Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Wrangler
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 14:27:00 -
[1]
Live Dev Blogs are back and first out is one about speed balancing! Greyscale and Fendahl will be prepared to answer your every question in this area and as always the Live Dev Blog will be hosted by Mindstar. This event will take place on Wednesday, 8th October, in the in-game channel "Live Dev Blog". It starts at 20:00 GMT and lasts for about one hour.
Post all your questions in this thread, but keep in mind that the topic for the evening is speed balancing!
Wrangler Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Email
Reducing lag in EVE: The Jita Conundrum - StacklessIO or: How We Reduced Lag - Such Stuff As Dreams Are Made On - EVE64 - More to come... |
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 14:39:00 -
[2]
I'm wondering about your rational for doing this nerf. It seems like you are nerfing the effect(nano) rather than the cause(nano). Do you have any plans, other than nerfing nano's, to actually fix this? Or is now the time to train Caldari and just not bother with speed at all?
|
Kappas.
Galaxy Punks Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:01:00 -
[3]
Originally by: LaVista Vista I'm wondering about your rational for doing this nerf. It seems like you are nerfing the effect(nano) rather than the cause(nano). Do you have any plans, other than nerfing nano's, to actually fix this? Or is now the time to train Caldari and just not bother with speed at all?
Pretty much the same here, i really don't like the idea of the web/scram changes |
Xantina
Lyonesse. KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:09:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Xantina on 06/10/2008 15:10:18 I am wondering how you plan to accomplish to bring speeds back in line so ships are no longer untouchable while being able to spit missiles at their slower counterparts, while at the same time not making interceptors and some HACs pretty much obsolete. Under the assumption that this can't be done, will there be a follow-up patch "soon" to fix e.g. Vagabonds (always assuming they'll loose their current role by this patch, and need a new one).
|
Gripen
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:11:00 -
[5]
I have one obvious question: WHEN???
|
ArmyOfMe
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:25:00 -
[6]
well, ill make my question rather simple then.
a speed nerf isnt needed at all, its your gamemechanics that made nanos the only thing a small gang can use to survive in 0,0 against big alliances, titans, bubbles and jumpbridges, so my question is WHY??
Originally by: deadmaus
Because by the time we had calmed Plague down after he heard BoB were back in the vicinity it was too late to do anything |
The Froon
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:35:00 -
[7]
Edited by: The Froon on 06/10/2008 15:38:30 Edited by: The Froon on 06/10/2008 15:37:15 As gamebreaking speeds are a problem, would a speed cap be a better way of balancing rather than web/scram changes? Depending on type of ship any speeds over a certain limit would generate hull damage for example. This way very short bursts of speed to escape are still do-able but combat at those speeds would be impossible. Failing that just setting a max speed without the hull-damage effects would be better. Normal 4-5k/s nanoships are easily countered as it is(BS heavy neuts,rapiers etc) so the only problem are the 15k/s crows zooming about |
w00kie
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:36:00 -
[8]
nerf the nanos!
|
Kromaatikse Alain
Gallente Thiokol Spacefaring Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:40:00 -
[9]
I get the impression that interceptors won't be affected much, but that it will be much harder to use speed as your *only* means of tanking, especially on ships which aren't inherently supposed to be super-fast. It will still be quite possible to close distance quickly, I bet, so the SOP of a blaster-Thorax is not nerfed.
My question is about the effects of warp disruption weapons on the MWD. Will it just be a certain number of "points" required to disable it (which seems quite reasonable to me), or will it be specific module types? What effect, if any, will warp-core stabilisers have on this? (Bearing in mind that WCS have drawbacks of their own.)
An obvious solution to the "supersonic missile spammer" problem mentioned above, would be to cause launchers to jam if the ship is travelling faster than the missile would. This would balance missiles against turrets in this context, preventing ships that are effectively invulnerable from being dangerous. I wonder if the devs have thought of that one?
--- The key to knowledge is not to rely on others to teach it to you. |
Megumi Yumiko
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 15:42:00 -
[10]
How do you make the inty's and the hac's still something to learn for? and is there going to be a missile nerfe as if you nerf the speed you also need to nerfe missiles somehow..
|
|
Treelox
Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:02:00 -
[11]
Will there be a transcript or a written dev blog anytime this week for those of us unable or unwilling to attend a live dev blog at this time of day? --
|
Jacob Mei
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:23:00 -
[12]
What are your plans for ships that have a high speed base to begin with? Such as the Firetail, Scythe fleet issue, Machariel and so forth? It would be rather unfair to nerf these ships. -------------------------------- To borrow a phrase:
Players who post are like stars, there are bright ones and those who are dim.
|
Arte
AFK
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:25:00 -
[13]
"What's more important. Do the ends justify the means or are the means to achieve your aims of nerfing speed equally important here"
"Are there one or more aspects of the original nerf proprosals that you feel are needed and would still like to introduce as a gameplay change "
I ask these because a couple of the original ideas smacked of offerings to those that would be smited by the God of 'Balance' with these changes, as they preyed at the temple of 'Gameplay'.
|
Cat Gilligan
Caldari THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:28:00 -
[14]
Why the wide sweeping changes with speed that affect everything, even those that didn't need a speed hit (ie: interceptors and everything ELSE that isn't speed fitted at all getting slower)? We all know the problem is with cruiser sized ships and larger being able to reach insane speeds so why not just speed cap THEM instead of shooting everything else?
|
Morel Nova
z3r0 Gravity Utterly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:30:00 -
[15]
I would like to know if you have any solutions for blaster ships if the changes go through as planned. The web changes will cause huge problems for gallente ships in their trademark blaster role, who need good webs to lock down their target and kill them before capping out. Maybe web bonuses or tracking or range changes to make up for it?
Put in space whales!
|
manasi
Caldari Ceptacemia Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:37:00 -
[16]
Only one question...the idea of balancing the speeds seems effective, but brings out other issues, i.e. changes in all tactics relating to frigates and cruisers. What is being to done to adjust weapon systems that would not scale to the speed needed?
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:16:00 -
[17]
When the changes appeared briefly on Sisi they highlighted a problem with the tracking formula that, until now, 90% webs had largely covered up.
Namely: the tracking formula makes no account of the fact that as a target gets closer it subtends a larger angle and is therefore easier to hit. Because this is missing from the tracking formula on TQ it is possible to, for example, miss another Battleship at close range with large Blasters. With the web changes, the situation becomes even worse for large Blasters (e.g. a T1, unfit cruiser can kite a Blaster-Megathron all day at 1.5km).
My question is: Have you considered fixing the tracking formula to account for effective target size? There were a number of good suggestions on page 18-19 of the Blaster thread (Game Development forum) for using æfalloffÆ to modify the signature radius of the target as it gets closer, using a simple logarithmic function.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
Dwindlehop
Uninvited Guests
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:17:00 -
[18]
Will speed fit rigged interceptors with T2 modules be able to outrun light missiles? Will they be able to outrun Warrior IIs?
Is the ability to re-approach the gate and jump back through under various conditions (one web, multiple webs, webs plus warp scrambler, webs plus afterburner) a game design consideration for speed balance? Can you elaborate on those design goals?
|
Avalira
Caldari Tau Ceti Green Card Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:28:00 -
[19]
Originally by: LaVista Vista It seems like you are nerfing the effect(nano) rather than the cause(nano).
Did you mean: the effect(nano) rather than the cause(blob)?
------------- Selling the following: Ark Jump Freighter
|
Mashie Saldana
Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:37:00 -
[20]
Did I do the right thing skilling up for a missile spewing Damnation?
|
|
Meridius Dex
Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:38:00 -
[21]
I too am in great support of the announced changes (web/scram/mass/speed) and also feel your additional attention to missiles based on relative ship classes shows additional insight on the part of the dev team.
I cannot wait for the changes to be implemented, so I second the poster above who's one question for the live blog is: when? -- Meridius Dex --
Amarr = EVE on Hard setting |
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:56:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Avalira
Originally by: LaVista Vista It seems like you are nerfing the effect(nano) rather than the cause(nano).
Did you mean: the effect(nano) rather than the cause(blob)?
Yeah, I'm sorry
|
TimGascoigne
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:13:00 -
[23]
Q: why do you intend to nerf the minmatar recons? what was so overpowered about them in the first place.?
|
TimGascoigne
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:21:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Avalira
Did you mean: the effect(nano) rather than the cause(blob)?
There is absolutely nothing you can do about blobs. blobs are caused by the fact that nobody is willing to be the first to be outnumbered and numbers always helps.
changing game mechanics is completely ineffectual against blobs. You're better off trying to change how people think ( which cannot be done).
|
Drumul Oaselor
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:33:00 -
[25]
Question: Are missiles or any other weapons being nerfed (or adapted) in order to suit these speed changes ? This is regarding all the rumours that have been circulating.
|
EyeCeeYou
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:45:00 -
[26]
How, if at all, does the new server tech (Stackless IO) and hardware (Wolfsdales) change the speed hard-cap, which IIRC was one of the main justifications for the changes?
If the new tech you're using permits present speeds, then perhaps the entire speed nerf should be revaluated. As I understand it, slowing down the intys has required changes in turn to missles, which is going to affect balance across the board.
If existing speed cap can be handled by the new tech, perhaps internal specs for future design that keep the cap as it is coupled with specific nerfs to ships that shouldn't be going quite so fast(HACs) is a viable alternative worth investigating.
|
SomeHardLovin
The Nietzian Way Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 18:49:00 -
[27]
Edited by: SomeHardLovin on 06/10/2008 18:51:57
The problems as I see them are:
1. Cruisers that go faster than interceptors and frigates and generally ALSO have really good tank and tracking.. nothing can kill them (well.. ok mostly nothing). They should either be fast with bad tracking or slower with good tank.
2. Assault Frigates are worthless. They *should* be good ships to fly and definetly need a bit more speed.
3. Battleships should NEVER do more than 1200m/s. Thats just silly.
The speed of everything else is.. er.. satisfactory as far as i'm concerned. I would LOVE to see a rebirth of small ship combat. I'm sick of Titans. ---
* The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance. |
Ishina Fel
Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 19:14:00 -
[28]
My question for the Live DevBlog:
- What has changed in the latest internal revisions compared to what we had seen on Singularity? A quick 30sec breakdown would be cool, and it keeps us from raising concerns that are already addressed.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:02:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Dwindlehop Will speed fit rigged interceptors with T2 modules be able to outrun light missiles? Will they be able to outrun Warrior IIs?
Is the ability to re-approach the gate and jump back through under various conditions (one web, multiple webs, webs plus warp scrambler, webs plus afterburner) a game design consideration for speed balance? Can you elaborate on those design goals?
I think CCP defined those speeds as over the top in a previous blog. You just should not be able to outrun drones whose task is to kill small, fast things. Same with light missiles.
Here's my question: Marauders have been designed with the ability to kill small ships easily with their main weapons. NPCs, really, since their cost and sensor strength make it clear they're not really viable pvp ships. That's one of their perks.
If you tinker with webs (as it should, 90% mod for one module is a tad overpowered), how will you keep that ability intact in Marauders?
BTW, keep Domination webs as the best webs, they're absolutely no point changing changing the meta hierarchy, aside from screwing up their users. ------------------------------------------
|
Sky Grunthor
Minmatar The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:22:00 -
[30]
Uggg.
CCP, DO NOT DO A LIVE DEV BLOG FOR SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE!
This is ******ed. All a live dev blog does is muddle the facts. You never present the actual mechanics of anything when you do a live dev blog. Its a stupid promotional stunt.
The Speed Nerf or whatever you want to call it is much too hot an issue to do it in this manner.
Write a freaking dev blog about it that actually has something concrete in it. Give us meat and not fluff. Hell, write 3 or 5 dev blogs about it. But PUT IT IN WRITING that way we can actually read it and decipher it and not try to glean from unclear verbal communication what you are actually saying.
Sheesh!
------------------------------------------------- Search: Sky Grunthor |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |