|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 19 post(s) |
|
CCP WeirdFish
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 13:45:00 -
[1]
Rockets and there balance is being looked into at the moment have no fear ! :)
|
|
|
CCP WeirdFish
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 16:02:00 -
[2]
Probably not in time for dominion but we are working on it.
|
|
|
CCP WeirdFish
|
Posted - 2009.11.12 15:11:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington
Originally by: CCP WeirdFish Probably not in time for dominion but we are working on it.
Because changing two numbers by fairly obvious amounts takes months of meditation and spiritual cleansing.
Not at all but getting someone to sit down and change them means stopping them working on what they are doing.
Its not a case of the task requiring 5 hail Mary's its just that we are all extremely busy.
|
|
|
CCP WeirdFish
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:53:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Mohenna
Could you elaborate a bit more on the direction of the fix? Is the explosion speed simply lacking 200 (somebody not typing it in) as it looks like comparing the different missiles?
I'm afraid i cant, you would need to talk to a game designer about the specifics of the change. Just telling you what i know :)
|
|
|
CCP Abathur
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.01.20 21:01:00 -
[5]
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 20/01/2010 21:01:16
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Im quite sure there are more important issues like adding drone mining bonus on moros and proteus or something similiar.
I was gonna look into rockets until I was distracted by this amazing suggestion.
Edit - Yes, it's in our backlog and not forgotten.
|
|
|
CCP Adida
|
Posted - 2010.04.28 14:37:00 -
[6]
Removed trolling posts. If you are dissatisfied with something please be constructive.
Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 21:38:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Krennel Darius Yay rockets by 2014 \o/.
We'll just go ahead and stop working on these changes siting on our internal servers then shall we if you want to wait till then
Rocket changes slipped from the Tyrannis release window due to delays in tasks above it but are being worked on currently internally as we indicated previously in another forum thread that this summer is a good time for balancing work and it sits at the top of our balancing backlog.
What we cannot say in game design is when you will see the changes publicly as the release windows/patches are subject to much wider scheduling considerations and issues. So for now the take away message is they are getting love and making their way down the development pipeline and will be released in some future release.
However to digress on that CSM quote a little since I have been on the 'CCP council' as part of the team representing eve game design since the CSM was conceived at every summit besides the last one. Perhaps I can attempt to clarify make things clearer with a 'view from the trenches' of eve development as we seem to be misquoted here or we just dropped the ball at conveying the correct message there (which is possible, mistakes happen!)
...'I heard no fixes or improvements for 18 months rabble rabble 11one11one111!'
It is more correct view to say our 'major' project slots are all provisionally filled for at least the next three expansions (You should all hopefully be aware of Incarna for example which is our biggest ever feature in development. These naturally have big budgets and lots of advance planning and development which spans many releases) and that there is less room for the major CSM project requests such as role system overhauls to an ACL format/addition of security clearance levels ideas for eg (stuff we have talked about in the previous fanfest roundtables and with the CSM) which is a complex and major project with high technical risk alongside those.
However related to that area of game mechanics, we did very recently internally create the diplomat role (allows you to manage a corporations standings) following on from the recent standings management overhaul in Tyrannis which added many usability improvements to starbase/station management and the difficulty surrounding standings management as a sneak peak of smaller sets of improvements making their way down the development pipeline if not the complete corp role system overhaul in its entirety.
As mentioned in the minutes, a hulluva lot of time is going into lag investigation and it is important to us that we try to alleviate this where we can. Every time we run a mass test, QA and software are trialling new fixes or deploying specific logging tools to investigate why modules get stuck deactivating for an example of one symptoms under investigation.
We have always spent ~20-30% of our development time on bugs and hardening. As history should show there is always a typically a slew of improvements and fixes alongside each major expansion which matter to many players if not necessarily yourself personally always.
That cadence has not changed at all and even got better given that we carried on working on Planetary Interaction as a major feature (stuff that spans multiple sprints and teams) for a second concurrent release and that is unprecedented in our history to iterate so soon after a first release on a major feature with almost the same level of development resources.
...
Now lets see how many of you can pay attention to the next part!
If you want to respond to my comments on the CSM minutes quote, take it to another appropriate thread. Let's just keep it to rockets discussion here if possible. I just wanted to detail that rockets are being worked on and that the quote you mention from the minutes is incorrect or out of context.
-Chronotis
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Helicity Boson can you tell us/give an indication of what sort of fix it is you have sitting on your internal test servers? and possibly when/if you will finally release it in the coming 2-6 years"
A boost, we recognise that rockets do not really pack the punch they should when they compare to other weapons of the equivalent class. We cannot really say more openly until we get to the point where further details will be released in the usual blogs as we near the public testing stage. Needless to say we have kept up with the feedback at the start of the thread when there was good discussion going on so aware of the various suggestions.
When is much harder for any of us to answer, each upcoming release has a focus but we do release two major content expansions and the next one is the winter release of those so at the very least, it will be part of that.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.07.13 23:59:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Dragon Greg
Well, I have to say this is one of the better recent attempts to spin :P
'twas merely responding to the original reply we quoted where at least when it came to rockets, a statement from us of 2014 as a release date for the improvement was wrong and we wanted to correct that given this change has begun its journey down the development pipeline. We have been keeping tabs on the discussion here for when the work was due to begin which it has.
However I am most certainly guilty of digressing and perhaps divulging too much of things not wholly related to rockets alone and indeed should be a discussion and focus of another better thread started on purpose by us by those of us concerned with more than just rockets alone. That shall be corrected in the near future to separate the topics which was our intention.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.07.15 10:56:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Duchess Starbuckington Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 14/07/2010 19:05:14
Originally by: pmchem Chronotis, can you also check out Heavy Assault Missiles when you rebalance Rockets? They're basically the Rockets of medium sized ships and suck compared to HMLs except for very rare cases.
Thanks.
How exactly are they broken? They work fine. If you're firing them from outside scram range with no tackle etc. that's your problem.
In exactly the same way, as rockets. To a lesser degree ONLY due to the fact that relative speed dispersion for cruisers is less than for frigates. So the difference is less noticable, but it's still there. Torps, the same, but it's even harder to notice, as the difference in speed between slowboating, AB'ing, MWD'ing BS and the flying torp is small.
This is one of the primary issues surrounding the possible changes and which route we take. The unguided missiles from rockets to HAMs or torpedoes were intended to be much more effective weapons against larger ship classes which is reflected in their stats rather than be equally effective vs the same hulls. However as Tonto points out the relative velocity and sig radius min/max is much less variable as you move up to cruisers and battleships. Ships like HAM drake or HAM sacrilege perform their roles well as do the torp ravens. However rocket crows or vengeance lack the punch these lot serve and that is most likely what we will address.
If we still intend to keep this role for the unguided missiles, then a damage increase would be done along with some changes to explosion velocity and radius with perhaps some changes to the light missiles to ensure they are effective anti-frigate missiles for example if we went that route.
|
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.07.20 13:09:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Mohenna
...So, the rockets are in their current state (since ages ago) because, although they're a known defect, they are a defect "by design" and therefore require a big change...
Explorer is being too pedantic there for how we classify things from their engineering standpoint. The analogy would be that if design called for the accelerator pedal to be on the roof of the car instead the floor, the engineers would go away and do that. Now when a customer comes along as says this is silly, they respond with "this is how it was designed."
There is indeed a fault in the design/product, however the implementation is 'as designed' and thus the design must change (correctly, the precise balancing of attributes which game design does) to fix it. That has not been the cause of the delays however. It was more down to higher priority design tasks sitting above it in queue as I stated in an earlier reply.
Rockets/Missiles are being worked on over the summer (most of us are away on vacation currently as we all take it at the same time to help project planning) and you should see a proper blog discussing the initial changes when we are ready for public testing september onwards typically.
|
|
|
CCP Atropos
|
Posted - 2010.07.20 18:55:00 -
[12]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis most of us are away on vacation currently...
Aren't you away on vacation currently?
Software Engineer Core Engineering |
|
|
CCP Explorer
|
Posted - 2010.07.20 22:14:00 -
[13]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis Explorer is being too pedantic ...
Erlendur S. Thorsteinsson Software Director EVE Online, CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.09.07 17:13:00 -
[14]
Originally by: yani dumyat
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We'll just go ahead and stop working on these changes siting on our internal servers then shall we if you want to wait till then
This was posted by CCP Chronotis on Friday 13th August, I'm not usually superstitious but Friday the 13th is an ominous date and he's not been seen for nearly a month now, should we send out a search party?
Edit - added pic cos it always makes me smile
another quote from me :p
Quote:
Rockets/Missiles are being worked on over the summer (most of us are away on vacation currently as we all take it at the same time to help project planning) and you should see a proper blog discussing the initial changes when we are ready for public testing september onwards typically.
oh hey, it's september and guess what we are working on - another week or so and we'll look to hotdrop some changes onto sisi for you if we get green light as it is being used for lag fix testing right now.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.09.10 16:34:00 -
[15]
Originally by: yani dumyat Question for CCP Chronotis. The rocket changes seemed at one point to be tied in to AF 4th bonus, is this still the case?
I'm praying for the day I see AF's get fixed and can stop disturbing you and the rest of assembly hall with my bad attempts at rocket/hawk humour.
assault frigate balancing is separate to rockets and not on the immediate horizon for release like rockets (aka in the backlog, not assigned to a release but could be pulled in if time allows). The current approach is to release rocket changes, then do assault frigs after that in a subsequent release. The issue is they are scenario specific to where they under perform. One approach we have explored a little is splitting the varieties more to give a more distinct difference in role so one may be remain the armoured gank 'mini-hac' whilst the other might fulfill a heavy tackler role perhaps as one idea to cover the two main scenarios and potential roles.
(also we need to rename these and hacs back to frigates and cruisers. Always weird to call them ships!)
|
|
|
CCP Jericho
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 03:18:00 -
[16]
Inappropriate post removed.
|
|
|
CCP Adida
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 19:39:00 -
[17]
removed a rant post from the thread
Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
|
CCP Adida
C C P C C P Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.09.14 20:05:00 -
[18]
Removed a post that had previously been deleted from another post.
Adida Community Rep CCP Hf, EVE Online
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2010.09.20 16:25:00 -
[19]
a quick update - the first set of balance changes to rockets should end up on sisi next week (possibly earlier but at the very least next week). For now as we mentioned previously, none of the changes should be too surprising, the explosion velocity got a boost along with the overall damage (RoF decreased whilst rocket damage increased) alongside increase in clip size). Specific numbers and detailed info on the changes will be posted next week in a sticky thread here in this forum at the to get the testing and feedback kicked off.
|
|
|
|
|