EVE Search - Multiplicity: Working on Mass?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Game Development Forum

Multiplicity: Working on Mass?

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Topic
Alek Row Silent Step	Posted - 2008.08.27 21:42:00 - [1] Multiplicity * I can see that the MWD reactivation delay went byebye (good) * Did you already applied the planned mass/agility changes that you were thinking about? The ships mass is still at a terrible state, I don't find any differences, do you guys have more news on this? Alek Row
Wrayeth Trans Eve Organization	Posted - 2008.08.28 12:23:00 - [2] I'd like to know this, too. The tempest's and the machariel's mass are ridiculously high. Sure, the machariel with a nano fit on TQ is rather broken, but not everyone flies nano. Since nanos are being nerfed I can't see any reason for the high mass on the mach. Oh, and the tempest...just... Unless there are major changes in the works to make it not suck, I can't see how giving it one of the highest masses of all battleships is needed. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!"
Raguun LDK Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.08.28 12:54:00 - [3] Originally by: Alek Row Multiplicity * I can see that the MWD reactivation delay went byebye (good) * Did you already applied the planned mass/agility changes that you were thinking about? The ships mass is still at a terrible state, I don't find any differences, do you guys have more news on this? Alek Row How about scramblers? Do they still shut down mwd? What was gerat idea in my opinion And whats wrong with tempest? They just want all BS'es to be same. Cmon leave some difference between them. Or set all large turrets optimal/faloff to same numbers! Like apocalypse with pulses can reach 110km optimal (close range weapon) while AC cant reach 20km!! Now lets talk about who is broken.
Alek Row Silent Step	Posted - 2008.08.29 10:33:00 - [4] Edited by: Alek Row on 29/08/2008 10:34:58 So, are you guys still tweaking the mass or is it already done? Could you please explain why the race that needs to dance the most (range wise) is now the one with the highest mass and average agility? Do you really think that making our ships fast only in a straight line is a buff to the Minmatar playstyle? Some insight would be nice.

CCP Dionysus	Posted - 2008.08.29 16:48:00 - [5] Multi stuff IS NOT IN A FINAL STATE.

Delichon The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET	Posted - 2008.08.29 17:05:00 - [6] Originally by: CCP Dionysus Multi stuff IS NOT IN A FINAL STATE. Could you (or any one from the dev. team) please give us ETA on the final stuff - meaning any patch worth testing? ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. They will be nerfing you directly next. EVE A new game every 6 months. (c) Atomos Darksun
Alek Row Silent Step	Posted - 2008.08.29 17:37:00 - [7] Originally by: CCP Dionysus Multi stuff IS NOT IN A FINAL STATE. Thank you. It was the lack of updated patch notes/dev blogs/replies on the official threads that made me ask it in the first place. Apologies for the trouble.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.29 19:10:00 - [8] Originally by: CCP Dionysus Multi stuff IS NOT IN A FINAL STATE. Obviously most of Eve is aware that the things on both Multi and Sisi are not in a final state... it's why they're the test server. However, CCP Nozh asked us to log into Multi to continue testing and providing feedback on the speed changes. Does this mean that we should no longer provide the requested feedback since it's not in a final state? -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi
Sexiest Beast Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.29 20:54:00 - [9] Originally by: Liang Nuren Does this mean that we should no longer provide the requested feedback since it's not in a final state? 1. If you understand why we have SISI then why dont you explain to others in a much more constructive way. 2. Have you considered that due to EVE being an internet bsed game their might be some language barriers in such understanding. 3. Have you noticed that everytime theres a blog or a small change on SISI there is a market response on Tranquility 4. Was there any real need to be sarcastic Most people who play on the test server(s) dont do much apart form PVP in FD- When CCP start adding various BCP details and changes the whole ****ing universe starts going crazy. This is mostly because people dont obviously understand the SISI environment. CCP are very much guilty in this too but its generally cause of the way development works. Whenever CCP release details of feature changes people believe that its "Final State" so jump on and start forum baiting and crying. When CCP dont release any information we get crappy released content on TQ which is usually buggy, broken, poorly thought out, and sometimes very exploitable . . Remember the black ops sploit ? What stance do you want CCP to take ? Either way they usually get loads of flack from people who want the game in their own image. Personally (just to be more constructive) I think that the "in development" part of the forum should be continually updated and have more of a relation directly to whats going on in the SISI universe. CCP have always worked with the playerbase and in more recent years features have hit SISI early and undergone more feedback and critique before going live. As a previous posted also stated he wanted to test actual content thats going live rather than in development you can also see another pod pilot with SISI missconceptions. Although I personally love to login to see how i can get a jump on skills and the market come patch day. (sometimes ive won and sometimes ive lost) Sorry for the long post but you really wound me up. However; unlike your usual posts. MAYBE the wording should be "potential" speed changes.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.29 21:48:00 - [10] Originally by: Sexiest Beast 1. If you understand why we have SISI then why dont you explain to others in a much more constructive way. Honestly, that was being constructive. From my perspective, I saw someone ask if the changes had gone through because things were still "pretty bad" on the test server. Then the CCP Rep yells at him that things aren't in a final state. What does that mean if not "I don't want this feedback"? Quote: 2. Have you considered that due to EVE being an internet bsed game their might be some language barriers in such understanding. Yes, I did. However, I couldn't find another interpretation for this single sentence response. Quote: 3. Have you noticed that everytime theres a blog or a small change on SISI there is a market response on Tranquility Nope, because I don't play the market. Quote: 4. Was there any real need to be sarcastic I wasn't being sarcastic. It was a very legitimate question (much like the OP, actually). CCP Dionysus, to me, seems to be saying that CCP does not want feedback from Multi because it's not in a final state. CCP Nozh says they do, but posted quite some time ago. Who's right? Hard to say from my perspective. Quote: Most people who play on the test server(s) dont do much apart form PVP in FD- When CCP start adding various BCP details and changes the whole **ing universe starts going crazy. This is mostly because people dont obviously understand the SISI environment. The only part of Eve that matters to me is the ability to blow stuff up and the money to support it. Have fun with your market details and all that, but I really couldn't care less about that aspect of the game currently. If I wanted to play spreadsheets in space I'd fire up a copy of SE5 or go back to work. Quote: Whenever CCP release details of feature changes people believe that its "Final State" so jump on and start forum baiting and crying. Well, so when CCP releases something on the test server and says "help us test it", I assume that they want help testing it for all aspects of play. If it makes the game suck not to be able to undock, we should point that out. If it makes the game suck because blasters now can't hit in web range, we should point that out. If it makes the game suck because missiles are unbelievably overpowered, we should point that out. When CCP says they're fixing some things, posts a new copy on a test server, and asks us to test it, it's very reasonable to point out that some of the things that they said they were addressing are not there. Quote: What stance do you want CCP to take ? Either way they usually get loads of flack from people who want the game in their own image. I'd start with CCP not yelling at users that are willing to log in and help test and then ask fairly innocuous questions about the state of affairs. Also, I'd like to ask just how our testing of changes helps if they know that they're changing exactly what we're testing, and possibly by how much? Would a better response have been: "No, we haven't changed this on Multi yet. We're still working out what the exact changes are. An update is that we've decided to definitely lower the mass on ships X, Y, and Z. Ships A, B, and C are also going to have their mass raised. We'll post in this forum and make a dev blog when we've decided on some stuff for you to test". Then of course there's the question of whether the stuff is really ready to test without most of the changes being there. Quote:** Personally (just to be more constructive) I think that the "in development" part of the forum should be continually updated and have more of a relation directly to whats going on in the SISI universe. Why yes, I agree. More communication is always good... and CCP is historically fairly decent at providing this. -Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi

DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.30 09:37:00 - [11] With the release of empyrean age 1.1 CCP is probably start working on the subject. So in a couple of weeks we probably gonna see the "speed nerf" patch uploaded on Singularity. ________________ God is my Wingman
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.30 21:02:00 - [12] Originally by: CCP Dionysus Multi stuff IS NOT IN A FINAL STATE. A sarcastic quip aimed at someone providing feedback regarding changes on a test-server we were asked to provide feedback on, in the forum provided for test-server feedback.
Marlenus Caldari Ironfleet Towing And Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.30 21:35:00 - [13] Yeah, I gotta say, at this point it's really unclear what you want feedback on. Has the stuff needing feedback been rolled out on any server? ------------------ Ironfleet.com
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2008.08.31 21:01:00 - [14] begs the question if they really want any ^^ - putting the gist back into logistics

CCP Lingorm C C P	Posted - 2008.09.01 09:03:00 - [15] I think what Dionysus was saying was that "after the testing of the Speed changes on Sisi, we recognised that it had some issues that needed to be sorted. We removed it from the Current Patch (Empyrean Age 1.1) and put it on Multi for people to keep testing while we finished work on the Patch." So the speed changes are on Multi ... are they in their 'final release to public state' ... No. But we are still listening to any new feedback on the changes. Has there been any changes to the speed change on multi. I think a couple of small changes have gone through, but again this is still a work in progress.

Fullmetal Jackass	Posted - 2008.09.01 13:21:00 - [16] Not real happy about the mass changes for minmatar Battleships. Minmatar ships are supposed to be the fast agile ships with less hp. I think you all should look at the way bonuses stack rather then changing the base stats to compensate for slot placement. Maybe have modules like overdrives, nanofiber internals, and I-stabs give only 50% of their bonus for the second unit and little if any for the third. I mean logicly, In the real world, there is only so much internal stucture you can replace to reduce mass. Increasing the power of your propulsion (overdrives) meets with diminished returns of weight and robbed horsepower to run the boosters in short order. Inertial stablizers are complete fiction, but how much can you possibly reduce the effects of inertia by fitting redundant systems? Short version is: look at speed/agility bonus stacking, and leave the basic idea/function/feel/philosophy of the ship alone.
Liang Nuren Perkone	Posted - 2008.09.01 15:18:00 - [17] Originally by: CCP Lingorm I think what Dionysus was saying was that "after the testing of the Speed changes on Sisi, we recognised that it had some issues that needed to be sorted. We removed it from the Current Patch (Empyrean Age 1.1) and put it on Multi for people to keep testing while we finished work on the Patch." So the speed changes are on Multi ... are they in their 'final release to public state' ... No. But we are still listening to any new feedback on the changes. Has there been any changes to the speed change on multi. I think a couple of small changes have gone through, but again this is still a work in progress. <3 Thanks for the explanation, Lingorm. :) -Liang
El Yatta Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.09.01 20:57:00 - [18] Originally by: CCP Lingorm I think what Dionysus was saying was that "after the testing of the Speed changes on Sisi, we recognised that it had some issues that needed to be sorted. We removed it from the Current Patch (Empyrean Age 1.1) and put it on Multi for people to keep testing while we finished work on the Patch." So the speed changes are on Multi ... are they in their 'final release to public state' ... No. But we are still listening to any new feedback on the changes. Has there been any changes to the speed change on multi. I think a couple of small changes have gone through, but again this is still a work in progress. Thanks for the info Lingorm. Can I ask WHY there havent been changes? There has been an overwhelming armada of feedback on the test server, on this forum, and the others, as well as on Scrapheap Challenge. Why not take this opportunity to feedback what you have learnt from that player feedback, and make the big changes that are necessary to get this speed-patch anywhere near "not totally gamebreaking for plenty of non-nano ships". Plenty have people have discussed in detail how broken blasterships are, how strong missiles and possibly lasers too are, and how /many/ minmatar ships e.g. huginn, vagabond, rapier, are struggling. If you take this on board now, as I'm sure you have been, there will be time to test those changes as well. It seems rather pointless to give more of the same feedback on an un-changed multiplicity. We've already said it: blaster tracking is hopeless without 90% webs and this leaves large blasterboats completely useless up close AND a bit further out. They have suffered an effective 75% nerf to tracking.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.09.02 07:18:00 - [19] While you're testing changes, could you please finally address the issues with docking? For some stations the docking range is completely abusive, you could move 30km away from the exit and still be within docking range. The docking timer should be dynamic with the ship class. Right now it takes twenty dreads in siege mode to kill a carrier who aggroed something, before it can dock. it should be something like this: - capitals: 3-4 minutes before it can redock after undocking or after aggro. - Battleships: 90 seconds. - Other ships: fine as it is.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.