Originally by: S'T'A'L'K'E'R

---

Originally by: John MacCoy

---

Edited by: John MacCoy on 21/11/2009 04:25:10
Cancel Dominion.

There I said it.

This whole thing is a shambles. You dont have a clue what you're doing anymore. You had changes that everyone loved and because everyone loved them you thought something was wrong therefore they had to be changed. You then realised that everyone hated the newer changes so you then made even more changes that everyone hated. Now everyone is really p****d so you decide to reverse all changes to one thing and completely mess up the other changes to something that resembles the defence of luxemburg in World War Two.

---

Dominion in 1st Dec is OK - new planets is ready, new sov system is ready too (i hope). Just cancel all capital changes, work at them and put it on TQ later - with New Eden stuff for example. Presented capital rebalance is clueless crap.

---

Originally by: CCP Hammer

---

We werenÆt entirely happy with the direction and balancing of MOMs before development of Dominion began. Even during the SISI tests they still werenÆt falling into place for us. They were potentially too powerful and that would have resulted in a small minority having a lot of fun at the cost of thousands who would be instapopped in 0.0. So we tried to tune them again to a point we felt was balanced, but then the role of the ships wasnÆt clear once we started to lower the damage. Instead, they started to blur with dreads and carriers.

---

Originally by: Eheufaucan

---

Damage reduction because of the high eploxions radius:

Naglfar 27%
Revelation 24%
Moros 23%
Phoenix 21%

Damage reduction because of the slow explosion velocity:
(numbers in brackets are the damage reduction if the ship uses a T2 100mn AB and a T2 Overdrive)

Ragnarok 18% (33%)
Erebus 2%
Avatar full damage (10%)
Leviathan full damage (5%)

Hel 36% (51%)
Nyx 26%
Aeon 15%
Wyvern 11%

Nidhoggur 85% (89%)
Thanatos 81%
Archon 81%
Chimera 78%

---

Originally by: CCP Hammer

---

Stuff...

---

Quote:

---

How can you allow system development to so substantially go off the rails as to have to admit failure and start again? Who is going to be held accopuntable for these horrendous misjudgments and pay the price?

---

Quote:

---

Hmmm...Where did it go wrong? I think a "Hey guys, thanks for all the months of testing, but we just aren't happy with where we're heading" post, which hopefully contained "since we're unhappy, we're going in some new directions on Sisi, but don't freak, these aren't getting tossed into Dominion at the last moment" would have greatly eased tensions.

---

Quote:

---

So i get the ship building, get a load of pimp mods etc for it.

---

Quote:

---

PS: Please fix the Nag, I don't want to train Amarr.

---

Quote:

---

In siege mode it's reduced to 12m/s and in my opinion thats a bigger problem than the high explosion radius.

---

Originally by: Sertan Deras

---

Originally by: Ghuarran

---

Quote:

---

First, IÆd like to say that a single developer cannot come in and unilaterally change everything with no oversight. People are spewing a lot of hate at CCP Nozh but instead itÆs a case of shooting the messenger. He is just doing his job trying to improve the game and explain the reasoning for why changes were made. We work as a team and agree on the direction things are taking. We want the game to be balanced and fun for everyone to play. We also think about the future of the game and how it will be in years to come after our changes weighing the medium- and long-term repercussions.

---

I respect your position, I really do. But it's kind of disturbing that such a director could publish changes as sweeping as this, referencing mechanics that simply do not work in game, and have the team not notice or care. Surely a team of developers would notice that you cannot target paint supercaps, or seiged dreadnaughts. Shouldn't that thing have been caught?

---

If there is one thing I've learned about CCP, it's that they have very little regard for how the game actually works. Instead, they have a fantasy in their head about how they think it should work, and they project that fantasy on to the player base that actually plays the game. In their mind, you should be using target painters, and they are going to balance with that in mind.

---

Originally by: Eheufaucan

---

CCP Nozh' comment at the Pandemic Legion killboard about a recent Titan takedown:

"I trust the Naglfars made use of their Target Painters and this battle happened at long range."

If this comment was really done by him at least he has some kind of humor.

---

Originally by: CCP Hammer

---

Hi, everyone
We have been carefully watching this thread and I want to set the record straight on a few misconceptions.

First, IÆd like to say that a single developer cannot come in and unilaterally change everything with no oversight. People are spewing a lot of hate at CCP Nozh but instead itÆs a case of shooting the messenger. He is just doing his job trying to improve the game and explain the reasoning for why changes were made. We work as a team and agree on the direction things are taking. We want the game to be balanced and fun for everyone to play. We also think about the future of the game and how it will be in years to come after our changes weighing the medium- and long-term repercussions.

We werenÆt entirely happy with the direction and balancing of MOMs before development of Dominion began. Even during the SISI tests they still werenÆt falling into place for us. They were potentially too powerful and that would have resulted in a small minority having a lot of fun at the cost of thousands who would be instapopped in 0.0. So we tried to tune them again to a point we felt was balanced, but then the role of the ships wasnÆt clear once we started to lower the damage. Instead, they started to blur with dreads and carriers.


You all made your voices clear with important feedback, we listened and reverted things back to like they are on TQ while we take more time to reassess. We could have tried to put out ôsomethingö just because we have been talking about it, but then we would be in a situation where players are getting into ships that might very well change again in a coming patch. Given the amount of work to get one of these we just didnÆt feel that was the right thing to do.

Stuff about Sisi.

Please remember that we are here to make a game that you all love to play. None of us comes to work thinking of ways to enrage the playerbase. As the Lead Game Designer, I take my responsibility seriously and that includes taking responsibility for any decisions made by our team. To me, EVE is much more than a job, itÆs something IÆm passionate about constantly improving. I promise you I want EVE to thrive just as much as you do.

Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer

---

Originally by: CCP Hammer

---

Hi, everyone


We have been carefully watching this thread and I want to set the record straight on a few misconceptions.


First, IÆd like to say that a single developer cannot come in and unilaterally change everything with no oversight. People are spewing a lot of hate at CCP Nozh but instead itÆs a case of shooting the messenger. He is just doing his job trying to improve the game and explain the reasoning for why changes were made. We work as a team and agree on the direction things are taking. We want the game to be balanced and fun for everyone to play. We also think about the future of the game and how it will be in years to come after our changes weighing the medium- and long-term repercussions.


We werenÆt entirely happy with the direction and balancing of MOMs before development of Dominion began. Even during the SISI tests they still werenÆt falling into place for us. They were potentially too powerful and that would have resulted in a small minority having a lot of fun at the cost of thousands who would be instapopped in 0.0. So we tried to tune them again to a point we felt was balanced, but then the role of the ships wasnÆt clear once we started to lower the damage. Instead, they started to blur with dreads and carriers.


You all made your voices clear with important feedback, we listened and reverted things back to like they are on TQ while we take more time to reassess. We could have tried to put out ôsomethingö just because we have been talking about it, but then we would be in a situation where players are getting into ships that might very well change again in a coming patch. Given the amount of work to get one of these we just didnÆt feel that was the right thing to do.


The other misconception I want to address is about our public test server. SISI is there so we can have as many people as possible looking for bugs. We think it best to put things out in the public as soon as possible regardless of whether or not itÆs final so we get more eyes on it. This just makes sense to us from a QA standpoint because EVE is an extremely complex piece of software. SISI isnÆt really meant to be a place to try new fittings, do FFA battles or preview upcoming features, although we know people use it for that and we really donÆt mind because more load on our test server helps us find bugs. ItÆs also not a guarantee as to what will be in the next expansion. There have been plenty of times when we dropped a feature that was partially complete on SISI. Arenas and storefronts are two recent examples. ItÆs highly probable that we like pulling features from a release even less than you do but sometimes it cannot be helped. So while supercarriers were on the test server and had gone through plenty of testing it still wasnÆt guaranteed to end up on TQ in that exact state. Only what lands on TQ on patch day is guaranteed.


Please remember that we are here to make a game that you all love to play. None of us comes to work thinking of ways to enrage the playerbase. As the Lead Game Designer, I take my responsibility seriously and that includes taking responsibility for any decisions made by our team. To me, EVE is much more than a job, itÆs something IÆm passionate about constantly improving. I promise you I want EVE to thrive just as much as you do.


Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer

---

Quote:

---

Just do this. Motherships Get Dread Jump range. Motherships get 20 Drones at Lvl 5 carrier. Citadel torps AND Cruise get 1500 Explosion Radius, Torps (and compact get roughly 60ms explo velocity). Motherships get a EHP buff. Fighter Bombers (with 20 fighter bombers and lvl 5 fighter bomber) do roughly 8000 dps+ Motherships cant dock Motherships dont get build costs reduced Motherships lose triage and clone vat to balance the increased damage. Titans Get 5minute DD timer. Titans get the same damage as 2-3 Dreads (8-12k dps) with lvl 5 Titan. Naglfars dont get a split weapon bonus (the dread with 4! weapons should be doing the most damage. Currently the Nags artys with EMP (20 shots) has to reload every 5 mins, which is sooner than every other dread and it requires carrying more ammo types). Phoenix should get a 5% ROF damage bonus and a 5% bonus to ALL missile damage types. Cit Cruise and torps should have 1500m explo raduis, being make smaller with skills for the cruise so they are effective against large pos mods and small pos. Right now Turret ships can still hit medium and small pos mods for massive damage while missile dreads FAIL extremely FAIL at this. Do this and ALL problems will go away. Everything will be good. Harmony will spread out among the player base. This is TESTED BY THE PLAYERBASE and everyone was in agreement. Only your shortsighted Egomania felt that Capships being used aggressively was a bad idea. Also- I think you are out of line starting your post with a 'Lets see' as if the players are all idiots and have missed something. You CANNOT impliment ANY of these Titan changes if you are going to leave motherships as they are. You have also forgotten to do any work on Triage- It was said originally that Triage duration would be cut to 5mins and strontium consumption would be reduced. Why you feel Torpedos need something so bizarre as a 3000+ explo radius ive no clue, you are terrible for causing more problems with your problem ideas.

---

Originally by: New ones

---

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1217073/page/50#1492


page 50 there, with 1500 replys...

---

Originally by: New ones

---

http://www.eve-search.com/thread/1217073/page/50#1492


page 50 there, with 1500 replys...

---

Originally by: CCP Hammer

---

Hi, everyone

Damage Control

Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer

---

Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang

---

The changes to titans and motherships had the potential to change this around. With a tier of ships above dreadnaughts, the possibility of escalating a conflict above a mere capship fight became possible. Imagine an enemy is sieging your POS. You have engaged their subcap fleet, they responded by bringing in dreadnaughts and carriers, you countered them with a hotdrop. You have a slight advantage, but one large enough to win.

Up until the original plan for Dominion, that would've been the end of it. You would win the battle, an important battle, but odds are the war would continue. The titan and mothership changes introduced a new possibility and level to the conflict. Instead of the battle ending with your victory, another cyno opens and suddenly five of the enemy's titans and twice that many motherships supported by repping carriers drop onto the field. The risks and the rewards of the battle have changed. The possibility to lose your dreadnaught fleet in a spectacular manner now exists, but in return the enemy has given you the chance to destroy a good chunk of their supercapital force, which, due to the cost and long construction time, compounded by the lack of sov 4, would effectively destroy them. In order to take advantage of this, though, you have to risk your own supercapitals and the possibility of crippling your own alliance.

This is a hell of a lot more interesting than any type of warfare before it.

You had a chance to give us this.

Instead you want to give us super-rorquals and 18 billion isk titan-bait POS-huggers.

---