EVE Search - Combat revisited, Oveur's latest Dev Blog

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Combat revisited, Oveur's latest Dev Blog

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

kieron	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:33:00 - [1] I spent a couple minutes trying to come up with a catchy thread title that would grab the spirit of the contents of the Blog. Different things came to mind, how should I include the new skills that are coming, new modules, old modules getting a face lift, broken modules getting a fix, and even the ship changes? The more I tried, the more I ran into the character limit for the subject. Finally, I just gave up and grabbed Oveur's title. There's just too much information to try and cram all of it into one catchy title. Don't believe me? Go check it out! kieron Community Manager, EVE Online

SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:34:00 - [2] Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 15:36:26 OMG NICE! passive hardening states! Edit: LOL plates getting boosted... ships/modules forum is gonna enjoy this. Edit 2: Lol Damage controls giving huge resists to hull... "Structure tanking 4tw?" with reinforced bulkheads + DC + large hull repper II?
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:43:00 - [3] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/10/2005 15:43:11 Have been waiting for this one... _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
TruthKeeper	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:43:00 - [4] Great Dev Blog.....go CCP!
Psym0n	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:45:00 - [5] Edited by: Psym0n on 05/10/2005 15:44:59 Shield Extenders increace signature raduis, hope frigs will not grow big stylee? Si _________________________________ _________________________________
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:48:00 - [6] Active hardners giving passive: Eh? Don't see the use. Passive hardeners better: Fair enough, 42.6% vs 50% makes passive look at low better on many setups which are capacitor-marginal. Extenders/Plates: Er, that's "nerfed". Anything which relies on speed (Frigates/Interceptors) would be mad to fit a plate (given the test values), and if the same sort of massive increase applies to sig radius, then NOTHING will want to mount shield extenders, because they'll just boost the damage they take - neatly offsetting the bonus. You're, basically giving with one hand and directly taking away with the other. Can you just put the values on them back to their PRE-boost value and then leave them the heck alone please? As it stands, you're going to seriously reduce their Damage Controls / Reinforced Bulkheads: whatever :P Decreased volume of Capacitor Booster Charges: And about time, too. New module available to decrease Signature Radius: Designed to offset the sig radius penalty of expanders? Ugh...I'd rather you just made invulnrability fields useful and left it at that rather than introducing a module to fix a problem you're creating, thus eating MORE mids for shield tanking. All ships will be tested with flat 25% more Hitpoints: This is a direct nerf to all smaller ships and to all ships which have a smaller capacitor - especially Muinmatar setups which often have a VERY marginal cap. Stacking Penalty: Will there still be a simple formular for it? Or will you release the chart for how this works, please? The issue with damage mods is that the RoF bonus, stacking, essentially means there IS no dimishing returns for damage mods at present...has this been taken into account? Are all the ships getting a balance pass to take all these changes into account? Lots of the minmatar ships, in particular, are going to suffer heavily from some of these changes. The Amarr, with their sustainable armour tanks, are laughing. Loudly. In my ear. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:57:00 - [7] will end up happening i think is that people are just going to load up on sig rad reducing modules + implants and then cross their fingers that they dont get hit. We'll have intys running around with a sigradius of 10m and not getting hit at all rather than the silly plateness thats happening.
Rod Blaine	Posted - 2005.10.05 15:58:00 - [8] Originally by: SengH will end up happening i think is that people are just going to load up on sig rad reducing modules + implants and then cross their fingers that they dont get hit. We'll have intys running around with a sigradius of 10m and not getting hit at all rather than the silly plateness thats happening. Yes, but this introduces the need for expensive implants as opposed to reasonably cheap plates. Same effect in the end: unhittable inties. _______________________________________________ Yes yes, blogging is passÚ I know. Rod's Ramblingz on Eve-Online Solutions to your issues.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:01:00 - [9] Sure, until you get webbed. Then you find you can STILL be splashed by enemy fire, and you've just lost a LOT of ISK. Shield/Armour is the ONLY way to survive a lot of situations. CCP appear to be balancing for the bleeding edge of pilots. That's BAD. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:02:00 - [10] Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:03:26 yes but the implants can be transferred from ship -> ship (assuming your pod gets out) and also transferrs bonuses to other ships too. Already if you know what your doing(with the sig rad reduction stuff) you can make a BC take few enuff hits from a gankgeddon(at its optimal), to tank it without any hardeners. Edit: the sig radius reduction modules will almost probably have to work on a % based level otherwise this will end in tears for sure.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:04:00 - [11] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/10/2005 16:04:27 For many of us, the lag involved in dying means we VERY rarely get our pods away. The only answer is not to die, unfortunately, which means these changes are going to force us away from a large number of smaller ships. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:06:00 - [12] Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:06:39 From what ive heard, the sig radius reduction implants apply to to pods too.... and increase the locking time considerably due to the funky exponential locking time formula ccp uses.
Rufus Roughneck	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:08:00 - [13] /me stocks up on halo implants
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:16:00 - [14] Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/10/2005 16:18:00 Originally by: SengH Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:06:39 From what ive heard, the sig radius reduction implants apply to to pods too.... and increase the locking time considerably due to the funky exponential locking time formula ccp uses. Yea...unfortunately I've experienced lag of up to 15 seconds, and there are situations (warp bubble, smartbomb, etc.) when that won't help - losing 300+ mil of implants to this sort of lag is harsh and not something I (and others) are willing to risk. This is a near-irelevant sideline, though. It's related to changes which are not needed (if anything, just put plates back to their pre-boost state AND there's nothing wrong with the current shield expanders given their fitting reqs), and will (again) reduce the amount of viable ships and setups. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:16:00 - [15] Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:21:07 Fleet battles of the future If Sig radius reduction modules are mid slot Hi: All t2 guns Med: All Sig rad reduction Low: All dmg mod Gang BC + Halo implants + above setup Scorps: Meds all with TP2s Both fleets: WTF why isnt anyone dying Person X in fleet A: 1hr and 30mins to lock ARE YOU F*king kididng me Person Y in fleet A: Yay my full rack of sensor booster IIs only reduced lock time to 10 minutes person Y gets called primary and toasted* Fleet A: ahahahah sucker we told you to fit the stealth mods Primary in fleet B: LOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL their whole fleet suxxors im not getting hit Raven user: wtf my cruises did 2 dmg to the battleship
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:24:00 - [16] And I thought I overreacted. Sheesh. As stated my concerns are basically limited to extenders/plates, the sig reducing modules (as related to the extenders) and hp increase. I either support or don't mind everything else (well, remote hull repairing is iffy, but I can certainly live with it). "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:26:00 - [17] Maya its cus you havent seen what sig radius reduction can do:P playing around with the gang modules.. its VERY scary... theres a reason why the devs nerfed skirmish warfare - evasive maneuvering to a -2% per level when everything else in its class got a 3% effect.
Bazman	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:30:00 - [18] Hmm. I wonder if anyone will start using damage controls after this change :P
Death Merchant	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:31:00 - [19] Active hardners giving passive: Um..ok. Passive hardeners better: Sounds good. Pottsey will love u long time. Extenders/Plates: Basically any frigate that puts on a mwd and a shield extender will have the sig radius of freighter? Damage Controls / Reinforced Bulkheads: Sounds good. Good to know their useful for something other than recycling. Decreased volume of Capacitor Booster Charges: My megathron thanks you. Now fix my blasters. New module available to decrease Signature Radius: My opinion is reserved till I see the fitting requirements and most importantly what slot does it fit in. All ships will be tested with flat 25% more Hitpoints: Being as I want to fly my blasterthron more, this is a good idea. However I think this boost along with the damage mod nerf is a bit too ambitious at the start. Stacking Penalty: There are alot of geddon and megathron pilots with maxed out damage mod configs. I hope the forums can take the onslaught. Please tell me your gonna lower the cap use on blasters/rails?
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:31:00 - [20] Originally by: SengH Maya its cus you havent seen what sig radius reduction can do:P playing around with the gang modules.. its VERY scary... theres a reason why the devs nerfed skirmish warfare - evasive maneuvering to a -2% per level when everything else in its class got a 3% effect. Okay. That's a very different concern to mine, though, and if they're midslot they do zero for inties which currently use plates and are standing square in the spotlight of this nerf. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
babylonstew	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:32:00 - [21] Originally by: SengH Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:22:43 Fleet battles of the future If Sig radius reduction modules are mid slot Hi: All t2 guns Med: All Sig rad reduction (would now work cus of the reduced stacking penalty) Low: All dmg mod Gang BC + Halo implants + above setup Scorps: Meds all with TP2s Both fleets: WTF why isnt anyone dying Person X in fleet A: 1hr and 30mins to lock ARE YOU F*king kididng me Person Y in fleet A: Yay my full rack of sensor booster IIs only reduced lock time to 10 minutes person Y gets called primary and toasted* Fleet A: ahahahah sucker we told you to fit the stealth mods Primary in fleet B: LOLOLOOLOLOLOLOLOL their whole fleet suxxors im not getting hit Raven user: wtf my cruises did 2 dmg to the battleship the raven comment is both funny and very sad at the same time, not sure whtther to laugh or cry tbh actually, think ill cry
SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:40:00 - [22] Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:41:18 Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:40:12 For all those that doubt me Halo Implant set: -20.7% reduction Gang Warfare module: -22.5% max (with the t2 implant) ------------------------------------------------------- -43.2% reduction in sig radius. This already would put some intys in the 12-14m sig radius range. Toss on another sig radius reduction module... or more... and you get the point.
Graelyn	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:48:00 - [23] Wow. We Amarr are about to become unstoppable. No, I'm not especially pleased about that. The plates/mass Shield/sig rad will ensure that everyone starts training up Amarr BS lvl5. Armor tankers will be slow and strong, while shield tankers will...er..die. Quickly. I feel really bad for the pirates right about now. Minister of Foreign Affairs - Aegis Militia Fleet Admiral/CEO - The Aeternus Crusade
Psych0	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:54:00 - [24] Edited by: Psych0 on 05/10/2005 16:56:14 I like all the changes and the new stuff but there is however 1 module i would like to see.. There are several modules to impact a gun ship to make it useless. Be it ecm so it cant lock, or the the disrupter so it cant hit however there is no modules to make that kind of impact on a missile boat. It will always be able to fire on you even if it cant lock you( FOF ). Only way to protect youreself from not being hit by missiles is by using defenders, but not all ships have launcher slots. All ships can use the modules that impact guns. So i would like to see the long missed point blank defense module :). Can only shoot down missiles launched at one self. Give the logistics ships a new bonus. They can shoot at all missiles launch at the gang with the point defense module or perhaps a new ship class ? :). And perhaps upgrade the FOF system so they will launch at any ship that are firing on any ship in the current gang.
Hanns	Posted - 2005.10.05 16:55:00 - [25] yarr.. interesting
FireFoxx80	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:25:00 - [26] Looks like you are trying to make combat last longer, yet at the same time prevent some of the uber-T2 frigates getting massive tanks I think combat has been pretty instantaneous, particularly with stacking damage mods and the increase in T2 usage. However, one question. Signature radii reduction. I can see that this would reduce things like targetting speed, and less chance to hit with tracking, but should it nerf missiles another time? In theory, the ships are not getting physically smaller if they mount this module, so perhaps missiles should be rebalanced to take into account the physical size of the ship? After all, a missile explosion cares not for the sensor appearence of a target, as it would for say targetting or tracking. I haven't seen if this is on the test server or not. But I would like to think that sig radius reduction modules would take the following form: Passive Low Slot: Decreases sig radius. Decreases armour resists. Passive Med Slot: Decreases sig radius. Decreases shield resists. Active Med Slow: Decrease sig radius more. Uses a concerning amount of cap to sustain. Would make things more tactical with resists and cap usage. Yet versatile enough for everyone to use. 23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC
Bazman	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:28:00 - [27] For the lub of god, please, please look at ECCM as well. All the changes will mean sweet FA if some newb in a frigate can come along and render you comepletely and utterly defenseless with a 50k isk racial jammer that has no countermeasure :P
Winterblink	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:30:00 - [28] This is perhaps a stupid question, but will these changes make their way into the changes to NPCs as well? If that's the case, might I suggest a boost to NPC bounties, given that now we'll be expending more ordnance to kill them. winterblink warp drive active.http://winterblink.com/wda nature vraie.http://winterblink.com/env
Earthan	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:31:00 - [29] Sounds good to me. Tough i got more drastic view of the ultra short battles, so i am not sure if its good enough for my taste:) ***************************** A solution to gank/to much dmg.Plz read and reply.Make Eve more tactical!!
Earthan	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:37:00 - [30] Edited by: Earthan on 05/10/2005 17:45:34 Well if its how i understand it the hardening skill will change little for bs and cruisers , as both have enough cap:( Also if it hardens inactive active hardeners , the passive hardeners gonna get used even less. ***************************** A solution to gank/to much dmg.Plz read and reply.Make Eve more tactical!!
Siri Danae	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:41:00 - [31] Edited by: Siri Danae on 05/10/2005 17:41:37 I love the tanking changes... I'm a little worried about dealing with amarr bs, but it'll help my dominix too. My biggest concern is the 8 new skills for hardening? I hope they're low-level skills, because even if you focus on just one class of hardener, armor or shields, that's a lot of training time to take advantage of these changes. ------ I generally assume the following: 1. 95% of Empire Carebears don't get 0.0 PVPers. 2. 95% of 0.0 PVPers don't get Empire Carebears. 3. 100% of Ore Thieves steal just to upset the Miners.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:42:00 - [32] Originally by: Graelyn Wow. We Amarr are about to become unstoppable. No, I'm not especially pleased about that. The plates/mass Shield/sig rad will ensure that everyone starts training up Amarr BS lvl5. Armor tankers will be slow and strong, while shield tankers will...er..die. Quickly. I feel really bad for the pirates right about now. Yeah me too A BS doesnt mind to become a bit more sluggy, but getting much bigger sig hurts a lot Also the problem is only amarr sustain their tankings, until this is fixed it will cause lots of grief, cause an apoc will become better and better... good ideas, but will kill lots of ships -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:47:00 - [33] ...Amarr ships with 1400mm's, anyone? "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Slater Dogstar	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:52:00 - [34] I like the way the active hardners still ahve an effect if they are turned off therefore if you do badly and your tank goes offline you are still partially tanked. Gillet The Best A Man Can Get
Alex Kynes	Posted - 2005.10.05 17:53:00 - [35] Originally by: Maya Rkell ...Amarr ships with 1400mm's, anyone? I'll take three, please! And can I get some EMP L with that? -AK
Grimpak	Posted - 2005.10.05 18:29:00 - [36] Originally by: Maya Rkell ...Amarr ships with 1400mm's, anyone? dear lord in underpants! I just had a flashback! ------------------- Celestial Horizon: we go zerg on you
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.10.05 18:53:00 - [37] are you going to balance shield extenders out? theyre incredibly hard to fit, they give way way way way way way less HP than armor plating, there's hardly enough room in your midslots to fit them on MOST ships, now they have a penalty... oboy. ------
Sadist	Posted - 2005.10.05 18:56:00 - [38] Originally by: SengH Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 16:42:46 For all those that doubt me Halo Implant set: -20.7% reduction Gang Warfare module: -22.5% max (with the t2 implant) ------------------------------------------------------- -43.2% reduction in sig radius. This already would put some intys in the 12-14m sig radius range. Toss on another sig radius reduction module... or more... and you get the point. Theres other trade secrets that I can use to increase the reduction further already. To top it off all this is BEFORE any module is involved with any stacking penalty. Yes, ofc all inty pilots arent afraid to fly with full Halo sets and _always_ have BC with max supporting skills as backup. No comment on that BS, get real plz. Oveur, nice changes, but could you please elaborate this part "same 8 skills mentioned above increase resistances on Passive Hardeners by 3% per level, increasing the total resist to 32,5% maxing out at 42,625% at level 5. " I mean, energized plates have 40% base, meaning that at lvl 5 they'd get how much? Or they dont count? Plz explain. Shield Extenders and Armor Plates further improved - instead of doing this, couldn't you just have added like...40-50% instead of 25% to all ships HP ? Damage Controls are now useful! - I'll be damned, you stole (took, borrowed) my idea (proposed in april/may) Decreased volume of Capacitor Booster Charges By how much? Therefore we are considering adding Remote Hull Repairers too Please, please, please. And add large ones too. I mean, what kind of a logistic ship is it, if it can't even put out fire on the burning ship? Stacking Penalty has been changed This will actually increase dmg on most setups, so that 25% ship HP increase should definitely be in Kali. Waiting for your answer on those passive hardeners. --------------- VIP member of the [23] Sadist - harsh to the idiots, kind to the smart
SengH	Posted - 2005.10.05 19:12:00 - [39] Edited by: SengH on 05/10/2005 19:12:34 I can achieve the 40%+ reduction without anyone ever needing to have a halo implant set and without skills at max using a couple tricks of the trade. I'd hate to see what it would be like when I have maxxed skills and with a person with halo implants. Edit: to top it off adding a couple more stealth modules would just make it silly. I'm just waving a red flag thats all.
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.10.05 19:17:00 - [40] Mostly sounds okay, except for: New module available to decrease Signature Radius I think this needs more consideration. Currently a battleship pilot should be able to take out a HAC in a moderately hard fight. If this module is meant for cruiser size ships, it will mean HACs become a i-win button versus battleships if the module is overpowered. The Raven already has a hell of a time trying to take out a HAC, as the explosion radius proportions for heavy, cruise, and torpedos are insanely out of whack. Stacking Penalty has been changed Gankatankageddons with full pre-patch gankadamage potential. What more could an Amarrian want?
Jim Raynor	Posted - 2005.10.05 19:25:00 - [41] i think messing further with signature radius is very bad.. missiles are struggling with low signature radius ships, especially ones that can achieve high velocity, its quite futile i dont think signature radius penalizes turrets quite as badly, for missiles though, a low sig ship against your missiles is almost an automatic loss for the missile user.. :\ ------
Magdala	Posted - 2005.10.05 19:31:00 - [42] Quote: All ships will be tested with flat 25% more Hitpoints To shields? To armor? To structure? To all three?
Spy4Hire	Posted - 2005.10.05 19:54:00 - [43] Originally by: Maya Rkell Edited by: Maya Rkell on 05/10/2005 16:04:27 For many of us, the lag involved in dying means we VERY rarely get our pods away. The only answer is not to die, unfortunately, which means these changes are going to force us away from a large number of smaller ships. I agree. In the last fight I was in I knew I was doomed, so I selected a moon and started spam clicking warp-to as my ship was dying. When it blew up the 'warp to' option went away, I had to re-select the moon through the lag, and started spamming warp-to again. It took 14 seconds for me to get the message 'you are warp scrambled'... 14 seconds of complete LAG with my pod just sitting there for any BS pilot to lock at their liesure. THIS is the issue that needs looking into.
Dao 2	Posted - 2005.10.05 20:13:00 - [44] REMOTE STRUCTURE REPS \o/ dont think im gonan really use em though... but \o/ ;p be REAL useful for a lot of ppl
Aequitas Veritas	Posted - 2005.10.05 20:39:00 - [45] Originally by: Jim Raynor i think messing further with signature radius is very bad.. missiles are struggling with low signature radius ships, especially ones that can achieve high velocity, its quite futile i dont think signature radius penalizes turrets quite as badly, for missiles though, a low sig ship against your missiles is almost an automatic loss for the missile user.. :\ Signed... At least throw us a bone and let the Guided missile precission skill affect torpedoes as well...
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.05 20:47:00 - [46] Quote: sig radius module thingie Missiles are already the red-headed step-child of EVE since Cold War. Now you're going to nerf them even further? [sarcasm] I'm just going to love watching my torpedos inflict reduced damage to that enemy battleship, the ONE TYPE OF SHIP THEY WERE STILL USEFUL AGAINST POST-PATCH. [/sarcasm] Seriously, you might as well not fly a raven, period, if this goes through. It's already mostly pointless since people fly HAC, inty, and assault frig fleets instead of battleship fleets these days. Good show, Oveur. Now there's no point to being Caldari if you like the larger ships. Even though I mostly fly a tempest these days since my raven is worthless in almost every PvP situation, I'll still be reconsidering the status of my account because of this. -Wrayeth
Famine Aligher'ri	Posted - 2005.10.05 20:50:00 - [47] OMG I just had an oragasism! -Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri
JoCool	Posted - 2005.10.05 20:57:00 - [48] What the f.. leave your organic functions out of this thread please. Anyway, nice show kieron. You guys might think about that signature affecting module again though. Also, a signature radius increase by fitting a shield extender is... well, frankly nuts. You guys seem all obsessed about keeping shield tankers in the mud :(
fisho	Posted - 2005.10.05 20:58:00 - [49] hy do caladri pilots think that the sig radius reduction modules apply excuisly to them? ever tried to hit a frigate orbiting you are 5km with L guns? its not easy, at least your weapons do hit.
deathfighter	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:01:00 - [50] More hitpoints less damage from the gankers, don't like this. more than 4 dmg moods useless not good. everything else is ok by me but the stacking penalty is realy crap. and funny part is that only afects armageddons and tempests. . Death-
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:01:00 - [51] Originally by: JoCool Also, a signature radius increase by fitting a shield extender is... well, frankly nuts. You guys seem all obsessed about keeping shield tankers in the mud :( To quote a dev blog from sometime in 2004, when the shield penalty for using a MWD was removed: "OMGCCPACTUALLYLIKESCALDARI?!!! No, we don't. Amarr for teh win." It was meant in humor at the time, but it's turned out to be all too true. -Wrayeth
DrunkenOne	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:04:00 - [52] Hmm time to train amarr bs to 5 looks like
nahtoh	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:06:00 - [53] Originally by: fisho hy do caladri pilots think that the sig radius reduction modules apply excuisly to them? ever tried to hit a frigate orbiting you are 5km with L guns? its not easy, at least your weapons do hit. for FECK ALL...you have a effective range where you can insta pop a fig if you get a hit...caldari pilots can't period not at any range not with any damage type. (unless you count Stealh bomber against T1 frig and then only one one ship type due to hidden ship bonus) "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)
Gierling	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:09:00 - [54] Edited by: Gierling on 05/10/2005 21:09:43 Stats for the active stealth modules (sig radius reducers) have been on Eve-i for a while. They are size based and pretty hefty, I believe 10 powergrid for a 5 sig rad reduction, with the largest taking 250 powergrid and giving a 50 sig radius reduction. They were midslot modules. Whats gonna be interesting is Blasterthrons with one sig reducer and one good named damage control. They don't need to tank persay, they just need an extra 30 seconds of being alive sometimes. Bastards we are lest Bastards we become.
Hoshi	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:14:00 - [55] Here is the stats of a sig radius mod from the database. This is the small version, they range from micro to huge. Small Active Stealth System I Activation cost: 100 Energy powergrid usage: 30 MW CPU usage: 60 tf Activation time / duration: 24,000 ms Primary Skill required: Electronic Warfare requiredSkill1Level: 2 signatureRadiusBonus: -2100 % maxGroupActive: 1
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:34:00 - [56] After reading that Dev blog, I think it's safe to say you guys have just basicly buried the Caldari ships alive. I'm glad tto see the most technologically advanced race (next to the jovians) are going to be the laughing stocks of combat. Reduced sig radius yet again? That's kinda weak man. We need some more efective target painters now (for missiles, because the current ones don't really help worth a damn ).
Stuart Price	Posted - 2005.10.05 21:53:00 - [57] So far, the more recent changes to the game have put me into a moral dilemma. I trained Caldari bs 5, instead of Amarr bs 5, becasue I liked the flexibility the raven offered, and the fact that I could set it up to be effective against specific targets (torpedoes against bs', cruise against cruisers etc). I am the stupidest person alive. If I want to pve, it's still ok. I can tank npc's for ages and they don't warp away, so my missiles will eventually kill them. It's also a LOT easier to hit npc's than other players. If I want to pvp in a Raven and be able to kill pretty much anything, I am FORCED to use heavy nos, in large numbers. As some of you may know, I am of the opinion that heavy nos are badly in need of balancing against small ships. Hence my dilemma. Do I just ignore the fact that I spent what seems like an ICE AGE training Cal bs 5 for NO BENEFIT WHATSOEVER and start using other ships? Ships that work better without the same time put into their skills? Or do I use a mod I am personally opposed to in order to be able to kill ANYTHING. Oh yeah, assuming I can get close to it and make it stay there. No insta-lock POP for me. Missiles need to be tweaked so that sig radius has LESS effect on them (much much less), and speed has prolly slightly more. That way the fast ships avoid death (until double webbed, as it should be dammit) and the big ones take the damage they're meant to. Sure, I could fit assault launchers and target painters. But it's a frickin BATTLESHIP. Make missiles able to instavolleygank stuff at 100km, or make them (SHOCK HORROR) better against smaller stuff than turrets to compensate. Everyone's entitled to an opinion, mine just happens to be right.... (Disgruntled Caldari 'specialist' who wishes he's gone Amarr properly as his instincts suggested) "I got soul but I'm not a soldier"
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:05:00 - [58] Edited by: Wrayeth on 05/10/2005 22:07:43 Originally by: Stuart Price Missiles need to be tweaked so that sig radius has LESS effect on them (much much less), and speed has prolly slightly more. That way the fast ships avoid death (until double webbed, as it should be dammit) and the big ones take the damage they're meant to. Sure, I could fit assault launchers and target painters. But it's a frickin BATTLESHIP. Welcome to the wonderful world of Caldari. :P Here's a little tidbit of info: Even WITH target painters, the raven blows against smaller ships such as HACs. That's right - I fit out a raven with: 6 limos cruise 1 heavy nos 1 warp scrambler 1 sensor booster 1 cap recharger 3 target painter II's 2 large armor reps 3 hardeners I tried this out against a corpmate's zealot, and even with cruise missiles doing full damage (thanks to the target painter II's) it couldn't break his tank since he stayed out of nos range. Please note that the zealot is not known for tanking ability. EDIT: He had beams and was raping my armor tank while I was testing my cruise missiles vs. him. It might've worked if I'd been able to fit siege launchers, but the raven doesn't have the grid to run nos/large armor reps at the same time as siege. This only barely fit with cruise launchers, and I'm not entirely sure one of the large armor reps wasn't a medium (was a week or two ago and I was half asleep when we tested it). -Wrayeth
Oz Draconis	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:12:00 - [59] Sounds great! Can't wait for all the changes to get ingame! --- Natural Selection Works.
Allen Deckard	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:15:00 - [60] Originally by: fisho hy do caladri pilots think that the sig radius reduction modules apply excuisly to them? ever tried to hit a frigate orbiting you are 5km with L guns? its not easy, at least your weapons do hit. yes and if it applied to caldari using large missles trying to shoot a frig orbiting at 5km doubt many would have a problem. Thing is it applies to missle users no matter what range the target is no matter if the target is sitting still or moving no matter if it is orbiting or not and just because they hit doesn't mean much if it hits for 4 hp.
HippoKing	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:19:00 - [61] my raven won't fit in the bin has anyone got a bigger one? ah - i see the minny titan -- This Zig. For great justice!
Turin	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:43:00 - [62] Wow. More nerfage for missle users. <sigh> I dont know wether to quit, or train up ammar.
nahtoh	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:55:00 - [63] Originally by: Turin Wow. More nerfage for missle users. <sigh> I dont know wether to quit, or train up ammar. I started training for ammar ships before the blog came out, just because I wanted to fly every T1 combat ship...thank all thats unholy i listened to the voices in my head that timethey normally just get me in trouble "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)
Kai Lae	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:56:00 - [64] I like these changes - however as Mr. Blaine has noted, there's a problem brewing with unintended effects with regards to missiles. First problem - light missiles aren't effective against small fast moving targets which is a problem, and these changes will make it worse. The second problem is what's the issue here - there's no equivalent to a tracking computer or tracking enhancer for missiles. Missiles need a active mid slot item and a passive low slot item that boosts the explosion velocity and also decreases the effect that signature radius has on missiles. Gun users have the tracking computer to assist their gunnery and I've never been sure why since the missile changes that no such equivalent modules exist for missile users. The current situation only encourages the use of the most overpowered module in the game, a nosferatu, and this will get worse with these changes without some help. BTW tracking for nosses and neuts would be nice....
omg rawr	Posted - 2005.10.05 22:58:00 - [65] Mmm, lots to talk about at the devchat... vist omgrawr.net - the EVE Online funny quote database
Megadon	Posted - 2005.10.05 23:00:00 - [66] Quote: Active Shield and Armor Hardeners now have Passive Hardening in Inactive States There are 8 new skills which enable this Passive Hardening. 4 skills for Shield and 4 for Armor, one for each damage type. Each level of this skill trained gives you a passive resistance of 3% up to a cumulative 15% for each damage type. This only applies when the module is inactive, if it is activated, it gives its standard resistance bonus. This is nothing more than something else to grind. Gee thanks!! Why not just give added passive bonuses to the active modules that are fitted when they are not activated? Quote: Passive Shield and Armor Hardeners resistances by skills The same 8 skills mentioned above increase resistances on Passive Hardeners by 3% per level, increasing the total resist to 32,5% maxing out at 42,625% at level 5. The skills only add resistances to these modules to further emphasize the defensive abilities of a tank setups vs. a damage only setup. Applying the resistances to the ship itself would have favored both the tank and damage setups, effectively achieving nothing. The bigger benefit to passive hardeners is also to increase defenses of ships lacking capacitor to run active hardeners. This seems like a good thing. Quote: New module available to decrease Signature Radius We uhm ... have a ... new module available to decrease Signature Radius. Title ruined that one for me. Anyways, it's a bit dangerous since Signature Radius affects a lot of things so by all means go and check it out, we need good feedback on it. This would be BULL** plain and simple. Sorry, but there's no other way to say it here in Texas. You just introduced a new skill to grind for missile users aimed specifically at overcoming the sig radius of smaller ships and now your going to add a module that will nullify this? Then WHY did you ADD the "GUIDED MISSILE PRECISION" skill IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!?? In terms of larger ships hitting smaller ones, the current situation is so removed from the bounds of reality that it is laughable, why do you want to head further down this path? I think you perceive a problem that has already been solved by numerous patches. The frigate, AF, interceptor are already uber enough. Instead of making new modules, why don't you focus a bit on the cruiser's by giving them more hitting power? Quote: All ships will be tested with flat 25% more Hitpoints This is a considerable increase when taking into consideration all the other increased defense measures, so the end result is more than 25%. As a result, this 25% addition might be reverted or changed (up or down) depending on testing of it. This increase might vary between ship classes or tech levels. Cool, combat will last longer and that's a good thing, looking forward to it! Quote:** Stacking Penalty has been changed Seems like a good thing
Ashalin Tora	Posted - 2005.10.06 00:09:00 - [67] Sorry Mr. Kieron, but from what i've heard, the Ravens are said to get even worse after this upgrade? If it comes to be so, you should spent more minutes
Tovarishch	Posted - 2005.10.06 00:53:00 - [68] Edited by: Tovarishch on 06/10/2005 00:56:19 The changes look very solid for the most part. The 25% increase to hit points across the board is nice to see... and the changes to active/passive tanking modules will be very useful also. The changes to shield extenders and plates needs to make those modules appealing. If the penalties are too harsh those modules will become anathema again. The stacking penalty changes are GREAT to see... though I think they need to be even more harsh. The first two modules of any type should remain quite useful (as is currently)... the third should be only a very moderate upgrade at best... and the fourth module should be nearly useless. As it is stated 'anything MORE than 4 modules of the same type gets practically useless'. If that '4' were changed to a '3' then I would be more inclined to throw a real celebration. As it stands now (and after this proposed change) 4 damage mods will still be useful. However, I think the mid-slot sig reduction module is going to have very far-reaching consequences which effect some tactics and weapons far more than others... which is going to polarize ship setups... resulting in 'optimal' setups and weapons. Missile users and snipers are going to take a very hard hit from that module... missiles particularly since all damage will be effected by the module... resulting in a lower mean average damage when compared to turrets... especially since turrets get a flat wrecking chance that can help average damage... where missile users get no such perk. All-in-all these are good changes to see... but I think the mid-slot sig reduction module is not only not going to be needed to lengthen combat if the rest of these changes are effective... but I think it is going to render some weapons/setups more effective than others. PS. And what the hell is up with t2 BCUs needing 40 cpu? We wait over a year for this module and now this? Come on...
Bombcrater	Posted - 2005.10.06 01:07:00 - [69] The 25% global HP bonus and the sig radius module are going to put Steath Bombers totally out of business if they go live
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.10.06 01:07:00 - [70] Edited by: Jacob Majestic on 06/10/2005 01:07:36 I don't understand why shield extenders are getting a nerf. Shield extenders already have very high fitting requirements for very little HP compared to armor plates, and now the sig radius increase? Boohoo, a 1600mm plated Prophecy now goes 40m/s slower because of the increased mass (not like it went fast enough to traverse against incoming fire anyway), while the Ferox it's got into armor has the sig of a small moon because of its two large shield extenders (which use more than twice the fitting and barely give the same HP). Exactly how is this equitable?
Dr Tetrahydrocannabinol	Posted - 2005.10.06 01:13:00 - [71] Originally by: omg rawr Mmm, lots to talk about at the devchat... omg i love the shameless plug :D --------------------------------------------- Signature filesize exceeded. Maximum sig size is 400*120 and 24000 bytes - Teblin - aww come on now :(
Dezzyb0y	Posted - 2005.10.06 01:19:00 - [72] Oveur makes yet again another fantastic decision... Keep it up my friend, one day we will rule the world together. Wub you now and 4eva ----------------------- Join the oveur fan club today and recive an e-flower!
Tovarishch	Posted - 2005.10.06 01:20:00 - [73] Originally by: Jacob Majestic Edited by: Jacob Majestic on 06/10/2005 01:15:15 I don't understand why shield extenders are getting a nerf. Shield extenders already have very high fitting requirements for very little HP compared to armor plates, and now the sig radius increase? Boohoo, a 1600mm plated Prophecy now goes 40m/s slower because of the increased mass (not like it went fast enough to traverse against incoming fire anyway), while the Ferox it's got into armor has the sig of a small moon because of its two large shield extenders (which use more than twice the fitting and barely give the same HP). Exactly how is this equitable? edit Another problem -- shield tankers have fewer mid slots than armor tankers have low slots. Look at the comparison: Moa (5) vs. Thorax (5 or 6) and Maller (6) Ferox (5) vs. Prophecy (6) Raven (6) vs. Armageddon (8), Apoc (7), Dominix (7), Megathron (7) No matter what, the opportunity cost of fitting a shield extender on any of these shield tanking ships is higher than it is to fit a plate on the armor tanking ships. In sum, shield tankers give up more in slots and use more fitting to fit modules that make them much easier to hit and give them fewer HP returns. How exactly is this equitable?? I completely agree, Jacob. However, if you reread the Shield Extender section it says, 'Shield Extenders and Armor Plates have been further improved'. I interpret this as meaning that the fitting requirements and other stats of Shield Extenders have made them more worthwhile to use.... in addition to this penalty. If that's not the case then I agree with what you typed.
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.10.06 02:14:00 - [74] Edited by: Jacob Majestic on 06/10/2005 02:19:24 Originally by: Tovarishch I completely agree, Jacob. However, if you reread the Shield Extender section it says, 'Shield Extenders and Armor Plates have been further improved'. I interpret this as meaning that the fitting requirements and other stats of Shield Extenders have made them more worthwhile to use.... in addition to this penalty. If that's not the case then I agree with what you typed. But we already know what a boost to extenders and plates is to the devs -- flat increases in the HP they give. Fine, so both extenders and plates get +50% to their HP bonus. You can give +50% HP until you're blue in the face, but it won't change the fact that if you can't fit the extenders no one will use them! For a comedy option, let's look at the new shield tanking sensation, the Cyclone MK Tuxford! High Slots: 8x Whatever you can manage to fit, LOL! Mid Slots: 1x Large Shield Booster II 1x Shield Boost Amplifier I (because we might as well be good at something, right?) 1x Large Shield Extender II 1x 10mn AB II Low Slots: 1x Damage Control II (because we need better than 0% EM shield resist, am i rite?) 1x RCU II (so we can fit guns and shield extenders on our ship. did I mention this takes a level 5 rank 3 skill?) 2x This Setup Is An Embarrasing Failure II It'd be pleasant if you could actually put a viable shield tank on a ship with a +7.5% bonus to shield boosting per battlecruiser level, but you can't. How is this equitable again?? edit Here's Cliffs Notes for people that aren't paying attention: - Shield tanking ships have fewer mid slots than armor tanking ships have low slots. - When shield tanking ships fit tanking modules, they give up EW modules. This has a bigger impact than when armor tanking ships fit armor tanking modules, especially with the stacking bonus nerf to damage mods. - Furthermore, shield extenders MK Oveur are flat out worse than armor plates on any ship that can put up a legitamite tank. A sig radius nerf is much worse than a speed nerf for ships that aren't going that fast in the first place!
Sadist	Posted - 2005.10.06 03:01:00 - [75] Quote: High Slots: 8x Whatever you can manage to fit, LOL! Mid Slots: 1x Large Shield Booster II 1x Shield Boost Amplifier I (Because we might as well be good at something, right?) 1x Large Shield Extender II 1x Medium Electrochemical Cap Booster w/800 charges (That's 800 cap every 22 seconds, certainly enough to run a LSB II! NOT. Did I mention that this takes as much grid as a gun?) Low Slots: 1x Damage Control II (Because we need better than 0% EM shield resist, am i rite?) 1x RCU II (So we can fit guns and shield extenders on our ship. Did I mention this takes a level 5 rank 3 skill?) 2x This Setup Is An Embarrasing Failure II I dont really want to get off-topic, but 90% of brutix setups now use an RCU, and after fitting 2 damage mods, you only have 3 lows for an armor tank/nanofibers. 2 hardeners/1 med rep isnt exactly uber too, you know. However, i do agree that cyclone should lose a high and get a low or a mid. --------------- VIP member of the [23] Sadist - harsh to the idiots, kind to the smart
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.10.06 03:19:00 - [76] Originally by: Sadist I dont really want to get off-topic, but 90% of brutix setups now use an RCU, and after fitting 2 damage mods, you only have 3 lows for an armor tank/nanofibers. 2 hardeners/1 med rep isnt exactly uber too, you know. However, i do agree that cyclone should lose a high and get a low or a mid. This is actually exactly on-topic, though. The Brutix has 6 low slots. Before the damage mod stacking nerf, dropping one or two of those damage mods for a plate or a rep might have been a hard decision. However, with the nerf it's now an easy decision -- drop the damage mod and bring on the plate! The Ferox is much harder to work with. Every shield extender you fit takes the same fitting as 2 heavy missile launchers or 1.5 guns. Furthermore, every shield extender you fit is an AB or a web or an EW mod or a scramble that you can't fit. If you fit an AB and a web, you are left with three slots to tank with, which is pathetic. No 50% buffs to extenders are going to override the fact that you had to downgrade your guns and pass up fitting EW modules to fit them. All the armor tankers have to do is forego that 4th damage mod, which won't make a big different post-nerf anyway.
Kai Lae	Posted - 2005.10.06 04:00:00 - [77] Brutix has 5. Refrain from posting if you don't know what the revelant facts are..
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.10.06 04:24:00 - [78] Originally by: Kai Lae Brutix has 5. Refrain from posting if you don't know what the revelant facts are.. I have armor tanked ships before, but never a Brutix. When talking about tanking it, I was going off of this quote: Originally by: Sadist I dont really want to get off-topic, but 90% of brutix setups now use an RCU, and after fitting 2 damage mods, you only have 3 lows for an armor tank/nanofibers. 2 hardeners/1 med rep isnt exactly uber too, you know. However, i do agree that cyclone should lose a high and get a low or a mid. Which implies that it has 6. The fact that I messed this up doesn't cheapen the argument, though, which is that the stacking penalty nerf lowers the opportunity cost for fitting an armor tank even more than it already was compared to shield tanking.
Trepkos	Posted - 2005.10.06 04:50:00 - [79] Days like this make me happy that I dont specialize toward any race. ---------------- Axe keepiru
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.06 05:54:00 - [80] Wow this is great news for passive shield tankers. Better extenders, better resistance and better base hitpoints + skills to train. I cannot wait to test this. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Tovarishch	Posted - 2005.10.06 05:55:00 - [81] Edited by: Tovarishch on 06/10/2005 05:56:11 One thing that has crossed my mind... Cap intensive active shield tanking is going to be at an even greater disadvantage the longer a fight lasts. Armor tanking is inherently designed to last a long time (if not indefinately)... while active shield tanking is designed to front-load it's 'healing'... leaving no cap after a very short period of time. The 25% flat increase to hit points is going to even further polarize the effectiveness of these two approaches to tanking.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.06 06:13:00 - [82] Do Invulnerability Field fields come under active hardeners? I hope they benefit for the new skills. ôare you going to balance shield extenders out? theyre incredibly hard to fit, they give way way way way way way less HP than armor plating, there's hardly enough room in your midslots to fit them on MOST ships, now they have a penalty... oboy.ö You have to take into account HP regen with the base ships getting a boost and if extender get another HP boost then on top of the damage mod nerf shield extenders could be a lot better then plates. Extenders do give less hitpoitns on the largest version compared to armor plating but with the new changeÆs 200 or 250 HP regen on a passive shield tank should be doable on the largest ships. I have 156HP right now. I will take 30% ish (what is the correct number?) less HP then armor plating and 200+HP regen as a passive shield tank any day over plates. ItÆs something that needs a lot of testing. I will be heading to fight club in my infamous passive shied tanked Dominix. Ravens are going have a real hard time now. I can see my ship tanking none damage mod Raven 24/7 and damage mods Ravens fro a long time, Anyone want to meet on the test server for a plate V extender battleship match once the changeÆs are made? _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Vishnej	Posted - 2005.10.06 06:30:00 - [83] Also, do the armor omnis - energized adaptive nano membrane and adaptive nano plate - get to take advantage of all four skills? ----------------- T2 Destroyers: a proposal
Brolly	Posted - 2005.10.06 07:35:00 - [84] And there was thinking learning every race ship was gonna be a waste of time Pretty naffed about the shield extender changes, looks like i'll have to train up other skills to boost up ressistances to compensate, very silly move there imho. On that note more hp all round is a good change and with smaller sig radius running blockades should be a bit easier and thus aid the exodus, as it were. There's gonna be a lot of unhappy campers though. I'm pretty curious about npc's too regarding the change as they are going to be updated with new skills, these are going to be intresting times indeed.
FireFoxx80	Posted - 2005.10.06 07:38:00 - [85] I will post this again. Missile explosions don't give a damn about the 'signature' radius of the target ship. An explosion is an explosion. It's not like these stealth modules make the ship physically smaller. Missiles should be modidied to use the physical size of the target. 23? # Missile Tool # ex: P-TMC : USAC
ELECTR0FREAK	Posted - 2005.10.06 07:56:00 - [86] Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 06/10/2005 07:57:28 For the record, myself and Sobe posted the plates and extenders idea back in Feb. We both worked the idea out in-game and he's the one that made it to the forums first. Linkage Originally by: ELECTR0FREAK Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 02/08/2005 23:15:44 Originally by: Faster ThanJesus Originally by: Jorev Quoting real physics effects never has and never will be grounds for changing in-game mechanics. So let's not go there. The idea makes at least some sense to me. If it is also realistic, surely that is an advantage? That's my point. Now, anyone who knows how ship mass works will understand this. They think that we're nerfing plates into oblivion? Get real and think about it for a moment. Plate: Mass Bonus 50mm: 75,000 100mm: 150,000 200mm: 300,000 400mm: 600,000 800mm: 1,200,000 1600mm: 2,400,000 Frigates have 1 million kg mass minimum. Cruisers 10, Battleships 100. Now, a 100mm plate on a frig would be a 15% decrease in agility. A 200mm plate would be a 30% decrease in agility. A 400mm plate would essentially make the ship 60% less agile. Thus, a 400mm plate would have the side effect of pretty drastically decreasing ship speed while orbiting a target closely, while the intended modules are quite reasonable. If you compare the bonus mass of a plate on its intended class of ship, the result is pretty dang reasonable. Now, personally, I'd tweak these numbers a bit. I'd rather see a percentage type thing, where an intended plate only adds about 10% mass of the ship class it's intended for, but a much higher number when it is fitted on a smaller ship class. I'd do it a bit more like this I think: Plate: Mass Bonus 50mm: 50,000 100mm: 100,000 200mm: 200,000 400mm: 1,000,000 800mm: 2,000,000 1600mm: 10,000,000 As you can see, the normal plates decrease agility only by 10% or less, while the higher-end plates for a class reach up towards 20%. However, fitting an oversized plate is a mass increase of approximately 100%. Another interesting note, you would be able to counter the mass bonus of an intended plate by using a nanofiber. Edit- Another quick idea, I was discussing this with a friend, and a signature radius boost came up as another option. All those sheets of armor have got to be easier to detect, and it could be applied feasibly to Extenders as well if balance became an issue. The hilarious part is how badly we got flamed in that thread, yet look what happened. -Electrofreak Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:37:00 - [87] I am a bit disapointed in the combat revisited, from what I have seen. Still no way to adjust anything during combat (power manager, etc)? The overly simplistic combat in EVE sure could use with a few advanced features.
Rodj Blake	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:52:00 - [88] Good changes on the whole, though I would suggest that the signature radius module be made to go into a high slot, the same as with cloaking devices. That way, if you want to be harder to hit, you'll do less damage. It will also help shield tankers (who'll now have a larger sig radius) by freeing up a mid slot. Dolce et decorum est pro imperator mori
Jernau Gurgeh	Posted - 2005.10.06 08:56:00 - [89] Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I am a bit disapointed in the combat revisited, from what I have seen. Still no way to adjust anything during combat (power manager, etc)? The overly simplistic combat in EVE sure could use with a few advanced features. If you'd ever flown a ship with a dozen modules needing activation against multiple targets into a lagged fight, you wouldn't be calling combat overly simplistic. There are 10 sorts of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who do not.
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:21:00 - [90] Edited by: Wrayeth on 06/10/2005 09:26:10 Edited by: Wrayeth on 06/10/2005 09:22:56 So: three things to srew caldari in this patch... 1.) Sig radius reduction module. Self-explanatory. 2.) Hit point increase means longer fights, which in turn means shield tank cap need will put shield tankers out of the fight far sooner than it will armor tankers. 3.) Extender and Plate changes mean that no one will fit an extender on anything smaller than a battleship. Also, extenders are still impossible to fit and have less hitpoints than armor plates. EDIT: Not part of the patch, but a big WTF goes out to CCP for the increased CPU on tech II ballistic controls. -Wrayeth
Megadon	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:28:00 - [91] Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 06/10/2005 09:26:10 Edited by: Wrayeth on 06/10/2005 09:22:56 So: three things to srew caldari in this patch... 1.) Sig radius reduction module. Self-explanatory. 2.) Hit point increase means longer fights, which in turn means shield tank cap need will put shield tankers out of the fight far sooner than it will armor tankers. 3.) Extender and Plate changes mean that no one will fit an extender on anything smaller than a battleship. Also, extenders are still impossible to fit and have less hitpoints than armor plates. EDIT: Not part of the patch, but a big WTF goes out to CCP for the increased CPU on tech II ballistic controls. Yes, the hits keep coming don't they? Just train Amarr and move on, I think that's the only choice quite honestly.
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:39:00 - [92] Originally by: Megadon Yes, the hits keep coming don't they? Just train Amarr and move on, I think that's the only choice quite honestly. Actually, I can already fly Amarr battleships and use large energy turrets, though I don't have them trained up very far. Turns out I really didn't like them. Minmatar ships, on the other hand, are excellent. My tempest rocks...but still doesn't change the fact that I want to fly caldari ships, too - it's just that they mostly suck atm. Only truly good ships are the harpy and the crow, and perhaps the scorpion if you don't mind having the damage output of a cruiser. -Wrayeth
Camel S	Posted - 2005.10.06 09:59:00 - [93] As usual! Changes looks good, as usual! Lots of changes, as usual! Players will whine, as usual! Players will adapt, as usual! Players will find the unbalanced advantage you didn't think of, as usual! And the reward you will get for introducing lots of changes at once will be to re-balance lots of things again, as usual!
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2005.10.06 14:44:00 - [94] I really really like the idea of making fights last longer. My only concern (and yes moaning minnies and all that..) is that this will favour those races that tank and have good cap over those that well... dont, and have cap that is embarassing to take home to your parents. I.e. us minnies. Obviously without testing it etc this is just speculation. But a flat increase helps the tankers out more. Minmatar ships are generally low on cap and have a slot layout that doesnt specialise in either shield or armour tanking and thus, would lose out more compared to say, Amarr, who are looking to rock with these new changes. Someone tell me im wrong. please. Cos i want fights to last longer, i just dont want to fly a different races ship for things to be evenly balanced. - Just a simple warrior.
The Wizz117	Posted - 2005.10.06 14:44:00 - [95] Edited by: The Wizz117 on 06/10/2005 14:46:26 New module available to decrease Signature Radius We uhm ... have a ... new module available to decrease Signature Radius. Title ruined that one for me. Anyways, it's a bit dangerous since Signature Radius affects a lot of things so by all means go and check it out, we need good feedback on it. this will terribly nerf the missiles (not only the frigates wich olrady are invulnable think of an apoc with a couple of these things on the lows). how many more missile nerfs have to come? (target painters and/or webifiers do not effect missile damage)
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.10.06 14:48:00 - [96] Originally by: Wrayeth 2.) Hit point increase means longer fights, which in turn means shield tank cap need will put shield tankers out of the fight far sooner than it will armor tankers. Wait just a minute here! We Caldari get reduced volume for cap booster charges, meaning that we can get 800 cap back every 22 seconds on a cruiser with a medium electrochemical cap booster and the largest available charges! This is certainly enough to run a LSB II! NOT To add insult to injury, cap boosters are yet another midslot on Caldari ships that already have huge problems deciding how to fit their mids. CCP might as well remove all the Raven's mids and give the Raven a dedicated "shield tank button", FFS.
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.10.06 14:59:00 - [97] The sig radius decrease mod sounds like its really needed, atleast for the smaller ships, which will be even less useful against bigger ships without this and the other changes. I just hope its a low slot, and takes little or no cpu/grid. If its in med slot it would be a cruel nerf (again) for shield tankers.
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:11:00 - [98] Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I just hope its a low slot, and takes little or no cpu/grid. If its in med slot it would be a cruel nerf (again) for shield tankers. Either low slot, to make the armor tankers make some freaking decisions post-stacking penalty nerf, or high slot, to give all the ships that have a solid rack of turrets in their high slots (I'm looking at you, Amarr and Gallente) some hard decisions WRT damage v. tanking. This module as a mid slot would make it a major disaster for the Caldari, while every other race would continue happily armor tanking, except now with a reduced sig radius. Classy.
NoNameNewbie	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:19:00 - [99] okay where to start ... DMG Mod Stacking First look: ftw, less dmg yey Sencond look: well nice try but, its just a major nerf to Amarr/Gallente as Mimatar/Caldari can still run a full gank outfit and the other races cant :D So Mimatar will be the flavour of the next month after the patch as they still instapop every stuff in eve. Atm i'm using 4 dmg mods on my mim char and after that patch i would still run 4 dmg mods, because everyone will stick to full dmg outfit as its still possible/usefull (not on all races but who cares). Dont nerf stuff ! give ppl something to fit which is more usefull ! Cap Injector blabla nothing wrong with it Sig Radius Stuff OMG my caldari char will cry sooooooooooooooooooo big tears ... Dont play arround with that ! Hardener Stuff Well active hardener giving a res boost in inactive state ? lol who cares .. Ship Hitpoints first look: cool more hp \o/ second look: omg u need more firepower to kill stuff = more ganking and ppl will always fit the full 4 dmg mods to be able to kill stuff Dont just give boosts ! think about the consequences :/ Plates nerf weeeee back to the 2 Shipclasses pvp since cruiser are getting useless, they need HP to survive but with giving them less agility they are sitting ducks and just die to the dmg mod fitted bs. Same goes for shield extender ...
Khaldorn Murino	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:25:00 - [100] Can people please stop acting like all Minmatar players fly a Tempest and it can instapop a dreadnought. Ta :) - Just a simple warrior.
Jacob Majestic	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:33:00 - [101] Originally by: NoNameNewbie Hardener Stuff Well active hardener giving a res boost in inactive state ? lol who cares .. Yea, no kidding. If you don't have the cap to activate an active hardener, you're already sucked dry by a NOS and no amount of hardening by your inactive modules is going to save you. In fact, the only module in the entire game that I can see this being useful for is an Invulnerability Field II, because it costs so much cap to run it and it would give a small boost to all your resists when inactive.
NoNameNewbie	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:51:00 - [102] Originally by: Jacob Majestic Yea, no kidding. If you don't have the cap to activate an active hardener, you're already sucked dry by a NOS and no amount of hardening by your inactive modules is going to save you. In fact, the only module in the entire game that I can see this being useful for is an Invulnerability Field II, because it costs so much cap to run it and it would give a small boost to all your resists when inactive. maybe if ur so lame that u logged out earlier and ur ship is gonna vanish otherwise ur just plain and simple dead with no cap .....as u cant warp/shoot/rep ..
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.10.06 15:57:00 - [103] I am willing to bet the sig radius mod will be mid slot though. For some reason, the devs seems unable to do any changes without seriously nerfing caldari in the process. Are those things on the test server yet? Maybe someone with an test account can enlighten us?
Antic	Posted - 2005.10.06 16:10:00 - [104] Edited by: Antic on 06/10/2005 16:12:30 This change will make armor tanking more viable as people can now only need 4 damage mods in lows. But fights will be lasting longer. So Shield tanking will be gimped further due to it only being able to last seconds compared to armmor tanking wich lasts forever. Burst damage means less now compared to DPS. This Gimps Artys and Missiles in the long run and further gimps shield tanking. Overall its a needed change to make combat last longer and more tactical. Id just have hoped they would have made shield tanking viable in the new system. Right now it will be completely useless compared to the armor counterpart. Also shield tanking ships are mostly missile ships. Shield tanking setups takes not only tons of cap, but tons of CPU as well. Now add BCU II and their 40 CPU to this (other dam mods are just 30) and tech 2 launchers and you will see how difficult it will be to fit missile ships in the future. Impossible in some cases. Also consider that missiles yet again have much lower DPS than any other weapon system wich means they NEED BCUs to even have a chance. And thinking of fitting a shield extender on that? Not a chance! Signature lowering module? Final nail in coffin for non torpedo using ships. Good idea, if the signature part of missile formula is tweaked drasticaly.
Tovarishch	Posted - 2005.10.06 17:28:00 - [105] Originally by: NoNameNewbie okay where to start ... DMG Mod Stacking First look: ftw, less dmg yey Sencond look: well nice try but, its just a major nerf to Amarr/Gallente as Mimatar/Caldari can still run a full gank outfit and the other races cant :D So Mimatar will be the flavour of the next month after the patch as they still instapop every stuff in eve. Atm i'm using 4 dmg mods on my mim char and after that patch i would still run 4 dmg mods, because everyone will stick to full dmg outfit as its still possible/usefull (not on all races but who cares). Dont nerf stuff ! give ppl something to fit which is more usefull ! I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Amarr and Gallente ships will get a far greater advantage out of this change... especially Amarr. Any ship with more than 4 low slots will have extra low slots to spare for tanking and other useful items since having more than 4 damage mods will be useless. Caldari ships rarely even HAVE more than 4 low slots. So while Caldari ships will be dedicating all their slow slots to damage mods.... other ships (like the Armageddon, for example) will have 4 additional low slots to dedicate to tanking, etc. This doesn't even begin to bring up the fact that t2 BCUs are 40 CPU while ALL other damage mods are 30 CPU.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.06 17:59:00 - [106] *"3.) Extender and Plate changes mean that no one will fit an extender on anything smaller than a battleship. Also, extenders are still* impossible to fit and have less hitpoints than armor plates."** Extenders should have less hit points then plates. It would be unfair to give extenders as many hitpoints as plates as extenders boost HP regen and total hitpoints. While plates only boost hitpoints. I still plan to use extenders on smaller ships. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.06 18:00:00 - [107] Originally by: Pottsey *"3.) Extender and Plate changes mean that no one will fit an extender on anything smaller than a battleship. Also, extenders are still* impossible to fit and have less hitpoints than armor plates."** Extenders should have less hit points then plates. It would be unfair to give extenders as many hitpoints as plates as extenders boost HP regen and total hitpoints. While plates only boost hitpoints. I still plan to use extenders on smaller ships. when it still like with Targetpainters you will suddenly face lots of wrecking hits -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.06 18:24:00 - [108] ôwhen it still like with Targetpainters you will suddenly face lots of wrecking hits ö I am hoping the extra resistance's counters the extra damage from the sig increase. So I am still left with the extra hitpoints and extra HP regen. But if I am wrong perhaps the decrease Signature Radius module will act as a counter. Of course I might be completely wrong and change my mind after testing. Looking at active hardeners and passive is it really fair to give passive hardeners 42,625% resistance and active only 50%? ShouldnÆt active be boosted by say 5%? _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
NoNameNewbie	Posted - 2005.10.06 18:42:00 - [109] Edited by: NoNameNewbie on 06/10/2005 18:43:50 Originally by: Tovarishch Originally by: NoNameNewbie okay where to start ... DMG Mod Stacking blabla I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this. Amarr and Gallente ships will get a far greater advantage out of this change... especially Amarr. Any ship with more than 4 low slots will have extra low slots to spare for tanking and other useful items since having more than 4 damage mods will be useless. Caldari ships rarely even HAVE more than 4 low slots. So while Caldari ships will be dedicating all their slow slots to damage mods.... other ships (like the Armageddon, for example) will have 4 additional low slots to dedicate to tanking, etc. This doesn't even begin to bring up the fact that t2 BCUs are 40 CPU while ALL other damage mods are 30 CPU. [sarcasm] well so u got some slots free for a still absolutely useless tank thats like super \o/ [/sarcasm] Due to the fact that everyone will keep on fitting 4 dmg mods the dmg output is still far to high to even think of tanking anything. Its a nerf to Gallente/Amarr because Mimatar/Caldari dont loose any firepower due to the fact that before this change they mostly fitted the same number of dmg mods then after the change so Mim/Cal firepower stays the same while Gal/Amarr looses firepower, at least in fleetbattles where noone cares about DoT and everything is just about Burst Damage. And tbh if ur talking about caldari ships ... the raven and the other missile ships as still as useless in pvp as they were before the patch since their missiles still take time to reach their targets.
Harisdrop	Posted - 2005.10.06 18:58:00 - [110] We need 20km Nuetralizers! We need 20km Webbers! Target painters should have range! Ammo and lasers crystals should have sig rad effects! When a missle/ammo/laser hits a target the impact in itself should disrupt all other incoming missles/ammo/lasers. Thus the more a target is getting hit the less the damage would be. Orientation to the battle creates sig radius! If you are coming into battle you get a smaller sig while if you are running you have a larger sig rad. The more wcs you have the slower and lower your HP and larger sig rad. The shield/armor hardners reduce ROF on all weapons when active! You should be able to warp to any object within 250km of you. Ammo/missles/crystals reload should be instant! (Hybrids should active refire after loaded ammo on current target) Overview refreshed every 5 seconds!(Make the screen important again) -------------------------- Does it matter why, its when is more crucial!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.06 19:16:00 - [111] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Maya Rkell ...Amarr ships with 1400mm's, anyone? dear lord in underpants! I just had a flashback! Yea, strange that. So anyway... ELECTR0FREAK, CCP's values are higher (remember a thread on this? yes?). You know this. MUCH higher. You're a tool for encouraging them, afaik. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.06 19:56:00 - [112] Originally by: Harisdrop We need 20km Nuetralizers! We need 20km Webbers! Target painters should have range! I'm not sure if this is a sarcastic or serious post. I'm going to assume the latter. Large neutralizers have a range of 25km, IIRC (large nos 21km), target painters have about 120km total range (optimal + falloff) with skills. For webs, faction webbers have greater range, though I'm not sure if any of them reach out to 20km. I know that there's a 15km faction web, though. -Wrayeth
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.06 20:39:00 - [113] The BS-fitting faction webs go to 35km and beyond. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
lythos miralbar	Posted - 2005.10.07 00:06:00 - [114] Oveur.. i have a question. What skills will apply to energised passive hardners? if none then they will be pointless, as a passive hardner will provide better resists for less fitting. but if you apply the passive skills to them then they will be better than active hardners..
Xtro 2	Posted - 2005.10.07 03:11:00 - [115] Welcome to the world where 1v1s are a waste of time and all end in deadlocks. __________________________________________ Hell is nothing more than an office with fluorecent lights.
j0sephine	Posted - 2005.10.07 03:19:00 - [116] "when it still like with Targetpainters you will suddenly face lots of wrecking hits " Word on the street is, 60% signature increase on the large shield extender. Puts target painters to shame, tbh... "it's not a moon; it's caldari battlecruiser with shield extender!"
Derron Bel	Posted - 2005.10.07 06:51:00 - [117] passives will only had 43% in all if you have level 5 in 4 (8?) skills. so don't panic quite yet. -==- Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise! LooseCannoN> ahh! LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled!
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.07 08:31:00 - [118] I think it's quite obvious by now that the devs don't want caldari using shield extenders - or anyone, for that matter. -Wrayeth
Kythoma	Posted - 2005.10.07 09:12:00 - [119] i want to make a suggestion, to put some of these 'balancing' under one hat: one big problem is the sigradius in conjunction with the damage. what's about, this sig-rad had only influence of the time to lock a target. u can lock a big sig faster, than a small - right? when a target is locked, then only the speed of it should play a role in the damage dealing with. in this case, all weapons (missiles especially) will NOT loose most of their damage. this could be a thought-provoking impulse ...
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.10.07 09:37:00 - [120] Is there a reason why CCP always treats Caldari badly? Some sort of load balancing? Maybe CCP should simply remove all races exept amarr, that way we would all be pleased by every change CCP makes
Pawny	Posted - 2005.10.07 10:36:00 - [121] Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle Is there a reason why CCP always treats Caldari badly? Some sort of load balancing? Maybe CCP should simply remove all races exept amarr, that way we would all be pleased by every change CCP makes ROFLMAO!!!! nice one m8
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.07 10:48:00 - [122] More hitpoints + more resistances + less firepower = less shipkills Simple formula. The patch would cause the opposite effect to what is wanted. Instead of using 4 snipers, people will use 6. Instead of using 1 blasterthron, people will use 2. Instead of using 1 tackler stilletto, people will add another one with 3 webbers. The idea to make combat last longer is ok, but this patch will not really help to improve EVE. They key would be to not boost hitpoints and resistances - better nerf fleet volleys. This means if 5 ships fire at one the target is under heavy fire and should start to be hidden in flames and smoke, wich causes the signature of the target to drop the more it gets shot. Has to be balanced, though. This way to change and make combat last longer would additionally improve combat since the simplyfied "all-shoot-one-target" tactic would change to something newer and more interesting: splitted fireteams that make own decisssions. Each player is not only a "gunship that shoots the ship the fleetcomander named", each player will need to think what to do and wich target would now be wise to shoot at. Very interesting improvement of group battles. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Deka Kador	Posted - 2005.10.07 15:37:00 - [123] looks at these changes suddenly regrets starting to train missile spec Flying a Raven will feel like flying around with auto-target painting.
Tovarishch	Posted - 2005.10.07 16:45:00 - [124] The more I think about it... and the more I read some of these well thought-out posts... I am started to reform my opinion of some of these changes. I think the intention is outstanding... but I think in practice these chnages are not going to help lengthen combat at all... and will completely relegate some modules (plates and shield extenders for example) to the dumpster. The mid-slot sig reduction module is a bad idea... period. Plates and shield extenders need to have far less severe penalties (assuming the stated ones are accurate)... or less no one will use them and they won't be there to lengthen combat or provide some new strategies. I am glad to see these changes offered for review by the community first. This philosophy will strengthen the game... because I think there are plenty of us who want the game to be interesting and challenging... not a cakewalk. Thanks for the opportunity for input, Oveur... and the hard work... and the blog. PS. But PLEASE, for crying out loud, do something about t2 BCUs using 40 CPU... and missile calculations/DPS! Those kittens are starving!!!
Sadist	Posted - 2005.10.07 18:07:00 - [125] Oveur, will the new skills affect energized plates, or are they not considered passive hardeners anymore? Also, how will the additional 15% on lvl 5 be "added" to the already existing percentage? Quote: The patch would cause the opposite effect to what is wanted. Instead of using 4 snipers, people will use 6. Instead of using 1 blasterthron, people will use 2. Instead of using 1 tackler stilletto, people will add another one with 3 webbers. What you seem to forget though, and everyone else for that matter is that you can't just simply increase (double) the amount of ships at your disposal if you're a fleet commander. Be realistic - this is a game, and only a minor part (well, relatively for some of us) of RL. You WILL have to do with a smaller fleet, thus making your kills harder and more time consuming, rather than just ganking the person with the double number of pilots. Regarding the rest of your post: there's no way to avoid concentrated fire vs 1 target in this game. It's simply the most effective way of reducing enemy fleet's power. When you're up against 2 people, you dont want to give them cuts and bruises first. You want to stab someone very quickly in the neck to make the fight an even 1 v 1, not 1 v 0.75 + 0.75, where you'll eventually lose. --------------- VIP member of the [23] Sadist - harsh to the idiots, kind to the smart
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.07 19:14:00 - [126] Originally by: j0sephine "when it still like with Targetpainters you will suddenly face lots of wrecking hits " Word on the street is, 60% signature increase on the large shield extender. Puts target painters to shame, tbh... "it's not a moon; it's caldari battlecruiser with shield extender!" **** me. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.07 19:15:00 - [127] Originally by: Lifewire They key would be to not boost hitpoints and resistances - better nerf fleet volleys. This means if 5 ships fire at one the target is under heavy fire and should start to be hidden in flames and smoke, wich causes the signature of the target to drop the more it gets shot. Has to be balanced, though. This way to change and make combat last longer would additionally improve combat since the simplyfied "all-shoot-one-target" tactic would change to something newer and more interesting: splitted fireteams that make own decisssions. Each player is not only a "gunship that shoots the ship the fleetcomander named", each player will need to think what to do and wich target would now be wise to shoot at. Very interesting improvement of group battles. No. It'd nerf wolfpacks and small battles, while in fleet you'd just use a few more fire elements (groups of players with a called taregt). You're dead wrong with this soloution. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Nafri	Posted - 2005.10.07 19:24:00 - [128] Originally by: j0sephine "when it still like with Targetpainters you will suddenly face lots of wrecking hits " Word on the street is, 60% signature increase on the large shield extender. Puts target painters to shame, tbh... "it's not a moon; it's caldari battlecruiser with shield extender!" rofl, yeah, man who would fit that module? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Put your panties on your head!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.07 19:29:00 - [129] Originally by: Nafri Originally by: j0sephine "when it still like with Targetpainters you will suddenly face lots of wrecking hits " Word on the street is, 60% signature increase on the large shield extender. Puts target painters to shame, tbh... "it's not a moon; it's caldari battlecruiser with shield extender!" rofl, yeah, man who would fit that module? Or the plates. At some point along the line, absurd becomes ridiculous. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Derron Bel	Posted - 2005.10.07 20:29:00 - [130] I wish peopel would stop taking unfounded bull**** speculation as gospel truth and ignoring that extenders/plates are receiving effectiveness boosts. -==- Holy-Jim> as you know, surprise is the key to victory.....surprise! LooseCannoN> ahh! LooseCannoN> my plans have been foiled!
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.07 20:42:00 - [131] nerfs You'd be MAD to use plates with the mass penalty or extenders with the sig radius penalty "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.10.07 20:48:00 - [132] Originally by: Tovarishch The mid-slot sig reduction module ... Is it a mid slot module? OMG! So far, I havent seen a single change that CCP made that in any way favours caldari of shield tankers. CCP could atleast warn people of choosing Caldari: "If you choose this race, you WILL be nerfed time after time, choose Amarr instead" This is getting really rediculous!
Muthsera	Posted - 2005.10.07 21:45:00 - [133] Looking at the real effect of the changes these defence massures will have, I'm greatly concerned that it will only make t2 ships even better. Espesially hacs. Getting rid of stackable damage mods means bs's will have a much harder time killing these ships. But not the other way around. Reason is increased resistance. Your finally getting rid of gankageddons but in the same time your getting rid of tempests as fighting ships again. It was finally comming into being again. Reason: RoF. But thats ok. I don't mind those changes actually. What I do mind is the waiting time on hacs. NAGA got 162 days waiting on some ships. And it leads me to think that more bpo's must dropp. And dropping them to large corps is a very bad idea in my mind. They might have the infrastructure. But if they got 200bpo's they won't give it the same kind of dedication a corp whit 1 bpo whould. But that argument have been exausted earlier. SoonÖ
Muthsera	Posted - 2005.10.07 21:46:00 - [134] Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle Originally by: Tovarishch The mid-slot sig reduction module ... Is it a mid slot module? OMG! So far, I havent seen a single change that CCP made that in any way favours caldari of shield tankers. CCP could atleast warn people of choosing Caldari: "If you choose this race, you WILL be nerfed time after time, choose Amarr instead" This is getting really rediculous! Yes becus gankageddons are so effective now. SoonÖ
Muthsera	Posted - 2005.10.07 21:57:00 - [135] Originally by: Bombcrater The 25% global HP bonus and the sig radius module are going to put Steath Bombers totally out of business if they go live yeah. stealth bombers need some drastic changes. And need a serius look into. The role is have now is just laughable. SoonÖ
Muthsera	Posted - 2005.10.07 22:05:00 - [136] Originally by: Malthros Zenobia After reading that Dev blog, I think it's safe to say you guys have just basicly buried the Caldari ships alive. I'm glad tto see the most technologically advanced race (next to the jovians) are going to be the laughing stocks of combat. Reduced sig radius yet again? That's kinda weak man. We need some more efective target painters now (for missiles, because the current ones don't really help worth a damn ). After some futher thinking. I agree. That signature radius thing on hardners got to go. And that signature reduction mod got to go to. SoonÖ
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.08 08:11:00 - [137] Edited by: Pottsey on 08/10/2005 08:16:53 These are the bonus I got form the database. I hope they are far from final. Large Shield extender Mk1 powergrid usage 400 MW CPU usage 100 tf Shield HP bonus 1,500 HP Large Shield extender Mk2 powergrid usage 200 MW CPU usage 100 tf Shield HP bonus 1,500 HP signatureRadiusBonus 5900 % Seems very unfair to me. Lowering the fitting will mean its easy to fit oversized extenders on in which case the sig increase will counter that. But what about people fitting the correct side extenders? Battleships with 3 or 4 extenders get no real befit but a massive disadvantage. This is really going to hurt passive shield tankers. Perhaps make it so only when battleship module on a cruiser gets the signatureRadius change. I dont see how this change is going make more people use extenders. If anything its going make less people use extenders. The new skills are Thermic Shield Compensation Kinetic Shield Compensation e.c.t Training time multiplier 4 x Primary Skill required Tactical Shield Manipulation at lvl 4. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.08 11:16:00 - [138] Edited by: Wrayeth on 08/10/2005 11:16:10 Good idea. Make the plate and extender penalties only apply if fitted onto a smaller ship class than it was intended for. Only problem with this is that people STILL won't use shield extenders because they take too much CPU. So if they could fix that, too, then the idea really would be cool. -Wrayeth
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.08 17:41:00 - [139] For one thing that dosn't pass the giggle test. For another, it's annoying, inconsistant and against the current rules of Eve. And then, given the current values it'd seem CCP consider 50/100mm plates as the Frigate ones. Heh. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Vaugue	Posted - 2005.10.09 08:58:00 - [140] I've already stopped my caldari ship training and have moved to Armarr/Gallente. It doesn't take a 2 year veteran to see the Caldari hate here. Just glad my first 2 months of training was all learning skills. co pilot : what's that over there??? i've never seen anything like it! pilot : oh that's just a caldari raven battleship from the day's of old.. they are all but extinct now. They used to rely on high tech missile's to defend themself. co pilot : wow, it must be deadly... pilot : not really.. last i heard they took out a missile contract with a corporation called Nerf =========================================================== My Space
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.09 11:19:00 - [141] Nerf fleet volleys is better than boosting tanks. Example: 1 Megathron fires at a BS: Railgun 1 does 100% damage Railgun 2 does 98% damage Railgun 3 does 96% damage Railgun 4 does 94% damage ... Railgun 7 does 88% damage 2 Megathons fire at a BS: Railgun 8 does 86% damage Railgun 9 does 84% damage ... Railgun 14 does 74% damage 10 Megathrons fire at a BS: Railgun 64 does 0% damage Railgun 65 does 0% damage ... Railgun 70 does 0% damage With my proposed change combat lasts longer AND the combat gets much more interesting in larger battles. Smaller battles are already good and are nearly not changed. The boost hitpoint solution is definitly crap, it will only cause larger hunting teams and more blobbing. And a lot of wasted ammo. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Tsual	Posted - 2005.10.09 11:50:00 - [142] Originally by: Lifewire The boost hitpoint solution is definitly crap, it will only cause larger hunting teams and more blobbing. And a lot of wasted ammo. Let me come up with something worse all hitpoints of ship gone ship wrecked yet not destroyed wrecked ship can not move/warp/activate module/lock target wrecked ship would be removed out of target lock and sensor wreck can be repaired or carried off from the battlefield with trajector beam wreck has half or fourth the signature radius of normal ship plus five times the ships overall non shield hp (armor and hull plus plates) as hull. if wreck get's destroyed pod is ejected automaticly after 5 or 10 minutes auto eject of pod. See, one can come up with worse ideas. (Luckily I don't play at the moment, otherwise I think lifewire would ganked me alive.) -------------------------------------- Haanem ulwei, utnazhiram Hal'sha'roh mahiraam Hor'thul. The Universe is everything, the creation Hal'shah and the destruction Hor'thul.
Gabriel Karade	Posted - 2005.10.09 11:59:00 - [143] Originally by: Lifewire Nerf fleet volleys is better than boosting tanks. I think if anything where to change then you have got it the wrong way around. Rather, ships taking heavy fire should be come less effective through penalties to accuracy/RoF/Targeting systems, RP-wise representing minor damage/ships crew getting knocked around. Combine that with a HP boost and you would have reason to split fire across multiple targets, otherwise if your enemy does and you don't, your fleet becomes less effective than his (ships not under fire doing 100% damage to you). (\_/) (O.o) (> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on"
Lifewire	Posted - 2005.10.09 12:28:00 - [144] Oh noes Both patches together would cause that combat doesnt make sense anymore lol. Weapons should hurt...otherwise warfare doesnt make sense anymore lol. Try a Teddybear spawn or the Teddybear complexes in Pure Blind, Syndicate or empire.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.09 14:34:00 - [145] Any yet you're arguing for weapons NOT hurting people. Er... "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
NoNameNewbie	Posted - 2005.10.09 16:26:00 - [146] Originally by: Lifewire Nerf fleet volleys is better than boosting tanks. Example: 1 Megathron fires at a BS: Railgun 1 does 100% damage Railgun 2 does 98% damage Railgun 3 does 96% damage Railgun 4 does 94% damage ... Railgun 7 does 88% damage 2 Megathons fire at a BS: Railgun 8 does 86% damage Railgun 9 does 84% damage ... Railgun 14 does 74% damage 10 Megathrons fire at a BS: Railgun 64 does 0% damage Railgun 65 does 0% damage ... Railgun 70 does 0% damage With my proposed change combat lasts longer AND the combat gets much more interesting in larger battles. Smaller battles are already good and are nearly not changed. The boost hitpoint solution is definitly crap, it will only cause larger hunting teams and more blobbing. And a lot of wasted ammo. sounds basicly nice but its not an option as u would have to make special rules for every weapon according to the weapons base dmg, ammo, number of fitted dmg mods and so on and on and on ... in the end, 3 Tempest would still instapwn a bs :P if u say then lets just set tempest 3 to 0 dmg, 2 volley do the job then as u cant tank even 2 :p I'm thinking of a complete different way to get PvP back on track. Atm we have several problems in pvp: blobs, dmg mods, instapop, wcs, .... but in the end it all comes down to one thing: money When i started pvping, ships were expensive, money making was hard, but there were small and big battles which were just fun. Ppl used to tank their ships as they were expensive and noone wanted to loose his bs, sure u can't tank a full fleet forever, but u should be able to tank SOME ships till u can warp away. Time went by and CCP change the game in a way which made money making that easy that everyone could afford bs and pvp. BS are basicly worth nothing since the insurance covers more or less the complete loss. Since anyone can afford pvp, everyone wants to do pvp which leads basicly to our beloved blobs. The only chance to counter blobs are dmg mods as u have to kill the hostiles as fast as possible. Another thing is that big battles with much dmg mods on every site are basicly hard to win (both side have their ppl go pop pop pop ..) so everyone just tries to gank as much as possible. So, nerf the amount of money u can make (especially in empire!) and change insurance back to some weeks. Voilla ! less ppl can afford pvp => less blobs = ppl will may do things as a group = more ppl in 0.0 as its worth again .... I know that the game changed lots since it started and i dunno if it is possible to get back the old state, but just some ideas .... flame on :D
SexySexy	Posted - 2005.10.10 00:46:00 - [147] Give to us 16 more more more Low slots (Mid for shield tanking)
Corvus Anderran	Posted - 2005.10.10 01:36:00 - [148] Originally by: The Wizz117 Edited by: The Wizz117 on 06/10/2005 14:46:26 New module available to decrease Signature Radius We uhm ... have a ... new module available to decrease Signature Radius. Title ruined that one for me. Anyways, it's a bit dangerous since Signature Radius affects a lot of things so by all means go and check it out, we need good feedback on it. this will terribly nerf the missiles (not only the frigates wich olrady are invulnable think of an apoc with a couple of these things on the lows). how many more missile nerfs have to come? (target painters and/or webifiers do not effect missile damage) There have been no solid numbers yet on which slot the sig radius mod goes in. There have been no solid numbers yet on how much the mod reduces sig radius by. It could be as low as 0.5% for all you know. There have been no solid numbers yet on how much sig radius increase comes with the shield extender mods. The blog explicitly states that the devs realise the changes could have huge implications for game balance, and therefore it will be extensively tested. And what are the responses? "OMG Caldari nerf again, you never test these things before putting them live!!11oneoneoenenoezomg"
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2005.10.10 03:23:00 - [149] The Caldari hate is going to stupifying levels. The new sig reduction module will make missiles even more useless than they already are. Given that missiles are the main weapon of many Caldari ships, this is gonna kill Caldari as a race. Many of us tacitly recognise the need for the Cold War missile nerf. In the back of our minds we knew that torps blasting frigates was just plain wrong. Most of us have adapted to the changes. But this is way over the hill! As it is, the missile damage - sig radius - velocity relationship is already quite disadvantageous for missile users. The Cold War missile nerf was abit strong albeit necessary. But this will certainly sound the death knell for the Caldari. The sig radius of 60% (!!!) on the large shield extenders is equal to painting oneself with two target painters?? WHAT THE HELL?? Shield tanking is strong at boosting large amounts of shield in a short time. For those situations where you need a sustainable tank for long periods of time, we NEED the extenders (due to the passive regen boost). Is this some kind of effort to drive Caldari pilots out of the game? Some sort of oblique angle at boosting the effectiveness of your recent optimizations? There are lots of players who have many millions of skill points and able to fly many races ships. Well those guys can switch to some other race's ships quite easily and so side-step the difficulties that CCP is heaping on Caldari. But what about the medium-age players who started as Caldaris? We can't train up another race's ships quickly, especially what with the new skills that come with this change. And many of us are not done with the new missile skills that were introduced with Cold War. This is ****. -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.10 06:40:00 - [150] öThe sig radius of 60% (!!!) on the large shield extenders isö If that is correct I donÆt think it will be the final spec. It might also be +60 not +60% which is more reasonable. Lets wait and see I am sure the devs will clear up what it is this week. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Vaugue	Posted - 2005.10.10 08:48:00 - [151] Originally by: Manny Tanato The Caldari hate is going to stupifying levels. There are lots of players who have many millions of skill points and able to fly many races ships. Well those guys can switch to some other race's ships quite easily and so side-step the difficulties that CCP is heaping on Caldari. But what about the medium-age players who started as Caldaris? The point is we shouldn't have to train another races ship just to remain competetive. Isn't that a sign of imbalance??? =========================================================== My Space
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2005.10.10 09:26:00 - [152] Originally by: Pottsey These are the bonus I got form the database. Large Shield extender Mk1 powergrid usage 400 MW CPU usage 100 tf Shield HP bonus 1,500 HP Large Shield extender Mk2 powergrid usage 200 MW CPU usage 100 tf Shield HP bonus 1,500 HP signatureRadiusBonus 5900 % <--- Seems very unfair to me. Lowering the fitting will mean its easy to fit oversized extenders on in which case the sig increase will counter that. But what about people fitting the correct side extenders? Battleships with 3 or 4 extenders get no real befit but a massive disadvantage. This is really going to hurt passive shield tankers. Took this right off the thread you started in the Skills and Modules forum. 5900% will in the end become 60% no? -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.10 10:26:00 - [153] ôTook this right off the thread you started in the Skills and Modules forum. 5900% will in the end become 60% no?ö The thing is the Xlarge stealth module turns into û160% sig which is impossible. So it has to be û160sig. That makes me believe or should that be hope 59000% really means +60 sig per module which is reasonable and much better then +60%. Hopefully the test server is up this week or today with the new changeÆs. Then we can see how wrong or right I was. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.10.10 11:29:00 - [154] I have a feeling CCP will keep nerfing Caldari until it gets such a bad rep that new players will choose other races. Talk about a less than optimal way for load balancing
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.10 13:39:00 - [155] Edited by: Wrayeth on 10/10/2005 13:40:20 Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I have a feeling CCP will keep nerfing Caldari until it gets such a bad rep that new players will choose other races. Talk about a less than optimal way for load balancing Heh. I wish I could disagree about CCP nerfing Caldari. I'm not sure of their reasons, but I'd like to hear a dev response as to why Caldari seem to always get the shaft: Yes, missiles were over-powered vs. frigs and cruisers prior to the Cold War patch, but now the fix has gone too far in the other direction. Shield extenders are not as effective as armor plates, and are also ridiculously hard to fit. Ballistic Control Units take more CPU their their turret-mod counterparts. Tech II BCUs use more CPU than tech I BCU's. (Tech II turret mods use the same CPU and grid as tech I turret mods.) Low missile DPS is supposed to be compensated by the ability to switch damage types; the kestrel, crow, caracal, and cerberus are straightjacketed into one damage type to actually receive their 25% damage bonus - other races' ships, with higher base DPS, also receive damage bonuses. Caldari have the worst: Mass, Agility, Lock time of all four races. So, how about it, devs? Are there plans in the works to address these issues? What is your vision of the Caldari and their role? Do you feel they are performing as intended? Any info would be much appreciated. -Wrayeth
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2005.10.10 15:28:00 - [156] Yes Pottsey, I do hope you're right on that. Hope it's +60 sig, not +60%. However, even +60 is far too much. A ferox has sig radius of 285. To add 60 point to sig radius is going to make it a 20% increase. That's just shy of painting oneself with a tech one target painter. That's still stupid. This is especially so if you run combat missions, the Caldari usually face missile lobbing natural enemies. That 20% increase in sig is going to hurt so much. I am extremely dissapointed with CCP, the way they are steering this game. What's with the Caldari hate? Why doesn't a dev comment? -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Sean Drake	Posted - 2005.10.10 16:03:00 - [157] Yep as expected Caldari get shafted again imho I cannot see any reason to start as any race other than ammarr. And due to my paranoia have trained up all 4 races
Chepe Nolon	Posted - 2005.10.10 17:26:00 - [158] Lol. So much whining from the Caldari section - First tempest got shafted with the artillery nerf. - Then the rest of the gunships got shafted with the tracking/sig radius nerf - Finally after half a year of superiority (everyone and their mums trained for caldari bs, since all other choices where crap) the raven got nerfed with the missile nerf. I don't see why the caldari feel hated? For the extender "nerf" I welcome that since we don't have a armor rep amplifier. And the skills affecting armor tanking has been absent until now. Chepe Nolon -- My notes about agent missions.
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.10 17:31:00 - [159] Edited by: Wrayeth on 10/10/2005 17:33:23 Originally by: Chepe Nolon Lol. So much whining from the Caldari section - First tempest got shafted with the artillery nerf. - Then the rest of the gunships got shafted with the tracking/sig radius nerf - Finally after half a year of superiority (everyone and their mums trained for caldari bs, since all other choices where crap) the raven got nerfed with the missile nerf. I don't see why the caldari feel hated? For the extender "nerf" I welcome that since we don't have a armor rep amplifier. And the skills affecting armor tanking has been absent until now. First, minmatar got nerfed...and the devs had to fix them later because they went too far with the original nerf. It's happened again with Caldari - their ability vs. cruisers and frigs needed to be knocked down a step or five, but it was overdone. I just hope it doesn't take a year to fix it like it did with minmatar. As for your comments on the extender nerf, you achieve the same effect by fitting a second armor rep. Because of the massive shield booster cap usage over time, a second shield booster on a shield-tanked ship would run the thing out of cap in no time (not to mention the lack of effective low slot cap recharge items that don't screw shield boosting - PDU is the only that can be used and it's weak). Hence, the boost amp. EDIT: BTW, I get more sustain out of my tempest's dual-large armor rep tank than I do out of my raven's XL booster + boost amp tank. I'm guessing you haven't flown a full-on shield tank before? -Wrayeth
Mangus Thermopyle	Posted - 2005.10.10 18:35:00 - [160] Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 10/10/2005 17:26:01 Edited by: Wrayeth on 10/10/2005 13:40:20 Originally by: Mangus Thermopyle I have a feeling CCP will keep nerfing Caldari until it gets such a bad rep that new players will choose other races. Talk about a less than optimal way for load balancing Heh. I wish I could disagree about CCP nerfing Caldari. I'm not sure of their reasons, but I'd like to hear a dev response as to why Caldari seem to always get the shaft: Yes, missiles were over-powered vs. frigs and cruisers prior to the Cold War patch, but now the fix has gone too far in the other direction. Shield extenders are not as effective as armor plates, and are also ridiculously hard to fit. Ballistic Control Units take more CPU their their turret-mod counterparts. Tech II BCUs use more CPU than tech I BCU's. (Tech II turret mods use the same CPU and grid as tech I turret mods.) Low missile DPS is supposed to be compensated by the ability to switch damage types; however, the kestrel, crow, caracal, and cerberus are straightjacketed into one damage type to actually receive their 5%/level damage bonus, thus negating the effect of being able to switch damage types. Compare this to another race's ship that has a higher DPS and ALSO receives a 5%/level damage bonus and you see where this is not balanced. Caldari have the worst: Mass, Agility, Lock time of all four races. So, how about it, devs? Are there plans in the works to address these issues? What is your vision of the Caldari and their role? Do you feel they are performing as intended? Any info would be much appreciated. Good points, but I seriously doubt any dev will answer. It would be better if every race but amarr was removed. That way we would all praise CCP for every change they make.
HippoKing	Posted - 2005.10.10 18:41:00 - [161] will the HP increase affect both NPCs and players? will the shield extenders/plates have the 25% buff? will they have a buff on top of this 25%? what is happening to shield recharge? will the recharge times be increased by 25% to keep the recharge/second the same? -- This Zig. For great justice!
Chepe Nolon	Posted - 2005.10.10 18:50:00 - [162] Originally by: Wrayeth Edited by: Wrayeth on 10/10/2005 17:33:23 As for your comments on the extender nerf, you achieve the same effect by fitting a second armor rep. Because of the massive shield booster cap usage over time, a second shield booster on a shield-tanked ship would run the thing out of cap in no time (not to mention the lack of effective low slot cap recharge items that don't screw shield boosting - PDU is the only that can be used and it's weak). Hence, the boost amp. EDIT: BTW, I get more sustain out of my tempest's dual-large armor rep tank than I do out of my raven's XL booster + boost amp tank. I'm guessing you haven't flown a full-on shield tank before? I fly a raven, yes. But my skills for shield tanking sucks. So I'm not a good example of a shield tanker. Still the shield tanking ships is based upon weapons that don't require cap. One thing is tanking, another one is being a sitting duck. Using a dual large rep + either lasers on an apoc or blasters on a mega is hard on the cap. Plus the plate could also be a vital part, as the armor boost comes after the duration, not before. Chepe Nolon -- My notes about agent missions.
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.10 19:14:00 - [163] Originally by: Chepe Nolon Using a dual large rep + either lasers on an apoc or blasters on a mega is hard on the cap. Plus the plate could also be a vital part, as the armor boost comes after the duration, not before. Granted on the cap part, but that's why the apoc gets those cap bonuses. It's also why there are no lowslot modules that increase cap without a shield boost penalty aside from the PDU, which has a limited effect on cap regen compared to a cap power relay or cap recharger. As for the plate being helpful because the boost comes after the armor rep duration, that's what shields are for. When you get low on shields that's when you pop on your armor rep. -Wrayeth
nahtoh	Posted - 2005.10.11 00:15:00 - [164] Originally by: Chepe Nolon Lol. So much whining from the Caldari section - First tempest got shafted with the artillery nerf. - Then the rest of the gunships got shafted with the tracking/sig radius nerf - Finally after half a year of superiority (everyone and their mums trained for caldari bs, since all other choices where crap) the raven got nerfed with the missile nerf. I don't see why the caldari feel hated? For the extender "nerf" I welcome that since we don't have a armor rep amplifier. And the skills affecting armor tanking has been absent until now. You also have access to modules we don't (effect all passives, also getting a boast this patch), not to mention your ress fittigs are so much less than ours. Yes missiles need a tone down but it went to far, target painters are better for guns, a frig pilot only needs not to turn on a MWD to avoid anything but minimal damage from med to large missiles. As has been mentioned we have the largest sig, slow speed, crap aglity, slowest locking time and has not been mentioned the smallest drone bays. Before the missile patch drones were not a issue and until you got to BS you had very little need to train them or so I found. Personally cal ships i now fly a Harpy and am testing and training up skills for a mega (which apprently can still one shot NPC frigs no problems with pretty much no problems with a max of 1.5 mil gunnery skills)... Basicly I would be happy if they removed some of the pre cold war balncing that they hit Cal ships with, and I reckon most cal pilots would feel the same way... "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)
Kyoko Sakoda	Posted - 2005.10.11 00:17:00 - [165] I'd like to express my dislike of the new Stealth Systems idea. That is all.
Kyguard	Posted - 2005.10.11 02:18:00 - [166] Ah, this marks the end of BS gank setups and sniper setups -- God is on the side with the best artillery
Slithereen	Posted - 2005.10.11 02:42:00 - [167] Long long time ago, ships in the game is actually capable of prolonged, tanked combat. Then players complained that shield tanking is too powerful and cap relays had to be nerfed. Then eventually, the Caldari BS defensive bonuses were replaced. Later, shield boosting battleships were dying in seconds from volleys of tech 2 megapulsing gankeddons. Just one example of the many changes in the game that weakened defensive measures (hardener nerfs) while boosting offensive ones (tech 2 weapons). Turning the game combat into short lived ganks. Now we're back in the cycle we need to increase defense again. A suggestion. Change cap relay penalties from shield boost penalty to a small (10%) signature increase penalty. Make cap relays activatable on ship so they can be turned on and off. This gives you more tactical options. Currently because of the cap relay penalties, armor tanking has a major advantage over shield boost. This suggestion evens the field for every one. Cap Flux penalty changed 15% cap reduction to 15% speed reduction. If you want to tank, be a tank---slow. Like the Relays, the Fluxes can be turned on and off on flight. This lets you control the module, and you don't have to deal with the penalty on transit. _______________________________________________ "Is it me or the bad guys just getting totally pathetic?"---Clover, Totally Spies, "Hope is wasted on the Hopeless."---Mandy, The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy. "Stars are holes in the sky from which the light of the Infinite shine through."---Confucius.
Pottsey	Posted - 2005.10.11 05:58:00 - [168] ôwill the shield extenders/plates have the 25% buff?ö So far no hitpoint buff but the specs might not be finial. Only the ships got a buff which gave me 1600 ish extra hitpoints after skills + implant. öwhat is happening to shield recharge? will the recharge times be increased by 25% to keep the recharge/second the samö Recharge stays the same so far. Due to the 60+sig per shield extender you are worse off so no need to charge recharge rate. my sig is 600 to 660 depending on setup. I will be trying out the new resistance tonight after 17:00. If there is anything you want me to test leave a message here or eve mail me. _________________________________________________ Nominate famous people in Eve who had an impact on you.
Kiwimagic	Posted - 2005.10.11 10:49:00 - [169] Can we please leave the game alone for a little while. i realise you devs have to justify your employment but all you seem to be comming up with are nerfs to fix previous nerfs that didn't work properly or created an unforseen imbalance. I'd suggest you iron out bugs rather than make drastic changes to ships and ship mod's. There already exists a sig radius mod its called a "cloak" if you wanna be hard to see fit it. and adding sig radius penalities to ship shield extenders etc well u will have to have the same penality to things like cap extenders. the shield extender nerf is pointless, u get more shield yes but it'll be out weighed cos the extra shield will melt with the added damage u take from the sig penality, so way to go you just made a rarely used mod pointless. just remove them from the game and be done with it. Leave Caldari alone, spend some time fixing bugs and removing macro miners
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2005.10.11 12:15:00 - [170] Edited by: Manny Tanato on 11/10/2005 12:16:22 Originally by: Kiwimagic the shield extender nerf is pointless, u get more shield yes but it'll be out weighed cos the extra shield will melt with the added damage u take from the sig penality I hope the devs get this loud and clear. Most people agree that this is utterly pointless. I also hope the devs realise that this sort of change will create alot of bad blood for the Caldari, especially coming hot on the heels of the Cold War missile changes. You guys need to step back and consider the emotional/human side of this issue. -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Gabriel Karade	Posted - 2005.10.11 12:27:00 - [171] Originally by: Manny Tanato You guys need to step back and consider the emotional/human side of this issue. Bwaahaahha... Sorry, but no... it's just a game FFS (\_/) (O.o) (> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on"
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:32:00 - [172] Keep your smart ass comments to yourself Gabriel, I'm pointing out a valid issue here. Take a look at the mood of the posters in the previous pages, resentment and frustration is apparent. The simple fact of the matter is that people put in real life time and effort (and not to mention the requisite money for subscription) to get somewhere in this game, and all that looks to be swept away by a series of nerfs, seemingly aimed at the Caldari at the moment. And that last point is something that has been independently mentioned time and again by many other people, not just me. -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Arnt	Posted - 2005.10.11 13:33:00 - [173] I wonder why all those changes are directed to how combat goes, and no changes to how combat is initiated/avoided. When you are a programmer and have a situation to solve (for example the 10vs1 wich is no fun for the majority of customers -err players) you can act in three ways : - modify the 10vs1 action (how the fight goes) - modify the ability to avoid 10vs1 (escape methods) - modify the ability to start 10vs1 (to make it less likely) action : for exemple : stacking penalties by how many people actually deal with you. (many problems with existing gameplay) avoid : for exemple : a module increasing your ability to warp faster (and stronger vs warp scrambles) by how many people actually deal with you. (many problems with existing gameplay) start : gates, stations, belts, moons / planets : I find it weird that with the vastness of space CCP never tried a different way of engaging battles. It's that hard to add a "fleet battle" option in the gang's leader menu? And adress the problems there? In this 10vs1 exemple it would scatter the fleets in smaller groups somewhat balanced. Less lag too ya know? And you can go on like that as long as you wish. Create your own rules as you see them fit : Give a "fight" value to ship types (frig = 1, BS= 5) and make the balancing of strenght based on this. Fight a fixed time without warping in/out, basically making "rounds". Allow small, organized, gangs to attack much larger ones but by giving them a malus to the strenght they'll have to face each round if choosing this method. Fleeing = out of the battle for next round too. Destruction = have to go get another ship to re-enter battle. Too many in one side? Some won't find opponents in a round. Hull at 12% after your 2nd round? Go repair, but miss round 3. Got bananas in cargo = have banana juice after 6 round victories. Whatever. Anything you like. You are limited only by your imagination and the need to fulfill players desires. Got problems with your fleet battles? Make a fleet battle mode. If players are unhappy with it they just won't use it. This is a game. This is a program. Lines of codes. Whatever effect you want to achieve, you can.
Ithildin	Posted - 2005.10.11 20:03:00 - [174] We really don't need to improve escape methods. That WCS are so good only makes larger gangs necessary, which gives rise to gank squads. What we need right now is a method (module/skill/whatever) which allows us to follow people into warp, to pursue. Or something. It's a bit binary right now - do or don't no second chance. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving survivability, I enjoy good fights. Oh, and shield extenders are fixed values, not percentual values. They just look like percentage on the extraction pages. -- Neat sig, huh? Can you figure out what it says?
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.11 20:20:00 - [175] Originally by: Ithildin What we need right now is a method (module/skill/whatever) which allows us to follow people into warp, to pursue. Or something. It's a bit binary right now - do or don't no second chance. Idea: Homing Beacon Ammo - Ammo that can be fitted into any launcher; there is one type of homing beacon for each launcher type, and its range, velocity, and graphics match those of a normal missile of that type (i.e. indistinguishable from anything else fired in that volley). - Upon impact, the homing beacon does not inflict damage. Instead, it creates a mobile beacon that's active for 5 minutes and allows the person who fired it to warp to that ship wherever it's at (and bring his gang along, of course, if he's gang leader). - Targets shot by this ammo do not receive a notification that they have an extra "passenger". -Wrayeth
BABARR	Posted - 2005.10.11 22:08:00 - [176] First : correct the bug who are exist before make new think. Second : Increase the agro timer at the gate if you make heavy tanker ship. Or make a systeme where we can follow us prey throught the gate.
Waut	Posted - 2005.10.12 09:00:00 - [177] Edited by: Waut on 12/10/2005 09:16:13 Edited by: Waut on 12/10/2005 09:08:03 I don't see why shields need such a huge nerf. Shield extenders already were inferior compared to armor plates because of their higher fitting requirements, now a huge sig increase as well? Either nerf the armortankers so they are one the same level as shieldtankers or boost shieldtankers so they can get on the same level as armortankers. Don't nerf them both The only thing that's keeping me to Caldari is ECM. Missiles (since the nerf) and shield tanking lost my love. On the plus side, less than a day left for amarr cruiser IV. I'm looking forward on flying Amarr BS
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.10.12 11:19:00 - [178] Originally by: Waut I don't see why shields need such a huge nerf. Shield extenders already were inferior compared to armor plates because of their higher fitting requirements, now a huge sig increase as well? Either nerf the armortankers so they are one the same level as shieldtankers or boost shieldtankers so they can get on the same level as armortankers. Don't nerf them both I don't think the devs ever recovered from the old shield tanking abuse. And I heard the noise of thunder. And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him
Gabriel Karade	Posted - 2005.10.12 12:19:00 - [179] Originally by: Manny Tanato Keep your smart ass comments to yourself Gabriel, I'm pointing out a valid issue here. Take a look at the mood of the posters in the previous pages, resentment and frustration is apparent. The simple fact of the matter is that people put in real life time and effort (and not to mention the requisite money for subscription) to get somewhere in this game, and all that looks to be swept away by a series of nerfs, seemingly aimed at the Caldari at the moment. And that last point is something that has been independently mentioned time and again by many other people, not just me. And I was pointing out how moronic it was... "Caldari hate" "ZOMG! we're being nerfed into oblivion!" "Will someone please think of the Children!!" The point is your going nuts over something that isnt even implemented on the test server correctly yet. I repeat, it's just a game. If it gets you that het up why are you even playing? (\_/) (O.o) (> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on"
Waut	Posted - 2005.10.12 12:26:00 - [180] Originally by: theRaptor Originally by: Waut I don't see why shields need such a huge nerf. Shield extenders already were inferior compared to armor plates because of their higher fitting requirements, now a huge sig increase as well? Either nerf the armortankers so they are one the same level as shieldtankers or boost shieldtankers so they can get on the same level as armortankers. Don't nerf them both I don't think the devs ever recovered from the old shield tanking abuse. Must be before my time. Could you enlighten me
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.12 12:35:00 - [181] Gabriel Karade, the point is that if this change goes through, a lot them WON'T be. "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
Chepe Nolon	Posted - 2005.10.12 18:10:00 - [182] Originally by: nahtoh You also have access to modules we don't (effect all passives, also getting a boast this patch), not to mention your ress fittigs are so much less than ours. Yes missiles need a tone down but it went to far, target painters are better for guns, a frig pilot only needs not to turn on a MWD to avoid anything but minimal damage from med to large missiles. As has been mentioned we have the largest sig, slow speed, crap aglity, slowest locking time and has not been mentioned the smallest drone bays. And you have a weapon that hit as good at 200km as it hits on 0.001km with only a sensor booster to aid you. That's the reason why I use a raven for that task. Missiles at least hits the orbiting frigs while also can deal damage that can take down a bs at 200km. I admit I haven't tried a double sensorbooster/tracking computer + all damage mods in low slot for my mega, but I doubt I can get a reasonable dot at 200km. I've in fact parked my mega as it is useless for me now. And using an ishtar instead. I await the lurking nerf of my dronebay/heavy drones, though I'm enjoying the fun flying it as long as it lasts. Chepe Nolon -- My notes about agent missions.
nahtoh	Posted - 2005.10.12 19:52:00 - [183] Edited by: nahtoh on 12/10/2005 19:53:06 Originally by: Chepe Nolon And you have a weapon that hit as good at 200km as it hits on 0.001km with only a sensor booster to aid you. That's the reason why I use a raven for that task. Missiles at least hits the orbiting frigs while also can deal damage that can take down a bs at 200km. I admit I haven't tried a double sensorbooster/tracking computer + all damage mods in low slot for my mega, but I doubt I can get a reasonable dot at 200km. I've in fact parked my mega as it is useless for me now. And using an ishtar instead. I await the lurking nerf of my dronebay/heavy drones, though I'm enjoying the fun flying it as long as it lasts. Funny after I lost my last raven I switched to a mega, against BS yes the raven maybe a bit better but dong crap damage to anything smaller no matter the range does my head in. It was lost against cruisers and frigs could not kill the frigs from 100 km range to they came in and scarmbled me on a lvl 4 mission (sodding merc wingmen)...and before I get the almost certain don't just fit seige my hight slot layout was 2x seige, 4x cruise and 2x T2 125 rails and a full drone loadout (pittyful that the ravens is). Worse gunnery skills was taking cruisers down faster with a mega than I did in my raven and they did not even come close to breaking my tank in the mega (was angel suprise for those intrested). "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem solve itself" (credits to mcallister TCS)
Lhiannon	Posted - 2005.10.14 17:59:00 - [184] I have an idea... Now, the reason you can't hit a frig with a cruisemissile or a torp is because they move too quickly, no matter how much signature buffing/debuffing is going on. What should be considered though, is BS sized launchers for the light and heavy missiles, comperable to the relationship between standard launchers and assault launchers. Frigates become less of a problem in a anti-frigate BS setup if you're firing light missiles at the same rate that a rocket launcher would be launching rockets. Same thing with heavy missiles and an anti cruiser setup.
Manny Tanato	Posted - 2005.10.15 11:01:00 - [185] Originally by: Lhiannon I have an idea... Now, the reason you can't hit a frig with a cruisemissile or a torp is because they move too quickly, no matter how much signature buffing/debuffing is going on. What should be considered though, is BS sized launchers for the light and heavy missiles, comperable to the relationship between standard launchers and assault launchers. Frigates become less of a problem in a anti-frigate BS setup if you're firing light missiles at the same rate that a rocket launcher would be launching rockets. Same thing with heavy missiles and an anti cruiser setup. I don't really see your point, becuase that would be the same as fitting your BS with assult launchers or heavy launchers. And one thing, I think the idea of making light missiles fire at the rate of rocker launchers would be far too deadly, probably unbalancing. Small ships carry small weapons, they need to close to reasonable range to your BS in order to do their thing. If you can reach out to them at 40 plus km with lights, and at the rate of rocket ROF, then it's suicide. -=[ I huff and I puff and nothing falls... ]=-
Wrayeth	Posted - 2005.10.15 15:38:00 - [186] Originally by: Lhiannon I have an idea... Now, the reason you can't hit a frig with a cruisemissile or a torp is because they move too quickly, no matter how much signature buffing/debuffing is going on. What should be considered though, is BS sized launchers for the light and heavy missiles, comperable to the relationship between standard launchers and assault launchers. Frigates become less of a problem in a anti-frigate BS setup if you're firing light missiles at the same rate that a rocket launcher would be launching rockets. Same thing with heavy missiles and an anti cruiser setup. This would be a great idea for just about any ship but the raven (which must use all of its launcher slots for battleship weapons). If a new type of slot, the "point defense" slot, could be implemented specifically to fit modules like this, that would be perfect - after all, the raven generally has two free slots after fitting out its launchers. -Wrayeth
Chepe Nolon	Posted - 2005.10.15 18:38:00 - [187] Originally by: Lhiannon I have an idea... Now, the reason you can't hit a frig with a cruisemissile or a torp is because they move too quickly, no matter how much signature buffing/debuffing is going on. What should be considered though, is BS sized launchers for the light and heavy missiles, comperable to the relationship between standard launchers and assault launchers. Frigates become less of a problem in a anti-frigate BS setup if you're firing light missiles at the same rate that a rocket launcher would be launching rockets. Same thing with heavy missiles and an anti cruiser setup. I like that idea. Large weapon that fires small missiles at a really high rate. Then battleships could get back to ganking mode again, but small missiles shouldn't do that much damage to other battleships like a full set of siege launchers would do. That way you don't get a "I win button". I think it should be the same for dual/quad guns. Like the dual 150mm should use small hybrid ammo, and fire twice as fast as a normal 150mm. Or at least close to twice as fast. But then it would not have as good tracking as the 150mm. Same for a dual 250mm. Then quad 150mm for the bs could be introduced. Chepe Nolon -- My notes about agent missions.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2005.10.15 19:30:00 - [188] Yea, and they'd do higher DoT and everyone would use them, or they'd just have good enough tracking to wipe out smaller ships. Or maybe people should use gasp mixed fleets? "Corpse cannot be fitted onto ship. Only hardware modules can be fitted."
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.10.16 06:55:00 - [189] Originally by: Maya Rkell Yea, and they'd do higher DoT and everyone would use them, or they'd just have good enough tracking to wipe out smaller ships. Or maybe people should use gasp mixed fleets? WTF are you smoking Maya? BS should = win. I should be able to kill everything with 4 million SP. whine whin etc etc. And I heard the noise of thunder. And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him
Gaius Kador	Posted - 2005.10.17 02:10:00 - [190] Im with the degenerate Rappy ;) ---------------------------------------------- Sic Transit Gloria
theRaptor	Posted - 2005.10.17 12:38:00 - [191] Originally by: Waut Originally by: theRaptor Originally by: Waut I don't see why shields need such a huge nerf. Shield extenders already were inferior compared to armor plates because of their higher fitting requirements, now a huge sig increase as well? Either nerf the armortankers so they are one the same level as shieldtankers or boost shieldtankers so they can get on the same level as armortankers. Don't nerf them both I don't think the devs ever recovered from the old shield tanking abuse. Must be before my time. Could you enlighten me Back in the dayÖ, in the long, long ago. Before I started playing etc. You could load up on cap power relays which didn't have a penalty to shield tanking, and use a large (xl??) shield booster to uber tank any BS. I think this was also the time when 1400's where uber, so you would see shield tanking apocs, using guns that use bugger all cap. And so CCP nerfed the **** out of shield tanking, cap power relays, and projectiles (which sucked until I had been playing for about 6 months). Really now since all the changes its probably time for CCP to boost shield tanking and cap power relays, a bit. And I heard the noise of thunder. And I looked and behold: a pale horse. And his name, that sat on him, was Death. And Hell followed with him
Chepe Nolon	Posted - 2005.10.18 15:47:00 - [192] Originally by: Maya Rkell Yea, and they'd do higher DoT and everyone would use them, or they'd just have good enough tracking to wipe out smaller ships. Or maybe people should use gasp mixed fleets? Still there are a few key parts missing: - Aggro management for pve. As long as the smaller, slower ships (destroyers f.ex) can suddenly get the aggro from the whole battlefield, and there ain't a god damn thing you can do about it other than warping out, then why bother. I understand if all the frigates go vs their own size first. But everything and their mums attacks the one that warps in first. Or whatever is closest if the other one comes out of the grid. - There is a penalty for using big guns vs small ships. (sig radius, speed etc). Why isn't there a penalty for using small guns vs big ships? (absorb lesser damage, reflect at relatively low damage) Besides, a quad 150mm could have some negative boni like slower firing rate due to heat or the mechanics just don't keep up. Then, if combined with a penalty for using small guns vs big ships, an apoc with 8x quad medium beams would be a very sitting duck vs a tempest with with torps and 1400mm's. I feel most ships are set up for only one range. Exeption is the agent runners/npc hunters, that have some defence vs intys. And I guess they still would be the most popular. In fleet battles, you have the possibility of giving roles and ranges to different ships. But for solo players like pirates, bounty hunters, npc'ers and agent runners, having a few more options would have been great. If ships should only fit 6 cruise launchers, 8 pulses, 4 cruise / 4 1400, then I don't see the point of having 8 high slots. 3 would be enough. primary, secondary and point defence. Chepe Nolon -- My notes about agent missions.
FireLord	Posted - 2005.10.19 07:23:00 - [193] All I can say is armour tank should now be called an Amarr tank, as amarrian ships are going to be the ONLY ships worth pvping in
Torze	Posted - 2005.10.20 05:12:00 - [194] Originally by: Manny Tanato Originally by: Lhiannon I have an idea... Now, the reason you can't hit a frig with a cruisemissile or a torp is because they move too quickly, no matter how much signature buffing/debuffing is going on. What should be considered though, is BS sized launchers for the light and heavy missiles, comperable to the relationship between standard launchers and assault launchers. Frigates become less of a problem in a anti-frigate BS setup if you're firing light missiles at the same rate that a rocket launcher would be launching rockets. Same thing with heavy missiles and an anti cruiser setup. I don't really see your point, becuase that would be the same as fitting your BS with assult launchers or heavy launchers. And one thing, I think the idea of making light missiles fire at the rate of rocker launchers would be far too deadly, probably unbalancing. Small ships carry small weapons, they need to close to reasonable range to your BS in order to do their thing. If you can reach out to them at 40 plus km with lights, and at the rate of rocket ROF, then it's suicide. What I think would be pretty cool is a Battleship sized launcher that say fired 4-6 light missiles at once.
EternalDark	Posted - 2005.10.23 05:48:00 - [195] Originally by: Torze Originally by: Manny Tanato Originally by: Lhiannon I have an idea... Now, the reason you can't hit a frig with a cruisemissile or a torp is because they move too quickly, no matter how much signature buffing/debuffing is going on. What should be considered though, is BS sized launchers for the light and heavy missiles, comperable to the relationship between standard launchers and assault launchers. Frigates become less of a problem in a anti-frigate BS setup if you're firing light missiles at the same rate that a rocket launcher would be launching rockets. Same thing with heavy missiles and an anti cruiser setup. I don't really see your point, becuase that would be the same as fitting your BS with assult launchers or heavy launchers. And one thing, I think the idea of making light missiles fire at the rate of rocker launchers would be far too deadly, probably unbalancing. Small ships carry small weapons, they need to close to reasonable range to your BS in order to do their thing. If you can reach out to them at 40 plus km with lights, and at the rate of rocket ROF, then it's suicide. What I think would be pretty cool is a Battleship sized launcher that say fired 4-6 light missiles at once. Hell no, I believe CCP has said it many times, even to me, that BS's are not uber frig/cruiser pawning behemoths.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one 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.