|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:26:00 -
[1]
Ok.
Since the bonuses were announced TomB and I have been very active crunching numbers and exchanging pretty excel sheets.
Feedback has been plenty, more is always welcome. Patience is required to test the Tech 3 ships, since itÆs very hard to actually figure out what the subsystems do. That will hopefully change very soon once we get proper names and descriptions for the subsystems.
Common questions:
Will we see a Khanid Amarr offensive subsystem?
ItÆs being considered as Subsystem 4 at the moment.
Cloaking Subsystems, for real?
This also is being considered as Subsystem 4. But weÆve a lot of other ideas for electronic subsystems.
Electronic Subsystems no longer have one subsystem with different sensor strength, was it by design? Can we have it back?
It was by design yes, do you really want it back?
Where do tech 3 ships fit in?
Most simple way I can put it: Tech 2 û Focused. Tech 3 û Broad.
WeÆre trying to allow players to play multiple roles, without overshadowing tech 2.
Maximum targets 2, by design?
No, Lemur reminds me of fixing this everyday. I'm on it.
Work since we announced the Bonuses:
òSlot layout has changed drastically û A whole new approach was taken (on Singularity since 14:00 25.02.09). òMass distributed to subsystems û WeÆll possibly use this for tweaking later on. òA lot of attributes base attributes tweaked. òDrone bandwidth and capacity added to subsystems. òAll defensive subsystems have T2 resistances. òVarious bonuses have been tweaked (Values not functionality). òProduction: Subsystems have been made much cheaper, while the hulls have been made more expensive. (Chronotis will update you further on this)
Bugfixes:
òPossible to get over 100% resistances. òEngineering Subsystems not giving hardpoints (on Singularity since 14:00 25.02.09). òHeat ship bonus not being applied.
Next Days?
òTake a closer look at fitting requirements. òTake a closer look at capacitor. òMore bonus tweaking. òFollow feedback on slot changes
I urge you to test the changes on Singularity, the new slot layouts change everything.
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:34:00 -
[2]
Originally by: keepiru So there is light at the end of the tunnel. Hopefully its not an incoming train.
Eagerly awaiting a build that has the actual bugs wrt STRACs (cap recharge, turret hardpoints after leaving/entering ship) fixed, so that actual testing can occur. The clock is ticking.
Oh yeah, all those bugs are fixed also...
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:35:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Perry
Originally by: CCP Nozh
òAll defensive subsystems have T2 resistances.
Well the Amarr Defensive Subsystem 2 has none!
Not on Singularity yet, hopefully tomorrow or the day after.
|
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.25 20:38:00 -
[4]
Originally by: keepiru
Originally by: CCP Nozh Where do tech 3 ships fit in?
Most simple way I can put it: Tech 2 û Focused. Tech 3 û Broad.
WeÆre trying to allow players to play multiple roles, without overshadowing tech 2.
Where "Broad" currently reads as "HACs with 1 recon bonus", is that the final design?
Have faith there are more subsystems to come. Even though we wont be able to deliver them on March 10th.
|
|
|
CCP Chiliad
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 14:26:00 -
[5]
On the concerns on Tech 3 ship prices, you might want to keep up with the T3 Production thread. A lot has changed there in the past two weeks, a more recent estimation:
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=995617&page=6#161
|
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 19:55:00 -
[6]
Where do tech 3 ships fit in? I think I have to answer this in more detail and explain our current limitations and goals. As you know we're limited to three subsystems in the March 10th release. The fourth subsystem will then follow very shortly. With the first 3 subsystems we're trying to create useful baseline setups options, which don't stray far off the racial flavor that currently exists in EVE. Strategic Cruisers are not meant to take over roles. They're not supposed to be better than their Recon counterparts. They're not supposed to be better than their HAC counterparts. They're not supposed to be better than their commandship counterparts. They are meant to fulfill multiple roles. They are focused on heat, which means they are meant to fulfill those roles properly for a (not so) limited time. Selecting which bonuses belonged in the first iteration was not an easy task. We had different racial sensor strengths in the first release, it got cut. With three subsystems, we knew one would have a racial EW bonus, we just couldn't justify it. Once we've got a solid baseline, we can start thinking about the fourth variation (which I believe will enter the game before Tech 3 ships become a common commodity). We've got plenty of ideas (too many) concerning the roles for the upcoming subsystems, but I'll leave that discussion for a later thread. The assembly of the ships has become a great annoyance to me. Even though having proper descriptions with correct bonuses in-game will make things much easier; I still think the usability is a bit off-putting. Hopefully in the future we can combine the assembly window somehow with the fitting screen and add information about bonuses so you can see the bonuses and slot layout as you go. While IÆm at it I might add something about the prices of Strategic Cruisers. The goal has always been to have them considerably cheap, around the price of tech 2 cruisers. The subsystem cost will be about 1/8th of the hull itself, we want people to own multiple subsystems to mix and match as they see fit. If the price gets out of hand (we canÆt even predict it accurately ourselves) weÆll do something about it. What weÆre looking for from you guys is inconsistencies in attributes and bonuses. Tell us why the attributes donÆt make sense with the bonuses and what we can do to improve them.
PS. I'm falling in love with Proteus 13131 (fitting screen top to bottom).
PPS. I'm at home now without access to a Singularity client, but I'll be in tomorrow and will hopefully be able to give you some numbers.
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.02.27 19:55:00 -
[7]
Where do tech 3 ships fit in? I think I have to answer this in more detail and explain our current limitations and goals. As you know we're limited to three subsystems in the March 10th release. The fourth subsystem will then follow very shortly. With the first 3 subsystems we're trying to create useful baseline setups options, which don't stray far off the racial flavor that currently exists in EVE. Strategic Cruisers are not meant to take over roles. They're not supposed to be better than their Recon counterparts. They're not supposed to be better than their HAC counterparts. They're not supposed to be better than their commandship counterparts. They are meant to fulfill multiple roles. They are focused on heat, which means they are meant to fulfill those roles properly for a (not so) limited time. Selecting which bonuses belonged in the first iteration was not an easy task. We had different racial sensor strengths in the first release, it got cut. With three subsystems, we knew one would have a racial EW bonus, we just couldn't justify it. Once we've got a solid baseline, we can start thinking about the fourth variation (which I believe will enter the game before Tech 3 ships become a common commodity). We've got plenty of ideas (too many) concerning the roles for the upcoming subsystems, but I'll leave that discussion for a later thread. The assembly of the ships has become a great annoyance to me. Even though having proper descriptions with correct bonuses in-game will make things much easier; I still think the usability is a bit off-putting. Hopefully in the future we can combine the assembly window somehow with the fitting screen and add information about bonuses so you can see the bonuses and slot layout as you go. While IÆm at it I might add something about the prices of Strategic Cruisers. The goal has always been to have them considerably cheap, around the price of tech 2 cruisers. The subsystem cost will be about 1/8th of the hull itself, we want people to own multiple subsystems to mix and match as they see fit. If the price gets out of hand (we canÆt even predict it accurately ourselves) weÆll do something about it. What weÆre looking for from you guys is inconsistencies in attributes and bonuses. Tell us why the attributes donÆt make sense with the bonuses and what we can do to improve them.
PS. I'm falling in love with Proteus 13131 (fitting screen top to bottom).
PPS. I'm at home now without access to a Singularity client, but I'll be in tomorrow and will hopefully be able to give you some numbers.
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 11:24:00 -
[8]
Small update:
We focused too much on having fewer slots with "preferred bonuses". Players chose subsystems based on bonuses and ended up with sub-par slot layouts. Players then started choosing subsystems based on slots and were unhappy with their bonuses. To fix this we reduced the slot amount "gap" (by adding slots) and boosted the less preferred bonuses.
CPU and Powergrid was revisited as promised. I'm hoping the fittings are pretty tight and that you have to downgrade some modules to be able to fit everything properly.
We've also now added names and descriptions to all subsystems, which should bring some ease to fitting. The description also holds bonus information.
Stuff that we're looking into:
- Tengu: Passive Tank, too uber.
- Legion: Capacitor might be a bit over the top
- Proteus: Might remove one hardpoint of the drone focused offensive system
Edit: Also added a remote repair bonus to all of the resistance based defensive subsystems. Only amount, so their limited in range and do consume quite a bit of cap.
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 16:05:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Seishi Maru Loki 2.5% falloff bonus per level is pathetic. Remove the bonus for once then. Better than joke like this.
Th eproblem is combined falloff and range bonus on arties? Then select Only falloff as bonus and give a proper bonus per level.
This has actually already been changed internally to a 5% falloff bonus.
Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
|
CCP Nozh
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.03.04 16:07:00 -
[10]
Originally by: MotherMoon Edited by: MotherMoon on 04/03/2009 16:05:27 nozh, is that falloff only now? or 5% to fall off and optimal?
ether way, good change :)
Falloff only. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games |
|
|
|
CCP Chiliad
|
Posted - 2009.03.08 21:14:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Tonto Auri Can we please have subsystem bonuses copied into the main ship description to be seen when you "Show Info" your own assembled ship?
Yes, this is one of the things we'll be looking into in improving the T3 assembly and subsystem fitting.
|
|
|
|
|