make it so that speed implants are ineffective on ships or in gangs with speed bonuses already applied? why not make gang speed bonuses not apply to ships with speed bonuses already applied? work on the stacking problems, not the mods.
this guy makes sense
|
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:20:00 -
[22]
Quote:
First and foremost to put it dead simply, right now... they damn well should be. As a HAC pilot, I can tell you every battle I commit my HAC to, I commit over 150m ISK. If I die, I get NOTHING. A Battleship pilot, can put on the best insurance and be essentially guaranteed at least a marginal return on their investment. Any pilot ballsy enough to step into battle and risk a total loss deserves a good chance to win.
The first part of this argument is irrespective of the Sheer time put in Training Cruisers to 5 and Heavy Assault ships. To put it mildly, how could CCP possibly consider it "fair" that a dedicated and determined pilot who devotes a long span of time to specializing in a specific ship type be on scale penalized by saying that their dedication doesn't deserve reward. Tell me, how long does it take to train Battleships to 4 in relation to how long it takes to get HAC to 4???
unfortunately I think the devs are working on these patches with no real vision toward the overall realities of battle in EVE. This patch caters to the group of people who feel that their marginal skills should win out over a more dedicated and more specialized pilot. If CCP wants to address the issue of nano as a tanking method... attack the real problem, which is the excessive stacking of speed bonuses.
random idea: why not make it so that speed implants are ineffective on ships or in gangs with speed bonuses already applied? why not make gang speed bonuses not apply to ships with speed bonuses already applied? work on the stacking problems, not the mods.
/agree and i think if we remove the bss and bc insuranse LOTS of ppl become more sensitive to the nano problem :) i no need mi insurance on mi hac buy if we remove the bss/bc insurance mmm.. maybe we level the ground dont?
|
Crowdad
Legio Immortalis
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:21:00 -
[23]
So, a vaga that can't kill any HAC other than maybe a cerb, now can't even kill a cerb... Imagine that, one of the most popular ships becoming one of the most useless ones.
|
kinko
Gallente
Federal Rangers
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:35:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Isaac benyamin
First and foremost to put it dead simply, right now... they damn well should be. As a HAC pilot, I can tell you every battle I commit my HAC to, I commit over 150m ISK. If I die, I get NOTHING. A Battleship pilot, can put on the best insurance and be essentially guaranteed at least a marginal return on their investment. Any pilot ballsy enough to step into battle and risk a total loss deserves a good chance to win.
The first part of this argument is irrespective of the Sheer time put in Training Cruisers to 5 and Heavy Assault ships. To put it mildly, how could CCP possibly consider it "fair" that a dedicated and determined pilot who devotes a long span of time to specializing in a specific ship type be on scale penalized by saying that their dedication doesn't deserve reward. Tell me, how long does it take to train Battleships to 4 in relation to how long it takes to get HAC to 4???
Well said!!! I'm not much of a forum warrior but when I read this I had to comment. You hit it right on the money bro!
However, I still do believe a hard nano nerf MUST be implemented. It needs to be done in a way that doesn't send my beloved HACs into the same storage hanger that my once much used AFs are currently in collecting digital dust. Since I took the time to train HAC to lvl 5 it sure would be nice to have a useful purpose for them post nano nerf  . |
Cmndr Griff
Opinicus Operations
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:52:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Isaac benyamin
Edited by: Isaac benyamin on 02/09/2008 20:41:19
I'd like to reply to those that say that HACs are overpowered in relation to battleships.
First and foremost to put it dead simply, right now... they damn well should be. As a HAC pilot, I can tell you every battle I commit my HAC to, I commit over 150m ISK. If I die, I get NOTHING. A Battleship pilot, can put on the best insurance and be essentially guaranteed at least a marginal return on their investment. Any pilot ballsy enough to step into battle and risk a total loss deserves a good chance to win.
The first part of this argument is irrespective of the Sheer time put in Training Cruisers to 5 and Heavy Assault ships. To put it mildly, how could CCP possibly consider it "fair" that a dedicated and determined pilot who devotes a long span of time to specializing in a specific ship type be on scale penalized by saying that their dedication doesn't deserve reward. Tell me, how long does it take to train Battleships to 4 in relation to how long it takes to get HAC to 4???
unfortunately I think the devs are working on these patches with no real vision toward the overall realities of battle in EVE. This patch caters to the group of people who feel that their marginal skills should win out over a more dedicated and more specialized pilot. If CCP wants to address the issue of nano as a tanking method... attack the real problem, which is the excessive stacking of speed bonuses.
random idea: why not make it so that speed implants are ineffective on ships or in gangs with speed bonuses already applied? why not make gang speed bonuses not apply to ships with speed bonuses already applied? work on the stacking problems, not the mods.
Well said that man. A lot of players have given CCP many ways to solve the issue without gimping large portions of Gallente and Minmatar in one go, let's hope they listen. Quite how the choice of using an AB instead of an MWD really livens up the game when all you do is fit a buffer tank instead I will never know. Maybe we will see yet more Falcons. 
Both the Amarr HACS I fly still have a role so really I shouldn't care, but somehow gimping so many specialised players just feels wrong. |
Krystall Mist
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 04:56:00 -
[26]
This blows 
|
Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 13:25:00 -
[27]
Natural Order of things:
Frigs < Assault Frigs < Destroyers < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < Heavy Assault Cruisers < Battleships < Marauder < Capitals etc
1 on 1 it should be in the order above, having any form of Cruiser constantly beating Battleships should never of happened in the first place. This is off base specs, but if someone in a lower class happens to fit out really well against a badly fitted class above them that's fine, but it should never of been the norm.
However that progression is for one on one, but we rarely see this in eve, a group of a lower class should be able to take down the next class up, given enough numbers take out 2 classes above.
So quit your complaining about my HAC can't one on one a BS and win every time any more, it never should have in the first place, a HACs role is to eliminate the Cruisers in a fleet battle, not the battleships.
|
Isaac benyamin
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 15:38:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Caldari 5
Natural Order of things:
Frigs < Assault Frigs < Destroyers < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < Heavy Assault Cruisers < Battleships < Marauder < Capitals etc
1 on 1 it should be in the order above, having any form of Cruiser constantly beating Battleships should never of happened in the first place. This is off base specs, but if someone in a lower class happens to fit out really well against a badly fitted class above them that's fine, but it should never of been the norm.
However that progression is for one on one, but we rarely see this in eve, a group of a lower class should be able to take down the next class up, given enough numbers take out 2 classes above.
So quit your complaining about my HAC can't one on one a BS and win every time any more, it never should have in the first place, a HACs role is to eliminate the Cruisers in a fleet battle, not the battleships.
bud, when it takes more time to train a battleship than it does a Heavy Assault Ship, then you can feel free to call that the natural order of things... until then, your "natural order" shows a profound lack of incite into the reality of combat.
(the following is using fudged numbers for approximates, but still reflect an overall reality)
An Assault frigate takes at least 15 days to train, a destroyer takes about 9 hours
A Battleship, (with prerequisites) takes about 8 days to train, a HAC takes at least 40
do you really, honestly, under the current training requirement think that a guy who spends 8 days working on their character be unable to be bested by a person who has spent (at an absolute bare bones balls to the floor minimum of) 40 days just being able to fly their ship, let alone fly it well. You need your head checked.
Also, where do you see it written that the role of a HEAVY ASSAULT cruiser is to kill cruisers? if that were true, the Ishtar would not be able to field 5 Ogre II's in battle.
Finally, if a person fits their ships worth a damn, it isn't as easy as you think to kill a battleship solo with a HAC. A well designed and moderately tanked Battleship can and will soak the damage of an evenly skilled HAC pilot. If you don't llike that your battleship is being killed by a five year player with a T2 cruiser... then train the bloody skills to fly your ship properly and stop whining about it.
|
spazoxlabanias
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 16:42:00 -
[29]
really man... if you loose bses from one Hac.. you should start thinking what's wrong with your fitting or playing and not if Hacs are overpowered or not...
|
Fraps
Warped Mining
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 20:55:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Caldari 5
Natural Order of things:
Frigs < Assault Frigs < Destroyers < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < Heavy Assault Cruisers < Battleships < Marauder < Capitals etc
1 on 1 it should be in the order above, having any form of Cruiser constantly beating Battleships should never of happened in the first place. This is off base specs, but if someone in a lower class happens to fit out really well against a badly fitted class above them that's fine, but it should never of been the norm.
However that progression is for one on one, but we rarely see this in eve, a group of a lower class should be able to take down the next class up, given enough numbers take out 2 classes above.
So quit your complaining about my HAC can't one on one a BS and win every time any more, it never should have in the first place, a HACs role is to eliminate the Cruisers in a fleet battle, not the battleships.
that chart makes no sense. i have seen plenty of assualt frigs beat destroyers 1v1, battle cruisers that can kill Bs's 1v1 and how you expect a carrier to kill a maurader that can tank well over twice the amount of dps that a carrier is even capable of putting out is beyond me. did you just arrange those by size?
i'd love to see the Hac pilot that can kill a well skilled Bs's pilot 1v1. the speed issue is a stacking issue, just like others have said. i know an easy way to fix it, make explosion velocity stack on top of missile velocity. being caldari thats what i would like to see anyway.
Originally by: Rohann
/emote pokes woody and moons him
I R NEKID SEE!?!?!?!?! |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |