EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Attention on Deck - Cool Stuff Happening in Incursion

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Attention on Deck - Cool Stuff Happening in Incursion

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 18 post(s)
VonKolroth Gallente Anarchist's Anonymous	Posted - 2010.10.19 02:59:00 - [91] Originally by: Alex Harumichi "We are focusing on the short range versions of the Tech II ammo such as Gleam, Conflagration, Hail, Quake, Void and Javelin." That last one should probably be Rage, right? Considering javelin's drawback after turret stacking is essentially decreasing your ships top speed to 5km-15km, it seems it needs a change to make it not completely pointless to actually use. ~ A man with a Domi analyzes every problem in the terms of drones.
VonKolroth Gallente Anarchist's Anonymous	Posted - 2010.10.19 03:11:00 - [92] Holy Sh*t, did a dev answer over ten questions in one thread. /emote VonKolroth rubs his eyes. ~ A man with a Domi analyzes every problem in the terms of drones.
Bomberlocks Minmatar CTRL-Q	Posted - 2010.10.19 03:28:00 - [93] Could one of the devs please answer this question: On Sisi, the show info panel on microwarpdrives now show them as having a maximum cap penalty. Why was this done and are you aware of the effect it will have on an extremely large part of the game without any benefit that I can see right now? Minmatar ships especially, with the much lower cap than other ships, but also Amarr due to laser cap consumption are going to suffer because of this. Please explain?
Tonto Auri Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2010.10.19 04:08:00 - [94] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Kragaar Good stuff, is there any plan in the future to add faction modules to the market along with the faction ships? There is, it will naturally take longer to do since there is so many of them and with some modules lots of variations. Didn't you missed a word "fake" before "variations"? As there's enough module variations that differs only by name, being the same in essence. -- Thanks CCP for cu
VonKolroth Gallente Anarchist's Anonymous	Posted - 2010.10.19 05:00:00 - [95] Originally by: Bomberlocks Could one of the devs please answer this question: On Sisi, the show info panel on microwarpdrives now show them as having a maximum cap penalty. Why was this done and are you aware of the effect it will have on an extremely large part of the game without any benefit that I can see right now? Minmatar ships especially, with the much lower cap than other ships, but also Amarr due to laser cap consumption are going to suffer because of this. Please explain? The best explanation would likely be that they are exactly the same way on the Tranquility server, and have been for quite some time. I believe they had the penalty even before the speed-nerf. ~ A man with a Domi analyzes every problem in the terms of drones.
Carribean Queen	Posted - 2010.10.19 05:07:00 - [96] PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE for the love of all that is holy and good, make a notable difference between a BPO and a BPC. As someone who makes a LOT of copies, it is impossible to tell in the hangar which is which. And thus, having to get info on hundreds of BP's... ARRRRRRGGHHHHHHHH... (maybe make copies yellow, or green or something, or put a left corner icon thingy to make it easily discernible which is which). Please and Thank You.
Tiger's Spirit Caldari	Posted - 2010.10.19 05:09:00 - [97] Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 19/10/2010 05:14:20 Edited by: Tiger''s Spirit on 19/10/2010 05:13:08 Originally by: CCP Fallout "which penalize your ship itself and also stack per hardpoint loaded with the ammo. This means the ammo will be a good alternative to the faction ammo and, without such focused and sometimes crippling drawbacks, will be much more useful." No, will not. Just try T2 rockets on Vengeance. Who will change the factions ammo to T2, when the damage difference so minimal. No one. Lets check Vengeance which has just 4 weapon slot and get horrible ship penalty effects from t2 ammo/weapon hardpoint. Speed with faction ammo (Dread g.): 2265 m/s With T2 penalty effect : 1658 m/s With 4 weapon penalty added to ship almost 30%. Dont forget this is just 4 weapon hardpont penalty effect and bring 5 dps different. And not just at small ship, but at the battleships too. Check Abaddon with two heat sink: Imperial navy ammo 1025 DPS Dark Blood ammo : 1060 DPS Conf. ammo: 1030 DPS Please tell to us, who will change when DB is better than or Imperial navy ammo to conflagration ammo bring +5 dps change , if his ship suffering horrible penalty from slots ??? No one. No, but no thx. CCP guys if you want to do real changes, clear all penalty from T2 ammos or this is just a cosmethical change, but noone will using the T2 ammos again after changes.
SwissChris1	Posted - 2010.10.19 05:45:00 - [98] You are buffing the Hawk and fixing rockets...this will be my favorite expansion to date! Thanks CCP!!
DOOM2K	Posted - 2010.10.19 06:54:00 - [99] Edited by: DOOM2K on 19/10/2010 06:55:59 Scorch nerf was mentioned as a possibility alongside the Tier 2 short range ammo changes in the Rocket feedback thread. Any heads up on where you're headed with Scorch?
Ulair Memmet ORIGIN SYSTEMS Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2010.10.19 07:04:00 - [100] Edited by: Ulair Memmet on 19/10/2010 07:05:18 Good stuff Quote: This is pretty cool for those of you looking for pimp rides to show off whilst cruising around Yulai with more bling bling. Seriously, do you guys even play the game??? --------------------------------------------------
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2010.10.19 07:12:00 - [101] Originally by: VonKolroth Originally by: Bomberlocks Could one of the devs please answer this question: On Sisi, the show info panel on microwarpdrives now show them as having a maximum cap penalty. The best explanation would likely be that they are exactly the same way on the Tranquility server, and have been for quite some time. I believe they had the penalty even before the speed-nerf. Oh yes. Actually, fitting a MWD used to drop your cap and shields by 25%, so you young whippersnappers have it easy. ------------------------------------------------------- Electus Matari Forum
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.10.19 07:17:00 - [102] Originally by: Siz'Rael To reiterate and belabor a point I was dissapointed to see only brought up once, and even afterwards apparently ignored... for sake of convenience, I will use Conflag for a specific example here.... I personally couldn't care that much about them using more cap on per cycle to use them... the combined drawbacks of short range, and tracking penalties, is the reason I don't use these crystals. Having them use less cap is not going to make them more worthwhile for me to use... the fact that they basically don't hit anytying is why I don't use them. So, if you want to see me using T2 short range ammo, make them actually capable of hitting targets! I have to have the answer too. I hope they dont think less cap will get people using this stuff other then to play with it again for a short time and fig out why the realy stoped using it. As it dont hit targers so all the damg+ in the world dont matter when it dont hit. Short range Higher cap no tracking pen thats what ya need and then we can use it. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2010.10.19 07:20:00 - [103] Originally by: Aineko Macx /me hopes scorch doesn't get nerfed... I actually hope it does, and I'm saying this as someone who uses it. It's just a bit too good, honestly.
Freyya Advanced Planetary Exports Intergalactic Exports Group	Posted - 2010.10.19 08:18:00 - [104] Originally by: Alice Celadon Originally by: Malcanis I think that is a deliberate design choice. You see how that resist bonus makes your supers have enormously more EHP and tank? Yeah, that's what you're buying with your "small" drone bay. Drop 1 damb fighter and have all the utility drones you could reasonably need. I think the point is that Pre-Incursion those FBs could hit BCs and HICs, so a full load of Fighters wasn't critical. Post-Incursion, a full load of Fighters is critical. Thus this would constitute a nerf to Aeons and Wyverns. besides, 19 fighters x 30 SC's..Yup, way underpowered and that last fighter is soooooooo critical. Yes i'm sure CCP doesn't mean for you to have to get carrier fighter/utility support since the SC is basicly OMGWTFPWNALL and wants it to stay that way. An SC that can't hit BC and HIC's anymore with boomboomdead FB's. SHOCK! ___________ NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth Pink is the color of passion xxx Shadow
Duchess Starbuckington	Posted - 2010.10.19 09:51:00 - [105] Edited by: Duchess Starbuckington on 19/10/2010 09:54:26 Seriously though in terms of fixing broken stuff in-game, I was pleasantly surprised to see they were tackling more than just the rocket fix this expansion. Not getting my hopes up for a rework of some currently underwhelming t1 ships but the t2 ammo change is awesome. Quote: I actually hope it does, and I'm saying this as someone who uses it. It's just a bit too good, honestly. Lasers = Autocannons >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hybrids. A scorch nerf would just turn it into Autocannons >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hybrids = Lasers. Yeah, I can see how fun that'd be. More projectile Amarr ships, anyone? _________________________________ ROCKET STATUS: FIX IN PROGRESS...

CCP Nepthys	Posted - 2010.10.19 10:37:00 - [106] Originally by: Tippia More corner-tags eh? Now, onto that meta-level inventory column everyone has been begging forà I suggest that you check Sisi, you might pleasantly surprised

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.19 10:40:00 - [107] Originally by: CCP Nepthys Originally by: Tippia More corner-tags eh? Now, onto that meta-level inventory column everyone has been begging forà I suggest that you check Sisi, you might pleasantly surprised ♥♥♥ ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki
Louis deGuerre Gallente Amicus Morte Dead Muppets	Posted - 2010.10.19 10:50:00 - [108] All these changes are good and long (sometimes VERY long) in coming. Nevertheless...the lag monsta that was fighterbombers should have been anticipated light years away. Somewhere at CCP someone deserves a spanking for not doing stress tests BEFORE releasing this "excellent" quality. It should not have been 'broken' to start with. Now please fix the goddamn text editors. tap tap Fixed yet ? tap tap how about now ? Sol: A microwarp drive? In a battleship? Are you insane? They arenÆt built for this! Clear Skies - The Movie
Hasnpbeard	Posted - 2010.10.19 12:58:00 - [109] Originally by: CCP Chronotis The ship effects were the ones which were removed. This definitely will make them directly competitive with the faction variants for sure. Uhm, sorry CCP Chronotis, but you are completely mistaken. T2 short-range (turret) ammo is so bad because of its TRACKING PENALTY. The ship effects were just additional inconvenience, but certainly not a deciding factor. Take Megathrons as an example. There is a reason that people fit tracking ENHANCERS to it for close-range engagements, and that ship already comes with a tracking bonus. Quite logical they would NEVER fit ammo that is contradicting these efforts without getting OTHER REWARDS. (I.e. long-range T2 ammo (Null) is used sometimes, because the range bonus can outweigh the -25% tracking penalty, especially since tracking becomes also less of an issue at farther ranges) Im telling you here, because if you just remove the ship effects and keep everything else as is, this is exactly the kind of feedack you will get on 20 pages -------------- Suggestions: SO, if the plan is to make T2 short-range ammo competitive, you would want to either - keep tracking penalty but compensate with a BONUS, like cap use BONUS, damage BONUS etc. or - give it a tracking BONUS, compensated by ship effects PENALTY, damage PENALTY, whatever or - same tracking as faction, but balanced BONI and PENALTIES (dmg vs cap use, shield penalty vs alpha (same DPS),..whatever works -------- More suggestions =) I think ship effects are a GOOD and original idea, but they need to have more impact as an example (please dont quote me on this), you COULD make the T2 ammo affect the fitting choices, i.e. a Void fitted ship would have quite a bit more damage, but needs to fit cap injector to be remotely usable, or needs more plates to compensate EHP penalty, or wants a nano-fit to compensate severe speed penalty, whatever. <3
Hasnpbeard	Posted - 2010.10.19 13:12:00 - [110] And while i am already in typing mood, off topic: Look what happened to faction drones. Everyone was excited to see them coming to the game, but CCP made them worse in every (relevant) aspect compared to T2s, so combined with their pricetag all the work that went into their design was a complete waste of time. I am VERY happy with Incursion, all the little changes to UI etc., dont get me wrong.
Loki Nahat Skyforger Tactical Narcotics Team	Posted - 2010.10.19 13:49:00 - [111] Originally by: CCP Chronotis [ Consider this a freebie until a future QEN and no, we won't provide more or derail the blog! An Interesting sentance, and a belated thanks for the stats (Only just logged to the forums) With all the upgrades and updates to existing content Incursion is looking very promising so far. Loki
Lord Matrix Flying Banana Squad	Posted - 2010.10.19 15:11:00 - [112] Edited by: Lord Matrix on 19/10/2010 15:12:43 I like the new ammo changes. I never used Gleam because of -75% range penalty. Bringing it back to -50% would be great. Scorch is a major thing that keeps Amarr combat at least somewhat balanced with other races. Keep it as it is. We already pay with high fitting requirements and cap usage, for which we lose a ship bonus. 3/4 pure lunatic, 1/4 absolute genius
Sgt Napalm SiN. Corp Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2010.10.19 15:17:00 - [113] Sweet! It no longer requires cap to miss my target at 3,000M's webbed! Best blaster buff to date.
Hordi LaGeorge	Posted - 2010.10.19 16:24:00 - [114] Originally by: CCP Nepthys I suggest that you check Sisi, you might pleasantly surprised Plesae please please let me check Sisi! The Mac client for Sisi has been broken for a week now! (Bug report 102019)
Maxsim Goratiev Gallente Imperial Tau Syndicate	Posted - 2010.10.19 17:52:00 - [115] THis i awesome. IF you deliver all you have promiced, incursio will surpass apocrypha. PS: please have a look at null.
Diomedes Calypso	Posted - 2010.10.19 19:35:00 - [116] Originally by: CCP Chronotis A freebie, last 24hrs transaction stats for a selection of faucets and sinks - as you can see, Concord is a very generous organisation! Trade Total * Market Transaction 5,848,221,406,963 Faucets * Bounty Prizes 876,039,478,466 * Agent Mission Reward 68,923,141,163 * Agent Mission Time Bonus 63,450,447,585 * Insurance Payouts 111,942,877,603 Sinks * Sales Tax 6,227,911,218 * Brokers fee 6,733,818,276 * PI Construction Costs 7,575,185,000 * PI Import Tax 290,289,843 * PI Export Tax 3,355,153,925 * Insurance Cost 43,021,823,156 * Clone Activation 20,197,210,000 * Sovereignty Bill 59,332,000,000 * LP Store 135,343,150,000 Note - that is only a snapshot of some of the stats, others like NPC orders are not there and such. Consider this a freebie until a future QEN and no, we won't provide more or derail the blog! Wow thanks for that information! It really gives a sense of the economyÆs structure I could only guess atà especially the absolute and relative value of the faucets. ONE QUESTION please. Is thisis a moderately typical day ? I mean , you wouldnÆt give us a day where insurance payouts are 2 + times insurance costs if most days itÆs a 1 to 1 ratio, would you? If you could squint at the data again a few times and just confirm that those numbers arenÆt some anomaly it would be great even without giving us any other numbers

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.10.19 19:53:00 - [117] Originally by: John Zorg Originally by: John Zorg Nice Blog post! Two requests/questions please regarding Super Carriers. Could you please make the Drone bay a bit bigger for the Aeon and the Wyvern. We cannot fit a full rack of fighters and Fighter Bombers + other smaller drones. Just another 15 000m3 please. Will we be seeing the completion of the fix to the bonus of the Hel this expansion? It was promised with the last expansion and we were told it is under review? Still nothing said about it... n1 on the Bomber lag fix! Class balancing was out of scope for the fighter bomber fix which was laser focused on achieving a single goal of fixing the load they cause. Your suggestions aren't unreasonable and we'll look into it. No promises on delivery though yet!


CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.10.19 19:57:00 - [118] Originally by: Vidar Kentoran These ammo types still have huge tracking and range penalties(except for Conflagration, which has the same range as faction short range ammos, for some reason). Not really sure how you'd expect someone to ever use short-range ammo that has a tracking penalty, to begin with :P That doesn't really make any sense. If you want these ammo types to be a reasonable alternative to Faction, they can't have -50% to -75% range penalties AND -25%+ tracking penalties on them at the same time. They are stuck having to deal with more tracking issues due to shorter range, and thus they need to take an even higher penalty on top of that? It's fine if they have a bit less range and are thus somewhat inferior, say... -25%... OR if they have worse tracking...(again, -25% would be OK) but both makes them extremely inferior and not a real alternative at all. The tracking penalty was reduced, we forgot to mention that but has not disappeared with the others. Originally before the LP store and before faction ammo was so easy to come by, the tech 2 variants were widely used. The low tracking versions were designed with a purpose of attacking larger ship classes (where tracking matters less) and as a consequence do more damage to those targets. Removing that drawback completely would be somewhat overpowered so, a reduced penalty but it has not disappeared.


CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.10.19 20:03:00 - [119] Originally by: Bomberlocks Could one of the devs please answer this question: On Sisi, the show info panel on microwarpdrives now show them as having a maximum cap penalty. Why was this done and are you aware of the effect it will have on an extremely large part of the game without any benefit that I can see right now? Minmatar ships especially, with the much lower cap than other ships, but also Amarr due to laser cap consumption are going to suffer because of this. Please explain? I don't see any changes to MWDs besides their icon changing to the new MWD icon, perhaps check again?

Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.10.19 20:16:00 - [120] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Bomberlocks Could one of the devs please answer this question: On Sisi, the show info panel on microwarpdrives now show them as having a maximum cap penalty. Why was this done and are you aware of the effect it will have on an extremely large part of the game without any benefit that I can see right now? Minmatar ships especially, with the much lower cap than other ships, but also Amarr due to laser cap consumption are going to suffer because of this. Please explain? I don't see any changes to MWDs besides their icon changing to the new MWD icon, perhaps check again? As others have mentioned, nothing has changed ù Bomberlocks has probably just missed that MWDs already have this penalty. ùùù ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö ù Karath Piki

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.