Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Ranger 1
Amarr Dynaverse Corporation Vertigo Coalition
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 15:20:00 -
[1711]
Originally by: Ammath Edited by: Ammath on 21/11/2009 13:51:04 What I want to know from CCP, and this is a reasonable request is a Blog post from CCP stating what they view the roles of each class of ship in EvE should be. For the purposes of this discussion I would like to see what they want Carriers, Dreadnaughts, Motherships, and Titans roles should be.
It is ok if they are not happy with the current implementations of any. But I think the community would like to know the VISION CCP has for these classes of ships, the steps of how to get there obviously require testing and balance.
What is not "o"k is statements like "titans shouldn't be direct damage dealers, so we are going to give them all kinds of crazy direct damage buffs and a massive EHP boost so they can stay on the field and fight longer" The dichotomy of that statement is mind-blowing. You might as well say "Motherships should be fleet support ships so we will be giving them the old Titan AOE doomsday" it makes about the same sense.
Basically guys this is project management 101 here. Define the vision, identify the issues, make the changes, test, do QA, and release. But further breaking one class of ships (titans from their alleged vision of them), re-balancing another class (dreads), and doing nothing for carriers, nor motherships will NOT achieve the balance nor vision you seem to have for capital ships in EvE. Although to be fair this vision has not been formally spelled out so we are going of anecdotes and one-liners from specific devs.
Honestly guys, if you want to do a redux of Capital Ship balance in EvE you need to do them ALL at once or you will never get the real-world data to tweak things properly. All you are doing is creating more mismatches.
Lets just see a simple vision matrix from CCP on combat caps..
example: Ship Class, general role, secondary role, preferred target Carrier - Fleet Support - Anti-Sub capital - Battleships/Support
Carriers are designed to be large fleet support ships, which still have significant combat capabilities with their Fighters and Drones to provide support for fleets against sub-capital targets.
The above is just an example... CCP could you please do this for us so we know the intended vision of these classes? If you feel a class doesn't meet your vision, explain why.
For the record for this release Motherships should get the HP boost, and jump-range boost. Those frankly are needed no matter what and have been a problem since 2006.
This.
===== If you go to Za'Ha'Dum I will gank you. |
D'ceet
Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 15:38:00 -
[1712]
Originally by: Sertan Deras Hey CCP, a cap fight happened last night, and I have it on very good authority that two things are true:
It happened at close range No target painters were used
quoting this little gem...
Originally by: CCP Soundwave Hahaha what the christ?!
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 16:04:00 -
[1713]
Originally by: Eheufaucan But the biggest problem is the explosion velocity. In siege mode it's reduced to 12m/s and in my opinion thats a bigger problem than the high explosion radius.
Wait... WHAT?
They reduce the tracking penalty for XL turrets in siege, but don't reduce the explosion velocity penalty?
That's it. I thought the notion that CCP had no clue about how missiles work was just an overreaction, and surely someone at CCP was indeed aware of all factors that account for missile damage.
Apparently not. Seems they're getting their info from the "missiles always hit and always do full damage"-whiners on the forums thou.
At least now we know why explosion velocity and radius was omitted from the Capital Weapons thread in the Test Server forum. It was not included in their calculations at all
Quote: Missiles
Next up, within the next week, Citadel Torpedoes and launchers will see their stats change dramatically and we will introduce Citadel Cruise Missiles and launchers. Phoenix pilots, rejoice! While these changes will not hit SiSi for another week or so, we can give you the the current working stats:
Old Value / New Value
Citadel Torp Launcher I RoF: 48 seconds / 33 seconds
Citadel Torpedoes Flight Time: 20 seconds / 7.5 seconds Base Velocity: 2750 / 3500 Base Damage: 1800 / 2000
Citadel Cruise Launcher I RoF: 48 seconds
Citadel Cruise Missiles Flight Time: 20 seconds Base Velocity: 4250 (3500 on sisi ATM) Base Damage: 1800 (1500 on sise ATM)
So in summary;
Citadel torps get a 61% increase in raw dps ( rof/dmg ), but they get an increase of 125% to explosion radius. That's a 36% sig tanking reduction in dmg ( against a 1700m signature radius ). So the end result is a mere 3% damage increase against dreads in siege.
I would rejoice, but you cut my range of those extra 3% dps in half. No Phoenix pilot is going to risk fitting Citadel torps and be a sitting duck with that engagement range. On top of that, the explosion velocity is now even worse in siege, compared to XL tracking.
CCP, don't try and tell me XL turret tracking and damage is balanced against this. Against targets going 12m/s? Who are those targets? Do they have a signature radius that makes tracking an issue at all? I don't think hitting Titans and Moms is an issue, even with the new XL turret tracking values in and out of siege. Where's that potential to do more damage against larger targets for citadel torps? I only see XL turrets being able to do full damage.
So citadel torps get 3% more damage against anything larger than a dread, as long as it's sitting still. And God knows how much of a decrease against anything moving, and/or, smaller than a dread. Trading in half their range.
What about cruises? The thread says 1800 base damage. Sisi says 1500. Which means -300dps compared to current torps... oh wait, did you EFT with Caldari Dread LVL 4 CCP? Then it's 1800
Still, an 50% increase to explosion radius compared to current torps. Less damage, and the same explosion velocity. That's what Phoenix pilots can look forward to. After they finish Cruise Missiles 5. I'm rejoicing in my pants as I type, thinking about these 70km range, crap damage cruises.
I'm so happy you balance this in EFT with skill bonuses applied, or, decided to cut Citadel cruise stats by 20/25% after that thread was started. Those cruises would clearly have been a monsterÖ.
|
Tele Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 16:21:00 -
[1714]
Well, here we are. At least seven pages of dissent deleted.
Thank you for finally manning-up and banning one of my accounts. Just a few more to go guys!
You can't sweep people under the rug, CCP. It's p. obvious you need training in Customer Relations.
Well thank God someone else is buying PLEXes from you to sell to me so I'm not directly giving you cash.
Oh, and btw:
Quote: Deleting posts is non-constructive
Disagreement is constructive
You can have a discussion or you can have censorship, they are mutually exclusive.
|
Van Doren
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 16:24:00 -
[1715]
Edited by: Van Doren on 21/11/2009 16:24:08 Can we get the patch notes already so we can see how messed up capital warfare will be after December 1st?
2 dev posts either misguided or damage control will not beat the 50 pages of WTF! questions from the players. Maybe you're reading (but it is doubtful with the amount of censorship) but your time seems to be too precious to answer anything except at the fanfest when players give you free beers.
So even a draft of the patch notes would be better PR than what we had so far.
(Forum date: 1523-51)
|
Ceirah
Priory Of The Lemon Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 16:32:00 -
[1716]
Originally by: Tappits Edited by: Tappits on 21/11/2009 11:50:04
Originally by: New ones Nozh made us a nice drawing to inform us why he changed stuff:
http://i48.tinypic.com/24fyzuo.jpg
I LOLed
1491
haha
|
tasman devil
Amarr Imperium Galactica Omega Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 16:47:00 -
[1717]
This is stupid, and is another amarr nerf... :P
Am I correct or am I correct? ---------------------------------- Even if you don't belive in God, Be prepared to meet him anytime... |
Mrs Dent
Minmatar Cocks in Frocks
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 16:47:00 -
[1718]
You said you didnt want to just do "something" with the mothership.
It appears that is exactly what youve done with the titan. The name "titan" implies a pretty ****ing uber ship.
The damage of a dread (although that will be debatable the rate dreads are getting nerfed) and a 10 minute cycle time for 1 kill doesnt seem that great to me, not for the trouble and cost it takes to build, (they are not all built and payed for by super rich alliances)
In your infinate wisdom do the devs honestly think titans are worth deploying on the field as they are on sisi?
|
Aequitas Veritas
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:07:00 -
[1719]
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.
I think this is why all of 0.0 agreed on the changes. Everyone from the grunts to the leaders like these massive fights that continue to escalate, like the one in Syndicate last night, with loads of killed dreads, even if its just a chance of killing one of these behemoths thats taken months to build and how many manhours to sort out... We need these ships on the field not sitting at a pos, and unless they have enough damage or other benefits theyll be stuck at poses doing nothing at all.
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
|
Mack Bane
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:15:00 -
[1720]
I agree(on most part) with ppl in here, about the fact, that there was not much info about WHY the changes were postponed(after this lengthy period of testing and argueing it's pro's and con's).And i see most ppl are confused or angry about this fact alone.(so am i) So, if CCP doesn't change Supercarriers,but stays on target with the new DD,why would anybody field a 15bn behemoth, that has no hope in hell to survive? We, the players need to know, where you want to go with shipclasses,I don't like to spend a serious amount of time and money, to become the pilot,even the biggest supercap is afraid of, just to find out, my Super-ship has just been turned into a mega-hauler. "Ship purpose" is relevant for the decisions we make! It should not change, every 6 months, or so. Ship classes schould be balanced as a whole, not just pick out one of its range, and buff or nerf it.Same goes for modules, weapons, and ammo. and don't forget:Only one letter separates Capital ships from Crapital ships
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Dark-Rising IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:41:00 -
[1721]
As quite new to the game and these patches drama, I'd like to ask one very very simple thing:
If the patch was going well and there was good consensus, did anyone at CCP post why it got completely scratched and redone (in an impopular way)? - Auditing and consulting
Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Ka'lorn Font'a
Amarr Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:53:00 -
[1722]
It's alright guys, I mean - Motherships have been underwhelming for how long?
What's another 12+ months before they get fixed?
|
Xahara
StarFleet Enterprises
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:54:00 -
[1723]
We are talking about a whole new, completely revamping, expansion. This is both very intriguing for CCP and the players. While I and possibly CCP understand all the flaming, we shouldn't really talk like that to the people that make our game. This isn't about Internet Spaceships Serious Business. This is about the actual people that work on we having fun. I bet CCP would understand our posts the same as if they didn't have so much hate and personal attacks. Everyone makes mistakes. Have you guys never done any?
Now, in terms of players, its understandable that we have such rage. Everyone was pretty excited about mothership changes and whatnot. Hell, I was going to start grinding and carebearing just to get a Supercarrier myself :) It is indeed sad that we would no longer be able to fly those, whilst the players were all happy about the changes and stuff, apart from the obvious trolls, which there are in every expansion.
Now, I believe CCP has two options on dealing with this: either make Supercarriers the way they were supposed to be and not just remain the same (because currently, motherships are soooo not worth it and you know it...) or tell us what the perfect mothership design would be, with no vagueish stuff.
Apart from this, I think the expansion is going to rock. Just please bring back the almighty mom changes :)
|
Venetian Tar
United Systems Navy Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 17:58:00 -
[1724]
1721. |
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:05:00 -
[1725]
What's on SISI now isn't a bad tie-over if they would just fix the f'ing explosion radius on compact torps. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Aequitas Veritas
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:10:00 -
[1726]
Except the whimpy Titans tho
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel J. Boorstin
|
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:15:00 -
[1727]
Originally by: Aequitas Veritas Except the whimpy Titans tho
Yeah I was just referring to the moms. Titans need the 200% bonus back tbh ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Qwert Y
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:35:00 -
[1728]
I like how ccp is operating exactly like china to quell dissent. They delete posts, and ban those who continue to state their opinion that ccp are a bunch of idiots with no customer service and continuing to prove that they don't care at all what their memberbase says.
|
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 18:36:00 -
[1729]
Originally by: Xahara stuff
We should get angry and express it. CCP forgets from time to time, that these rare dev posts are the only information and line of communication some of us have. We listen closely when they post and what they post. When they tell us let's work together and be buddies, and then suddenly make a 180 degree turn from what was agreed and stop answering our calls, people start to get worried. I don't care about the mistakes, I care about the sudden abandonment of all our previous work together without communication and silence when we tried to ask what was going on. Then the only answer given was less then satisfactory and just seemed to confirm all the worst fears.
That kind of behavior sends a negative message to the other party about the value of and sincerity of all the previous work and discussions. All of it could have been avoided, if they would just have collectively grown a pair of balls, answered the initial questions and told what was going on. The longer you avoid communication at that point, the more it seems that you are avoiding the issue on purpose and people start to get angry and confused. After that it becomes less and less important what the actual reason for the change was.
Good communication skills would have gone a long way in solving this mess before it even got started. Avoiding answering questions and deleting posts left and right only got people frenzied up even more.
|
Walker Bulldog
Minmatar VIRTUAL LIFE VANGUARD
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:27:00 -
[1730]
By now, I won't be surprised to find out on December 1st that Nidhoggur bonus has been switched to 5%/level fighter HP.
|
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:38:00 -
[1731]
Originally by: Lith Erivi CCP if you want to test caps instead of inviting any random person who can log into an account to suggest balance tips how about invite the people who actually live in 0.0 to come and fight it out under your scenarios?
Maybe that's too organized and constructive for yall.
Yes, that's right. Only people in 0.0 use capital ships. My sig don't fracking work. |
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:41:00 -
[1732]
Originally by: Destination SkillQueue We should get angry and express it.
Maybe, but we should try and be civil about it.
If people are acting like angry children, how can they expect to be reasoned with? You dont do that, you simply present them with facts.
People are complaining about posts being deleted, but if you cross-read the thread, how many posts are (or were, if you look at eve-search) completely out of line, personally insulting and sometimes even bordering extortion / blackmailing attempts?
Now as I see it, the only real problem with testing the stuff out on SiSi was the top-down approach, if they had worked backwards, starting from totally prenerfed and worked the way up, much of the rage wouldnt have happened.
Remember, feedback is typically received only, not being answered doesnt mean you arent being listened to.
|
Drachenlord
Amarr Pilipino Corp Primary.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:42:00 -
[1733]
Well...
Let it never be said that you won't Completely Cave to less than 1000 pilots QQing their hearts out.
That said.. the ORIGINAL CHANGES were quite well accepted and liked by everyone, it wasn't until you started screwing with things after the fact that people got up in arms.
go back to the ORIGINAL Changes and everyone should be happy... including the guy who originally designed the original changes.
This Just in... massive QQ from mothership pilots, still leaves motherships worthless. ----- While the Enemies of the Empire still draw breath there can be no peace |
Lith Erivi
Caldari GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:44:00 -
[1734]
Originally by: Karlemgne
Originally by: Lith Erivi CCP if you want to test caps instead of inviting any random person who can log into an account to suggest balance tips how about invite the people who actually live in 0.0 to come and fight it out under your scenarios?
Maybe that's too organized and constructive for yall.
Yes, that's right. Only people in 0.0 use capital ships.
Reliably enough that most of the playerbase able to fly them knows their mechanics? Yes
|
Karlemgne
Tides Of War
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:44:00 -
[1735]
Originally by: easylad CCP stop being childish with the deleting of posts oh BTW
CCP Nozh are you trying to kill eve?
As a former game developer, I echo Hammerhead's statement, you cannot ever place the responsibility for game changes on a single person.
And again, since the proposed game changes affect maybe 20% of the entire player base, and I'm artificially stretching that number, I fail to see how the proposed changes could "kill eve."
-Karlemgne My sig don't fracking work. |
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 19:51:00 -
[1736]
Originally by: Karlemgne And again, since the proposed game changes affect maybe 20% of the entire player base, and I'm artificially stretching that number, I fail to see how the proposed changes could "kill eve."
Not saying it will. However, you do realize that those 20% are what keep the EVE economy going right?
Empire LVL 4 mission runners, are not going to support the hordes of industrialists, traders and other people in hi-sec.
|
Honest Smedley
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 20:22:00 -
[1737]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha As quite new to the game and these patches drama, I'd like to ask one very very simple thing:
If the patch was going well and there was good consensus, did anyone at CCP post why it got completely scratched and redone (in an impopular way)?
CCP Hammerhead essentially answered this.
In the form everyone liked, they were too powerful and (combined with titans) lent too much of an advantage to established 0.0 alliances. Basically, those who can currently field them would hold an insurmountable advantage over those who currently can't.
In the nerfed version, motherships weren't powerful enough to justify their cost or inability to dock. They also obsoleted carriers. This lead CCP down a path (lowering production cost, making them dockable, etc.) that was both disliked by the playerbase, and by CCP. They were therefore reverted.
Motherships will continue to not be compelling over carriers because CCP doesn't understand or hasn't been able to implement the special sauce that will make them so. Simply making them WTF ownzor carriers is not going to do it, because it is unbalancing and will have to be changed again later. Changes have thus been delayed until after Dominion.
The collective player base whining about the matter needs to stop being but-hurt by changes to things being changed on the friggin' test server. CCP needs to stop dev blogging about changes on the test server as though they're promised features for the next expansion.
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 20:38:00 -
[1738]
Over the mothership and censorship drama let us not forget the capital weapon changes.
Can please any competent dev respond on the target painter stuff? What nonsense is that capital weapons cannot hit SIEGED capitals or pos towers for full damage?
And if you post dps graphs, can you please post the dps under REALISTIC conditions, that is standard t2 fit, fleet boni etc.?
And PLEASE can you give us some NUMBERS?!??!?! For **** sake, don't write articles about stuff that no one is interested in (like motherships with 5 dcu and 3 target painters and 20 fighter bombers, that wont happen anyway so what is the point in making up those numbers?!) but give us NUMBERS!!!
A list of the new weapon stats please. ALL of the (relevant) stats!
You are one week away from release, you want to tell me that you do not have the numbers ready? Otherwise it would be pure maliciousness not giving us the numbers. Oh, and how did you make up those pretty graphs without numbers? |
Letifer Deus
Total Mayhem. Cry Havoc.
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 20:40:00 -
[1739]
Edited by: Letifer Deus on 21/11/2009 20:43:00
Originally by: Honest Smedley In the form everyone liked, they were too powerful
What he said was they had the "potential" to be overpowered, not that they were. There is a huge difference. They also had a potential to end up as not a big factor in 0.0 cap warfare due to dreads still being the vast majority of DPS and EHP brought to cap fights. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Brought to you by the letter ARRR!" |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.11.21 21:01:00 -
[1740]
Originally by: Letifer Deus Edited by: Letifer Deus on 21/11/2009 20:51:33
Originally by: Honest Smedley In the form everyone liked, they were too powerful
What he said was they had the "potential" to be overpowered...
Why?
I mean, why was there a potential that they would be overpowered?
Were they afraid of a mothership blob?
Were the afraid of nearly invincible solo motherships?
What exactly was the problem? "They had the potential to be overpowered" is really just bs PR talk. EVERY significant ship has the potential to be overpowered if you make blobs of them.
So what? You identify exactly the problems in a detailed analysis and tackle them then.
But seriously, what can we expect from a team of devs who do not even know how capital warfare is done and how the game mechanic around capitals is working? Can we really expect some INSIGHT into the problems and can we hope for SOLUTIONS?
I wish we could. Please restore my faith again (won't be that easy though) with competent devblogs and reasonable replies and just with people who know their business and are professionals. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 69 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |