| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 24 post(s) |

Mund Richard
326
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:03:00 -
[91] - Quote
fukier wrote:i dunno the lack of dps for non kin damage will hurt the ship for pve thats for sure.
pretty sure the cyclone will be a much better pve ship now. Unless you shoot at drones/Amarr(and associated non-EoM rats), you will be doing more dps before the change (assuming you have the skills you should have), and also compared to the new cyclone.
Amarr were already a bad pairing (EM hole on shields), and drone missions are random, so I don't quite see a problem. Specially not on it's home turf (where each race tends to do best). >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |

Mund Richard
326
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:19:00 -
[92] - Quote
Sky Marshal wrote:3. The fact that shield don't slow down the ship was a balancing thing. Armor is more resilient but make you slow and maybe with less damage, shield don't hit your speed but require a big amount of energy for active tanking and give trouble with the fitting. This armor boost will destroy this balance. "Give trouble with the fitting" Fitting mods are lowslot, so easier to use on shield ships. Armor tends to fit multiple repair modules to stay competitive, as they cannot oversize. Suddenly even 6 lows can be consumed by the tank, leaving none for TE/Gank, and even the mids are compromised (cap booster). Also, you need the rigs for tanking as well, and Neutrons were usually just a dream even before active rigs affected PG. (Though I do see how the Ferox is hurt quite a bit by not having the Drake's slot layout. On the other hand shield Brutixes/Canes were popular even though it had only 4 mids.)
I don't expect any balance being broken on BC level, except how maybe lightly-tanked armor BCs might be able to chase after lightly tanked shield kiters more efficiently. Assuming the kiter is not minmatar. Nor using any nanofiber. Nop, not much changing in terms of balance. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |

Arec Bardwin
904
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:04:00 -
[93] - Quote
No mention of changes (removal of passive resists, improved by the compensation skills) to active shield and armor hardeners? |

Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:12:00 -
[94] - Quote
Arec Bardwin wrote:No mention of changes (removal of passive resists, improved by the compensation skills) to active shield and armor hardeners? Good catch. Suppose it will be in the patch notes. ... But you must admit, it doesn't sound like something the PR guys would want as part of a Dev Blog to "sell" the point release, even if it does make sense. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |

Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3557
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:20:00 -
[95] - Quote
This balancing blog has already been out a few hours and only 5 pages of comments.
Fozzie, people are starting to take your skills, effort, and loving attention to your work for granted.
This makes it somewhat strangely appropriate that this is coming out on Valentines Day.  To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |

Diesel47
Bad Men Ltd.
490
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:42:00 -
[96] - Quote
I dont like how they are making armor and shield more and more similar.
Ancillary armor repair? ASB was already a terrible module, why make an armor version of it too?
Instead of adding STUPID new modules try balancing the ones that we already have.
|

Endeavour Starfleet
838
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:49:00 -
[97] - Quote
Reducing ways of newer players to make funds with the Drake tank nerf..
Massively boosting AFK Cloaking with Black Ops changes..
Modular POS put on the backburner.
Ya thanks  |

MissNic
Aliastra Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 22:15:00 -
[98] - Quote
Beware the cloaky brick tank Proteus with the covert cyno  |

Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
200
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 22:20:00 -
[99] - Quote
Have you considered using a different naming convention for the new armor reps, considering they function differently compared to the ASB's? I'm thinking the word 'ancillary' in both modules implies they are basically the same, when they have a couple of really important differences. |

Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
675
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:12:00 -
[100] - Quote
I am looking forward to the day when Interceptors are buffed/adjusted a little, like a little more lock range, perhaps some extra pg on some of them... and also make warp velocity (AU/s) matter more, as in acceleration faster within warp... :) Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |

Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:17:00 -
[101] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:Have you considered using a different naming convention for the new armor reps, considering they function differently compared to the ASB's? I'm thinking the word 'ancillary' in both modules implies they are basically the same, when they have a couple of really important differences. It would be less misunderstandable. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |

fukier
RISE of LEGION
829
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
Bubanni wrote:I am looking forward to the day when Interceptors are buffed/adjusted a little, like a little more lock range, perhaps some extra pg on some of them... and also make warp velocity (AU/s) matter more, as in acceleration faster within warp... :)
IT would be cool if interceptors were not pulled into sling bubbles. At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |

Captain Evil
Tech 3 Constructions
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:38:00 -
[103] - Quote
A lot of you MIST thisQuote:Unlike the ASBs, AARs always use the same capacitor as a Tech One armor repairer to cycle. This cap use does not change when the module is loaded with charges. .
So Ancillary Armor Repairers use cap from your ship or Cap charges it runs 3/4 of the same size and/or put Nanite Repair Paste in (or on top cap charges?) you get 2.25 the amount of a T1 rep.
That is if i am reading ok CCP Fozzie |

Hashi Lebwohl
Oberon Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
19
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:42:00 -
[104] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:Based on the discussions I've seen, I think the next balance pass after Retribution 1.1 will be Summer 1.0 and should contain Battleships, Industrials, Black Ops, Command Ships, and EAF. A response of "that sounds reasonable" would be great.  All I can confirm is that the ships discussed in Ytterbium's Back to the Balancing Future blog are still expected to be among the earlier sets of ships we work on this year.
Would you care to comment and contrast your excellent communication of forthcoming changes with CCP Greyscale's dismal responses to his changes to shield and armor compensation skills.
Should we expect a Dev Blog from his holiness Greyscale, or would holding our breath just invite unconscienceness. |

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
202
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:47:00 -
[105] - Quote
I <3 fozzie! He is the answer to all that complaining I did about ccp never talking about balance and whatnot on the forums! |

Mund Richard
327
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:50:00 -
[106] - Quote
Captain Evil wrote:A lot of you MIST this Quote:Unlike the ASBs, AARs always use the same capacitor as a Tech One armor repairer to cycle. This cap use does not change when the module is loaded with charges. So Ancillary Armor Repairers use cap from your ship or Cap charges it runs 3/4 of the same size and/or put Nanite Repair Paste in (or on top cap charges?) you get 2.25 the amount of a T1 rep. That is if i am reading ok CCP Fozzie Not quite. A) The AAR is loaded with nanopaste (henceforth called "charge"), and you activate it. It will consume the same amount of cap as a T1 repair module, and will repair 2.25 times as much as a T1 repair module of the same size would in the same scenario.
B) The AAR has no charges left in it It will consume the same amount of cap as a T1 repair module, and will repair 0.75 times as much as a T1 repair module of the same size would in the same scenario.
I hope that helps clear any lingering misunderstanding. Also hoping that *I* haven't misunderstood anything. >> "We want PvE activities to require active participation and mirror PvP more closely." Including NPC EWAR getting the stacking penalty? Would be awesome to have a cap on how far they can reduce my lock range (not 10km from 100 in a BS) or optimal+falloff with TD. |

Zombie132
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 23:56:00 -
[107] - Quote
Well done Fozzie, and all who are working hard on ship in space. You've done a great job rebalancing so far, and I'm looking forward to these great new changes.
Also, a little late, but congrats on getting Dust and EVE working together. I've only just activated an account on DUST and am immensely enjoying the unique interaction between Dust and eve, truly awesome, an experience you won't get in any other game universe.
(By the way, has anyone guessed the significance of 514 as it relates to DUST514 and eve?) |

Utremi Fasolasi
The Jagged Edge Rebel Alliance of New Eden
183
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:04:00 -
[108] - Quote
More mass on the Drake? It's already a slow brick as it is.  |

Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
1568
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:54:00 -
[109] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, you must really stop doing such things.
Graph: +1 Black Ops: +1 T3: +1
You see the problem, right? The forums don't allow +3 likes!
I'm not crazy about the battlecruiser changes, though I am happy to read that some earlier proposals have been trashed. For that I won't drop your score, as I'm taking a wait-and-see approach, for now.
I won't celebrate the armor changes until the equivalent of Slaves for shield are released. [EDIT: Of course, Crystals for armor would be appropriate too.] |

Zanmaru
Zaibatu Planetary Concern
7
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 00:54:00 -
[110] - Quote
I love the idea of the Harb being turned into a droneboat, and while missiles seem weird on an Amarr ship, I'm not opposed to the idea. What I do find slightly irritating is the fact the high-slot and turret layout basically forces you to either have one launcher or one odd turret if you go the other way.
Based on the redesigns up to this point, I thought we were moving AWAY from that sort of thing.
Edit: Well unless things have changed since the proposed rebalance specs were posted a while back. I am noticing a few changes in the blog. |

Kommandohoran
Suddenly Spacerich Industries
10
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 02:07:00 -
[111] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The plus side of all this is I get to watch Quackbot spasm uncontrollably.
The Fozzie, he walks among us. |
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4044

|
Posted - 2013.02.15 02:12:00 -
[112] - Quote
Hashi Lebwohl wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:Based on the discussions I've seen, I think the next balance pass after Retribution 1.1 will be Summer 1.0 and should contain Battleships, Industrials, Black Ops, Command Ships, and EAF. A response of "that sounds reasonable" would be great.  All I can confirm is that the ships discussed in Ytterbium's Back to the Balancing Future blog are still expected to be among the earlier sets of ships we work on this year. Would you care to comment and contrast your excellent communication of forthcoming changes with CCP Greyscale's dismal responses to his changes to shield and armor compensation skills. Should we expect a Dev Blog from his holiness Greyscale, or would holding our breath just invite unconscienceness.
That change doesn't really require its own dev blog in my opinion, and it's a change I fully support.
The honest truth is that I have no idea why someone back in the day would design the active resistance modules to also have a separate passive effect. It's convoluted and provides very little value.
And considering that we have generally shifted the meta towards a lower number of neuts overs the past few releases, the change helps ensure that capacitor warfare serves a useful role. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|

Jabba Fat
Cog of Time
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 02:31:00 -
[113] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Just know that the skill changes (including the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skill splits) will not be taking place in Retribution 1.1. They are scheduled for the summer expansion.
Is this a typo also or did I get it all wrong? I thought the expansion on the 19th was the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skill split! |
|

CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
4045

|
Posted - 2013.02.15 02:39:00 -
[114] - Quote
Jabba Fat wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Just know that the skill changes (including the Battlecruiser and Destroyer skill splits) will not be taking place in Retribution 1.1. They are scheduled for the summer expansion. Is this a typo also or did I get it all wrong? I thought the expansion on the 19th was the Destroyer and Battlecruiser skill split!
The skill split is scheduled for the summer expansion, as stated in the recent Dev Blog that covers the skill changes in detail. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie |
|

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
147
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 02:48:00 -
[115] - Quote
Zanmaru wrote:I love the idea of the Harb being turned into a droneboat, and while missiles seem weird on an Amarr ship, I'm not opposed to the idea. What I do find slightly irritating is the fact the high-slot and turret layout basically forces you to either have one launcher or one odd turret if you go the other way.
Based on the redesigns up to this point, I thought we were moving AWAY from that sort of thing.
Edit: Well unless things have changed since the proposed rebalance specs were posted a while back. I am noticing a few changes in the blog. BC's all have at least one 'utility slot' to allow for the use of a Warfare link without compromising primary guns. Some of the BC's have the option to put an alternative weapon system into these utility slots, while others only have utility. But in all cases they are utility slots. |

Dalto Bane
DPB Corporation Ineluctable.
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 02:57:00 -
[116] - Quote
I am mostly happy with all that is being projected in 1.1. Can't say I did not struggle in holding back my last few tears on even more Drake ner... I mean rebalancing. I just was not expecting to lose a launcher slot, have less hp, and a mass increase. Comes with the territory I suppose. Good stuff just the same! |

Zanmaru
Zaibatu Planetary Concern
7
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 03:22:00 -
[117] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: -snip- But in all cases they are utility slots.
A fair point. |

Endeavour Starfleet
838
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 04:48:00 -
[118] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hashi Lebwohl wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Callic Veratar wrote:Based on the discussions I've seen, I think the next balance pass after Retribution 1.1 will be Summer 1.0 and should contain Battleships, Industrials, Black Ops, Command Ships, and EAF. A response of "that sounds reasonable" would be great.  All I can confirm is that the ships discussed in Ytterbium's Back to the Balancing Future blog are still expected to be among the earlier sets of ships we work on this year. Would you care to comment and contrast your excellent communication of forthcoming changes with CCP Greyscale's dismal responses to his changes to shield and armor compensation skills. Should we expect a Dev Blog from his holiness Greyscale, or would holding our breath just invite unconscienceness. That change doesn't really require its own dev blog in my opinion, and it's a change I fully support. The honest truth is that I have no idea why someone back in the day would design the active resistance modules to also have a separate passive effect. It's convoluted and provides very little value. And considering that we have generally shifted the meta towards a lower number of neuts overs the past few releases, the change helps ensure that capacitor warfare serves a useful role.
Doesn't require a dev blog despite the fact that for many players the training they put into these skills will be worth FAR FAR less now?
Is the old CCP just making their own decisions and not caring how they effect the game back? You are introducing yet another barrier to newer players with the Drake nerf. CCP is backpedaling on modular POS structures. You are boosting AFK Cloaking to even higher levels with the black ops changes. Next you will be saying "We have no idea why someone would design something called a local and while we are at it why are these tech moons so spread out?"
This is the issue. You are "Fixing" things that while may have been an issue are NOTHING compared to the need for Modular POS, Ring mining, and ways to actually get newer players into these vaunted Nullsec groups you keep pushing them towards. And to be something other than cannon fodder. |

Destoya
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
64
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 05:16:00 -
[119] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Is the old CCP just making their own decisions and not caring how they effect the game back? You are introducing yet another barrier to newer players with the Drake nerf. CCP is backpedaling on modular POS structures. You are boosting AFK Cloaking to even higher levels with the black ops changes. Next you will be saying "We have no idea why someone would design something called a local and while we are at it why are these tech moons so spread out?"
This is the issue. You are "Fixing" things that while may have been an issue are NOTHING compared to the need for Modular POS, Ring mining, and ways to actually get newer players into these vaunted Nullsec groups you keep pushing them towards. And to be something other than cannon fodder.
They want clearly defined roles between active and passive tanking modules, and also want to make sure that cap warfare is still a relevant threat to ships with cap-dependent tanks. Seems pretty clear-cut to me with reasons that make a lot of sense.
If anything, the drake nerf (if you can call it that; it's really very similar to the ship that we know on TQ now) is a boon to new players. Instead of just being told that they must fly a single ship and single race to be relevant there are now far more viable options, and they can choose the playstyle that they enjoy the most for themselves. |

Lipbite
Express Hauler
612
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 05:17:00 -
[120] - Quote
Could be nice to see new non-emergent game content. New star systems, new modules (remote speed boost), drones (energy transfer), new missions, new type of rats (Jove or whatever), new exploration sites. Some avatar gameplay - walking in stations, exploration.
These debugs are nice but not fun - they just make game a bit less boring. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |