Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
560
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:34:00 -
[1] - Quote
EVE Online: Odyssey 1.1 will be released on September 3rd. To gather up all of the information that has been circulating the Features and Ideas discussion forum, CCP Fozzie has written a blog that explains and confirms the various changes done by him and CCP Rise coming to both ships and modules in Odyssey 1.1.
Head on over here to read it.
Some have called CCP Fozzie and CCP Rise balancing machines. For others, it does not matter. Tell us what you think about their work in this thread as we wait for the deployment of Odyssey 1.1. CCP Gargant | Community Representative | Tournament Referee |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7459
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:37:00 -
[2] - Quote
Little known fact: Miley Cyrus' hit song "We Can't Stop" was entirely based upon the story of CCP's balance team.
Our deepest apologies. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Falcon
3876
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:40:00 -
[3] - Quote
Firs.... Damn it.
mmm can't wait for the HAC Changes
CCP Falcon -á || -á EVE Community Team -á || -á EVE Illuminati -á || -á Live Events Organizer
@CCP_Falcon -á || -á-á@EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Antoine Jordan
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:45:00 -
[4] - Quote
Disappointed in the way you're going about CS/link changes. The rest are good. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
1189
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Finaly
Next Winter(is Comming) Expansion ? |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
9276
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 15:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sweet!
|
|
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
461
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
so HAC's are pretty much locked in now? .... there are still many people who think they need more work and feel they are being ignored completely.. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Echo Mande
61
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
An interesting set of changes. We'll have to see how they all work. I for one am in favor of how the availability of mindlinks has been redone. 2 bil for a link is preposterous.
Now to see how the other T2 cruisers, Blackops, Marauders (!) and T2 industrials get mangled, folded, spindled, mutilated and otherwise rebalanced. I want covert cyno in highsec! |
|
CCP Gargant
C C P C C P Alliance
560
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
Please note: The title of the last section does in no way reflect actual CCP policy. CCP Gargant | Community Representative | Tournament Referee |
|
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:17:00 -
[10] - Quote
Deimos (6.2/s cap) Absolution (4.5/s cap along will all other command ships lol?)
Please explain, |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7460
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Deimos (6.2/s cap) Absolution (4.5/s cap along will all other command ships lol?) Please explain,
Extremely strong capacitor regen is part of the package of intended strengths for the HAC class. When we give one class a certain strength we don't generally change every other class to give them the same strength.
The pattern of ships sharing a class and role (for example Attack frigates, or disruption cruisers) having the same peak cap regen but significantly differing cap pool sizes with exceptions as needed has also been in use for well over a year and we're quite happy with it overall. The fact that people are somehow "discovering" it now amuses me greatly :) Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
461
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Awesome! Great Dev Blog!
e: Sept 3rd on Odyssey 1.1! Next week!! Awesome!!! Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
Capqu
Love Squad
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:32:00 -
[13] - Quote
really positive patch overall so thanks for that
please can you just shove in 10km lock range for all interceptors though ;-; every single interceptor having to fit ionics to be useful is really painful http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
358
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:34:00 -
[14] - Quote
When are you nerfing links? |
Capqu
Love Squad
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:34:00 -
[15] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links?
i suggest you go look at the link thread a little closer friend http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
Fair enough Fozzie, "intended" is the simple answer, next question about cap. Why do all the Commands share the exact same cap recharge where almost every other ship rebalanced by your team over the last two years has seen more specific attention to detail given to cap consumption/regen?
To use the hacs as an example again, it's very clear that varying levels of cap/s was part of the design. Would this mean that varying levels of cap/s was not part of the balance design for commands? If this is the case, do you and the balance team feel that the increased cap needs of certain ships in the class compared to others is balanced proportionately by other strengths/weaknesses?
In essence: 4.5/s cap across the entire lineup seems a bit lazy. Myself and many others feel that a bit more "attention to detail" is needed here. |
Freelancer117
So you want to be a Hero
73
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:39:00 -
[17] - Quote
Can already hear "someone" saying: Sniper HAC's, Sniper HAC's
plus cats:
http://www.killthehydra.com/wp-content/uploads/winter-is-coming-cats-meme1.jpg Eve rule no.1: The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans.
http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg http://bit.ly/13cGuW0 |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
358
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:39:00 -
[18] - Quote
Capqu wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links? i suggest you go look at the link thread a little closer friend
Those changes will not fix the problem. |
Capqu
Love Squad
199
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:40:00 -
[19] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Capqu wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links? i suggest you go look at the link thread a little closer friend Those changes will not fix the problem.
that's an opinion, however it doesn't change the fact that they are nerfing links http://pizza.eve-kill.net |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:44:00 -
[20] - Quote
When were the drone rebalance news coming? Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
1956
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:46:00 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Gargant wrote:Please note: The title of the last section does in no way reflect actual CCP policy. damage control activated eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
410
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:55:00 -
[22] - Quote
Really looking forward to the local armor rep bonus.
The Kronos will be my new home :)
(This means CCP isn't supposed to nerf its combat skills this winter)
(Buffs are welcome anytime) |
NullRazor
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 16:56:00 -
[23] - Quote
Um.. I think you left out The following: T2 Ammo: The penalties on most of it make it far less appealing to use then the faction counterpart. Heavy Missiles: Heavy missile have been nerfed into the ground and need serious work. Electronic Attack Frigates: After the T1 Frigate pass, these ship are extremely broken. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
358
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
Capqu wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Capqu wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links? i suggest you go look at the link thread a little closer friend Those changes will not fix the problem. that's an opinion, however it doesn't change the fact that they are nerfing links
Enough that you can call it a nerf, not enough to actually do anything. Kind of like the other recent nerfs. |
Bubanni
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
765
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:04:00 -
[25] - Quote
don't forget the interceptors, they could use a little balance pass also, such as a little extra lock range, and maybe a little more pg on a select few of them (ehp and such is fine already)
:# Supercap nerf - change ewar immunity https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=194759 Module activation delay! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1180934 |
Maximus Andendare
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
461
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:05:00 -
[26] - Quote
Why is everyone using this Dev Blog comment section to suggest future balancing? There's an entire subforum for features and ideas. I know! Who knew? Step onto the battlefield, and you're already dead, born again at the end of the battle to live on and fight another day.
>> Play Dust 514 FREE! Sign up for exclusive gear today! << |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
412
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:28:00 -
[27] - Quote
I never know if I'm ever heard or not on the forums so I say thank you by plexing my account. I also don't respond to feature discussion threads unless a dev is continuously responding to players. Very hard to get heard in this game. Might as well advertise it :) |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
330
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:40:00 -
[28] - Quote
Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7463
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:45:00 -
[29] - Quote
CCP Gargant wrote:Please note: The title of the last section does in no way reflect actual CCP policy.
I said the rebalance is free, not the game subscription :) Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P C C P Alliance
7463
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended.
Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want. Game Designer | Team Five-0 https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/ |
|
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1153
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:52:00 -
[31] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links?
Links are being nerfed for a few reasons.
Two reasons that stand out are:
1. CCP loves blob warfare, and skirmish links let well-skilled small gangs operate to some degree against blobs. So they were nerfed, hard.
2. Null sec cartels, especially those trying to force more people into null sec rental situations, hate high sec incursion runners. Therefore, CCP nerfed the links, knowing that weaker links (about 21% effective repping for armour ), will require bigger tanks, thereby lowering DPS, hence lowering income. And they know this is the gift that keeps on giving, when later this year they force OBG's ongrid, hammering incursion income further. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1153
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:55:00 -
[32] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want.
You mean your best judgement, given the gaming background you have. Tell me, when was the last time CCP hired a game designer that was wholeheartedly a high sec player?
Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
412
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 17:55:00 -
[33] - Quote
I do suppose it is hard to know what to do considering every single player has their own agenda. Realistically though there will always be someone better. Does it make it right to nerf the stuff that THEY are good with? Assuming someone is good because of a crutch is one thing. Failing to realize that they will prevail no matter what and haters will still complain is another. The bad players know that if they complain enough CCP will coddle them. In every game bad players never stick around. Good players still need to be rewarded too. |
Chris Winter
Zephyr Corp V.A.S.T.
211
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:07:00 -
[34] - Quote
Nighthawk's slot layout is still bad.
With 7/5/5 it has an extra low that's just wasted space. Compared to the other shield tanked missile CS, the Claymore (which has 7/6/4), the Nighthawk is slower, less maneuverable, has less local rep potential (due to the Claymore's bonus), and can fit a buffer that's only marginally larger than the Claymore's (due to the Claymore's extra mid). They also have comparable DPS when the Claymore's drones are considered, the Nighthawk is tighter on fittings, and the Claymore has a smaller sig.
There's no reason at all to bring a Nighthawk instead of a Claymore right now. The extra low is useless. Nano? It still can't keep up with the claymore, so it will get benched in nimble fleets. 4th BCS? Adds only a marginal amount of dps. SPR? Only useful for PvE, and another mid would be more useful for shield regen tanking anyway (LSE adds more than an SPR with fewer downsides). Coproc? Not very necessary since if you're going for an XLASB fit you're better off with the claymore anyway. Only possibly needed because the Nighthawk's fittings are still not that great.
The Claymore, OTOH, could make good use of a 5th low for the coproc to fit an XLASB.
Drake is 7/6/4 with resist bonus, Cyclone is 7/5/5 with rep bonus. Those two ships are reasonably balanced against each other. So why are their T2 counterparts' slot layouts reversed, giving the tank advantage firmly to the Claymore? |
Jerick Ludhowe
trolllolcorp
549
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:18:00 -
[35] - Quote
Chris Winter wrote: Those two ships are reasonably balanced against each other. So why are their T2 counterparts' slot layouts reversed, giving the tank advantage firmly to the Claymore?
Because fozzie said so
|
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation
330
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:36:00 -
[36] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want.
Not having a dig at you personally, just from my perspective after writing pages and pages of feedback it looks like you post a set of changes with your minds completely made up. It is very rare you actually alter your position, which is either you being supremely confident of your changes or just being stubborn - for you sake I hope its the former.
I won't personally bother posting regarding changes in future anyway. It doesn't feel like a good use of time. |
Castelo Selva
Selva Brasil Moon Warriors
41
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:43:00 -
[37] - Quote
Excellent work CCP Fozzie, CCP Rise and team. Congratulation to all . I am very happy with all changes (even the gang link ones), so please do not get me wrong but...
Where are the command ship hull changes?
We still want it! |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2610
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:51:00 -
[38] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links? Links are being nerfed for a few reasons. Two reasons that stand out are: 1. CCP loves blob warfare, and skirmish links let well-skilled small gangs operate to some degree against blobs. So they were nerfed, hard. 2. Null sec cartels, especially those trying to force more people into null sec rental situations, hate high sec incursion runners. Therefore, CCP nerfed the links, knowing that weaker links (about 21% effective repping for armour ), will require bigger tanks, thereby lowering DPS, hence lowering income. And they know this is the gift that keeps on giving, when later this year they force OBG's ongrid, hammering incursion income further.
3. CCP has invested company funds into large stocks of tinfoil and other such hat accessories and want a return on investment.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2610
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:52:00 -
[39] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want. You mean your best judgement, given the gaming background you have. Tell me, when was the last time CCP hired a game designer that was wholeheartedly a high sec player only playing a limited part of the game rather than all of it regards of system security status?
Answer: Never. |
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan Pax Romana Alliance
242
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 18:57:00 -
[40] - Quote
GG Dominix, you overdid it in the Alliance Tournament old friend.
Now your drones will occasionally actually miss targets "Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom." |
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion xXPlease Pandemic Citizens Reloaded Alliance.Xx
2978
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 19:03:00 -
[41] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: Tell me, when was the last time CCP hired a game designer that was wholeheartedly a high sec player?
Wouldn't that be a bit like hiring a Tennis pro because he was really good at serves, but never returned a volley?
...or hiring a race-car driver that was really good at getting on and off pit road, but couldn't drive over 70mph?
...or having a tinfoil opinion on all null sec alliances based on a very narrow cross-section of actual experience?
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Luc Chastot
Daktaklakpak.
472
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 19:17:00 -
[42] - Quote
3 months for this? Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
2583
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 19:34:00 -
[43] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links?
Your question is flawed:
It should say, why aren't you nerfing links more!!!!!
Links are straight up broken, and extremely detrimental to solo and small gang PvP! |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1311
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 19:41:00 -
[44] - Quote
Whatever the changes, we shall adapt, and six months from now, most of us will have forgotten what the old ships were like. This is not a signature. |
Kevin Emoto
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
29
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:26:00 -
[45] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Little known fact: Miley Cyrus' hit song "We Can't Stop" was entirely based upon the story of CCP's balance team.
Our deepest apologies.
Well, you had to top incarna some how for bad game design decisions. Mission Accomplished
|
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
1682
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 20:27:00 -
[46] - Quote
I object! I some of the changes (shield booster bonus) will have a net positive effect on my EVE! The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4544
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 21:30:00 -
[47] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want. You mean your best judgement, given the gaming background you have. Tell me, when was the last time CCP hired a game designer that was wholeheartedly a high sec player? Last year the big jab at CCP devs that discussed their professions in EVE was that too many were high sec care bears.
I guess it all depends on whose orifice you pull your accusations out of. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4544
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 21:33:00 -
[48] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links? Links are being nerfed for a few reasons. Two reasons that stand out are: 1. CCP loves blob warfare, and skirmish links let well-skilled small gangs operate to some degree against blobs. So they were nerfed, hard. 2. Null sec cartels, especially those trying to force more people into null sec rental situations, hate high sec incursion runners. Therefore, CCP nerfed the links, knowing that weaker links (about 21% effective repping for armour ), will require bigger tanks, thereby lowering DPS, hence lowering income. And they know this is the gift that keeps on giving, when later this year they force OBG's ongrid, hammering incursion income further.
Since blobs are able to leverage the benefits of links far more effectively than small gangs what you are actually saying is "Thank you CCP for helping small gangs to survive."
That's quite sweet of you actually. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Dysgenesis
Dhoomcats
12
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:07:00 -
[49] - Quote
This forum is really tinfoil central atm.
Overall Fozzie/Rise good job. Not everything is perfect but that is what iteration is for. The finalised HAC and CS changes are much better than the ones initially proposed which I hope shows the value of the communities feedback. And don't worry, most of the feedback that was "ignored" was so because it was terrible. |
Zeus Maximo
Mentally Assured Destruction
413
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:32:00 -
[50] - Quote
Ranger 1 wrote:
Since blobs are able to leverage the benefits of links far more effectively than small gangs what you are actually saying is "Thank you CCP for helping small gangs to survive."
That's quite sweet of you actually.
Said by no one. Never seen a blob catch a small gang of equal intelligence.
Whats easier to coordinate; 10 people or 200?
Links don't win fights |
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1241
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:42:00 -
[51] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
You mean your best judgement, given the gaming background you have. Tell me, when was the last time CCP hired a game designer that was wholeheartedly a high sec player?
by referencing his background when he was player or any other theoretical CCP employee you are committing a logical fallacy.
the fact is CCP hired him and in their best judgement (and mine) he got the job.
get over it.
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1241
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:48:00 -
[52] - Quote
There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
56
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 22:52:00 -
[53] - Quote
I can't wait until all this rebalancing is done so we can finally get fun, new content. |
Xercodo
Xovoni Astronautical Manufacturing and Engineering
2539
|
Posted - 2013.08.27 23:29:00 -
[54] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:I can't wait until all this rebalancing is done so we can finally get fun, new content.
Well since Rise and Fozzie are devoted to this stuff I doubt lack of balance changes is going to make content output any better.
It's like asking the art devs for bug fixes.
Fozzie and Rise can probably have some input on content based development, but certainly dont appear to have had that in their job description... The Drake is a Lie |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
685
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 02:17:00 -
[55] - Quote
Zeus Maximo wrote:Ranger 1 wrote:
Since blobs are able to leverage the benefits of links far more effectively than small gangs what you are actually saying is "Thank you CCP for helping small gangs to survive."
That's quite sweet of you actually.
Said by no one. Never seen a blob catch a small gang of equal intelligence. Whats easier to coordinate; 10 people or 200? Links don't win fights Yet we keep hearing how nerfing links will kill small gangs and make engaging larger number impossible. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4585
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 04:15:00 -
[56] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: You mean your best judgement, given the gaming background you have. Tell me, when was the last time CCP hired a game designer that was wholeheartedly a high sec player?
hilmar, the highsec miner |
Elarath
Armed Aviation Club The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 06:29:00 -
[57] - Quote
Dear Fozzie, what about the hull changes of 50% of the CS's?
Any decisions made yet? Or may i have simply overlooked that part.
I think the 1.1 Patch is going to work out well. Looks pretty solid for me now. |
Roime
Ten Thousand Years Shinjiketo
3302
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 07:07:00 -
[58] - Quote
That's a hugeasston of rebalancing when compiled into one dev blog- awesome work!
Looking forward to the drone balance pass and the CS hull changes.
Ten Thousand Years is recruiting pioneer spirits to Solitude. |
Electra Magnetic
Hard Knocks Inc. Kill It With Fire
11
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 08:14:00 -
[59] - Quote
Seriously Thank you!
But
These changes shouldn't have taken months and months to be made. The serious lack of forward progress by the dev team is appalling. It took two devs and a little "peace and quiet" for them to make leaps and bounds of progress, but when they are all working together nothing gets done.
Im happy with the balancing pass so far. Though not sure I agree with the reduction to tracking for medium long range turrets. |
Bad Bobby
Bring Me Sunshine
238
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:33:00 -
[60] - Quote
Excellent! |
|
Vulfen
Snuff Box Urine Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:39:00 -
[61] - Quote
Thanks for you work CCP devs
I believe 90% of you work on this is great, the other 5% only time will tell and 5% is poor, so overall you guys have done a good job, you just might have to end up revisiting some of these changes in the near future.
I.e that 6th mid for the NH, and the terrible bonuses on the Slephnir. |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
2735
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 10:57:00 -
[62] - Quote
I have deleted some ranting and trolling from this thread. EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative GÇ+ EVE Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Gabriel Karade
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
117
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:11:00 -
[63] - Quote
Heh, for the first time in 9 years I might actually decide to fly a HAC
Gallente MkII: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1227770 War Machine: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=386293 |
Webzy Phoenix
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 11:54:00 -
[64] - Quote
Mostly excellent... Kudos to all
I believe that overall the changes are good and will be a positive for the game. Of course I do disagree with a few of the changes, and I feel a great opportunity was missed in some areas; but I suppose that is to be expected with a job of this magnitude, as most people will have mixed feelings about one thing or another.
My personal focus has been on waiting for the T3 cruiser revamp. I love the idea of the Strategic Cruiser, but I honestly believe they were seriously borked from the beginning... one "God-mode", two "meh", and one TURD. Unfortunately, I trained up for the TURD and have been hoping for a fix for a long, long time.
When will my Legion not suck? |
Antihrist Pripravnik
Paravan Korporacija
82
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 12:33:00 -
[65] - Quote
I have one advice for both CCP and players:
For the love of everything that is soft and cuddly, DO NOT shoot the Hoarder... it's full of ammo!!!
Now, when that's out of the way - cool devblog with some long expected (and overdue) changes. CCP Ytterbium: Yarrblblbgrlblbgrlblblblbblbgrlblblbgrblblyarrrrdrooooooolonthekeyboardlikealunatic |
Garviel Tarrant
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1372
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 15:37:00 -
[66] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want.
Should just listen to me damn it
I'm always right, even when i'm not <.< BYDI recruitment closed-ish |
Oxylan
QRDELESH - Mutual Admiration Society
53
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 17:19:00 -
[67] - Quote
Great stuf CCP, we all love space ships more love for ships better EVE for everyone, cant wait for using command ships again.
Also all other changes like redesign industrals and other ships, pure awesome.
Thank you If it bleed we can kill it. |
Akimo Heth
State War Academy Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 20:33:00 -
[68] - Quote
Vyktor Abyss wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want. Not having a dig at you personally, just from my perspective after writing pages and pages of feedback it looks like you post a set of changes with your minds completely made up. It is very rare you actually alter your position, which is either you being supremely confident of your changes or just being stubborn - for you sake I hope its the former. I won't personally bother posting regarding changes in future anyway. It doesn't feel like a good use of time.
Couldn't agree more. It seems CCP only changes their mind in the face of an uproar (see Gallenta BS, HACs, Industrial changes) versus reasoned arguments made as genuine feedback by a few dedicated player in those threads. Its unfortunate that even a great suggestion made by a single or few players gets little in the way of a meaningful response unless a threadnought is created (see NOS change thread which received little to no attention but contains several good suggestions and feedback). |
Snape Dieboldmotor
Perkone Caldari State
19
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 21:32:00 -
[69] - Quote
We appreciate your hard work on these changes. Thanks. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Polarized.
960
|
Posted - 2013.08.28 22:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
It's great that ships and modules are getting rebalanced to help bring more variety to the game but personally, eve isn't getting any more exciting/enjoyable.
I really wish the avatar basted gameplay project would get restarted...
Putting work in since 2010. |
|
Stay Thirsty
The Chosen Children
7
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 02:58:00 -
[71] - Quote
Are the skill name / category changes included? I did not see them listed, although I understand the blog was primarily about rebalance. |
Crellion
Parental Control
44
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 11:18:00 -
[72] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want.
There was a post with a fair number of likes on the 2nd HAC thread about why the 3 drones are mistakengly given to the Cerberus when they should obviously be given to the Eagle instead (given their roles and profile and specifically the inability of the Eagle's main weapon to hit small targets up close and the ability of the Cerbs main weapon to do the same at all ranges).
No dev comment in there. Could we have one here? |
Sparkus Volundar
Applied Creations The Fendahlian Collective
62
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 11:26:00 -
[73] - Quote
Thanks for the hard work.
Nighthawk still needs a 6th mid though. Since that's been mentioned a few time, I will try to put some numbers to it in case that helps/provides a fresh angle.
I like missiles as much as the next man but the fleet RR tanking comparison between the NH and the Vulture is painful.
The Vulture also has a resist bonus, 96% of the NH's base shield HP and a 6th mid for more tank.
Full T2 resists are very nice and it helps that the NH has recieved them but when you effectively drop a tank slot to get a T2 resist bonus (missile Drake/commandship Vulture, 6 mids vs. missile NH, 5 mids), they don't give as much advantage.
Comparison 1 - without gang links or many modules: - NH with 5 mids, 2 rigs and a DC. - Vulture with 6 mids, 2 rigs, a DC and an EM hardener in the 6th mid. - Drake pretending to be a NH (T2 therm hardener and T1 kinetic rig in the extra slots the NH lost).
Drake 30-75-71-65 resists 193 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR
Nighthawk 30-86-79-65 resists 219 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (14% more than Drake)
Vulture 69-86-79-65 resists 302 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (57% more than Drake)
14% is a bad increase for the NH since if the Drake was unfitted, it would be +45%. Add one E-War mod and a strong tank and things improve for the NH due to stacking penalties but it's still not great compared to a Vulture as seen below.
Comparison 2 - rebalanced gang links and stronger tanks: - Flat resists and minimal stacking penalties aimed for. - All ships have a DC and each leave space for 1 E-War/utility module.
Drake (Invul II, EM Hardner II, Therm Hardner II, T1 EM rig and T1 Kin rig) 81-84-82-81 resists 575 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR
Nighthawk (Invul II, EM Hardner II, T2 EM rig) 82-92-89-81 resists 745 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (30% more than Drake)
Vulture (Invul II, EM Hardner II, EM Hardner II, T1 Exp rig) 87-92-89-85 resists 870 DPS omni-tanked per meta 4 large RR (51% more than Drake)
Obviously the NH will do more damage than a Drake plus have a few other advantages but in a fight with RR, it's only getting about 60% of the advantage of its T2 resists due to having one less mid slot.
Thanks for taking the time to consider this post.
Regards, Sparks . |
Nabiah
Biohazard. WINMATAR.
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 12:18:00 -
[74] - Quote
so 4 mid slots where you we are meant to use a shield repper that will only give us a limited survivability. We realy want to loose that Vagabond dont we ? |
Pinky Denmark
The Cursed Navy
381
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 12:36:00 -
[75] - Quote
I am glad things are finally starting to progress in the right direction - who knows I might actually start playing again when the Strategic Cruisers have been properly balanced... Tier 3 Battlecruisers, T3 ships and blobbing made it very frustrating to keep playing.
I actually started writing a long document of things as I saw it before stopping to play. It does involve my view on T3 ships and capitals together with a few frustrations on other ships.
Here is the link (for devs and people who is looking for inspiration):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1c3c1s7WWEU9Dx_EysFgcrrZnoorpPxCNelS9zY9yM3g/edit?usp=sharing
Anyway keep up the good work with Eve - I believe a huge buff on active tanking and long range weaponry has been necesary for a long time... Now you just have to adjust the game environment to suit players in small groups wanting to use active repairs (more entries to lowsec, stronger sentry guns and bigger systems w/ more belts and bigger rewards for people)
Pinky Denmark |
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1172
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 14:19:00 -
[76] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Jerick Ludhowe wrote:Deimos (6.2/s cap) Absolution (4.5/s cap along will all other command ships lol?) Please explain, Extremely strong capacitor regen is part of the package of intended strengths for the HAC class. When we give one class a certain strength we don't generally change every other class to give them the same strength. The pattern of ships sharing a class and role (for example Attack frigates, or disruption cruisers) having the same peak cap regen but significantly differing cap pool sizes with exceptions as needed has also been in use for well over a year and we're quite happy with it overall. The fact that people are somehow "discovering" it now amuses me greatly :)
Please follow the same logic and scrap command sub from T3's, those are cruiser hulls, CS are Battlecruisers.
Command ships require a huge amount of time to get them, get them all it's just masochism, this command sub is not at it's place at all and T3's could be given another important role for all playing styles in the spec cruiser class. I don't care loosing 3D training for an ubber cloack dictor a la Sabre, this would be a fantastic tool for solo small entities to disrupt easier larger groups and step on their territory toes, an effective harassment tool able to fit cover ops cloak that's it.
Thx for not reading *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
SkupojHren
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 14:35:00 -
[77] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Little known fact: Miley Cyrus' hit song "We Can't Stop" was entirely based upon the story of CCP's balance team.
Our deepest apologies.
we can`t stop destroying eve? |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
4550
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 16:21:00 -
[78] - Quote
Again, huge swaths of formerly sub par ships will again see main stream use.
Well done.
I'm sure there will be a 2nd pass made to tweak a few things here and there, as there should be, but the base direction looks pretty sound considering current and future game mechanics.
I am very much looking forward to gang bonuses being handled differently. I know that the current system works as it does to keep server load to a minimum, but a sensible system that takes the bulleye off of specific command ships (or spreads the load around a lot) will be most welcome. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Balanah
Quebec's Underdog League Quebec United Legions
23
|
Posted - 2013.08.29 20:55:00 -
[79] - Quote
Again after this patch, Amarr ships will be more cap dependant than ever. Poor Zealot, not enough tracking and cap thanks to the MWD. _______________ Wormhole animal. |
Vorll Minaaran
Centre Of Attention Middle of Nowhere
16
|
Posted - 2013.08.31 00:03:00 -
[80] - Quote
Dont know where to put, but this topic seems the most suitable for this typo in the patch notes:
VULTURE:
Role Bonus: Can fit up to three Warfare Link modules.
Caldari Battlecruiser Bonuses:
4% bonus to all Shield Resistances 1. 0% bonus to Medium Hybrid Turret optimal range.
|
|
TravelBuoy
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
95
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 16:01:00 -
[81] - Quote
Capqu wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:When are you nerfing links? i suggest you go look at the link thread a little closer friend
I suggest u just open your eyes and u will see the link nerfs.
|
Mioelnir
Cataclysm Enterprises Easily Offended
105
|
Posted - 2013.09.01 23:40:00 -
[82] - Quote
I really like that we now have a dedicated linkship for dualtanked fleets..... now all we need is a new link variety that only gives a bonus if you have short and long range weapons of at least two different types and sizes fitted. |
Harvey James
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
479
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 21:00:00 -
[83] - Quote
seems like the low slot ECCM mods have been sneakily rebalanced without any mention ... just noticed it in patch notes any word on this CCP? Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name AB's need a buff-á like a big mass reduction ... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
Guy en Gravonere
Gravonere Industries
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.02 22:54:00 -
[84] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Vyktor Abyss wrote:Not happy about many of the changes and feedback given in those threads.
All ignored, like many other valid posters - glad to see CCP still working as intended. Just because one doesn't agree with every single person's suggestion doesn't mean feedback is being ignored. We take everything posted into consideration. At the end of the day, our jobs are do what's best for the game using our best judgement, and often that means differing from what some specific players want.
When I read some of the posts the rebalancing team has to deal with I'm reminded of an old commercial about herding cats that I believe was originally aired during a superbowl.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_MaJDK3VNE |
arria Auscent
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
107
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 10:11:00 -
[85] - Quote
and now the bestower beats the itty5 for hauling always liked it more |
Gabber359
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
21
|
Posted - 2013.09.03 16:14:00 -
[86] - Quote
Minor tweaks to the commodity haulers (that would be nice, please):
-Unable to drag and drop from POCO straight to Commodity Cargo bay (Epithal, either remove the tiddly cargo bay or make the default drag/drop action straight into the other Bay. Quite annoying when picking up cargo and you don't want to have to actually open the bay. Makes the Cargo Icon next to the center HUD kinda pointless in this regard)
-Unable to Jettison from Commodity Bay This makes working from a POS tedious. Before you could warp to a pos --> jettison. Now it's warp to a pos --> Move a tiddly amount of PI from Bay to Cargo --> Jettison --> Open Can --> Manually move from Bay to Can
The only thing I fear, is running out of beer ! |
Kusum Fawn
State War Academy Caldari State
352
|
Posted - 2013.09.07 00:02:00 -
[87] - Quote
Biggest problem with all the ship erbalancing is lack of focus on role and use, No one builds ships to do " umm... whatever" they are built to fill some need.
Define the role and then define the ship. Also define the race that is building said ship, and make sure that it makes sense within the races direction, Amarrian ships should have better capacitor, Gallente ships should have more drone bay, ETC.
Even within the grand scope of all the individual manufacturers there should be some thought as to the identity of that brand. It is ok for every race to have the same number of ships, and every class to have the same number of ships, they just should all be different enough to have specific roles. within their racial catagory Its not possible to please all the people all the time, but it sure as hell is possible to Displease all the people, most of the time.
|
SpacePhenix
KnownUnknown
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.12 12:49:00 -
[88] - Quote
Ill try to do this politely.... Bare with me if i seam unpolite... Course im furius....
Are CCP really trying to destroy EVE... The last couple of updates has compleetly destryed the game for me ... In the last couple of months i se old players leave EVE for good.. And i am serusly thinkin about doing so myself...
Stupid update nr 1... Balangsing production Bluprints by adding extra materials... I mean WHAT!!! So now i cant produce my T1 blueprints ships with any cind of profit.... I mean the productiuon profit before the update was low inugh... like 10% profit... now its - 20 to -50% profit... Is that the point of your update...for what reson? making ore compression less possible... Congrat ... your sucedeed on destroing the profit of T1 high sec producers...
Stupid update nr 2... Adding extra moon goo materials to T2 production.... Well congrats you made T2 production to be a 0.0 corp with the right moons enterprise only.... Bying the extra advanced moon go makes T2 production not profitable for a small producer... And by small i mean a producer with out his own moon harvesting pos.... To get one join a bigger 0.0 corp witch also means you wont get the moon go with out bying it from corp unless go got really good conections and can get the right roles without gettting ******... In other words impossible for a small producer or a relative new player...
Stupid update nr 3... Nerfing the comand ship T3 ships and warefare link ships...And making them unactive inside the pos...Are you cidding me....!!!! First of all if your makin boooster ships unusable well give me my one year + of skill training back the command ships are crusers and do NOT have inugh hitpoints the be active in a combat situation and highslots are preseved for links not guns ore lauchers= its not an active combat ship... Second.... if you cant use the booster inside the pos for the beneft of having it in safty... Then it should be A LOT easyer to get a pos in high sec....My point is... if your making it easy for a pvp player, you should also at the same time make it just as easy to be a non pvp player... As it is with production today the skills needed for doing production is mutch steeper than being a pvp player.... That means if you want to be a producer you have to inclaculate the risk of loose in combat situations.... Course the skills for doing production is focuced on that - not doing combat skills...
CCP stop making the game prittyer and more benefitable for the big 0.0 corps And start fixing the game insted...Not desroying it...... I understand that the 0.0 corps risk a lot and i do understand that they have to make money to be able to have ships nedded for the big war fights.... But should the non pvp players pay for theyr fights... I mean if its not playable for a non pvp player (profitabe) he will stop playing a long time before he gets to join a 0.0 corp and get into the big fights... There are so mutch more nedded to be done than adding "lines in space"... The pos production for example... - Adding 1 inventing job at the time .... Stupid!!! if there +¡s the same jobs beeing installed make it possible to install all of them in one go..as many as that chars skills/ and free slots will allow... - Canseled jobs at pos ..The timer on that canseled slot will not reset .. The solution you have given me is to unancor the module and ancoring it again... Meaning that all the jobs at the same moduele gets canseled ... This is NOT a sulution of that problem... Wardecs in High - Wardec a unactive corp to get to shoot the unactive pos down to get a pos spot.. To painfull and takes to long time....Sugestion if a pos is unactive in lets say 14 days a timer starts and a corp mail is sent that means that they need to active use theyr pos with in a time frame for exs 1 week or else another corp can either hack the pos, salvage the pos or something else to claim the spot... Why there are to many unactive poses in high sec.. Having a pos spot for sale is fine but the corp that has it should be more active by doing so ... It also needs to be safer transaction between byer and seller with the selling moon spot option...in my upinion it shouldnt be posible to have an ancored unactive pos for more than 24 ours... - Wardecing a high sec corp is WAAAAAY to easy and WAAAAAY to cheep.... A pvp corp that wants to wardec a high sec non pvp corp that does not have the skills for pvping but for production .... Must have a very very good reson to do so... meeening if a corp wants to wardec somone in high that wardecing corp must have lost at least 10 ships from the specifik corp they want to wardec... And 50 mill is way to cheep... 500 mill is more appropriate... Why .... becourse getting a high sec pos is way to hard compared ... and haveing a high sec producing corp is skilled different...+ your desroying that production corp income for a week....
It seams to me like your making changes course there is some 0.0 coprs that cryes the loudest... CCP you should be more active in the game try to play it a bit (with out using codes) for example... skill a tree moth old charr and try to ean inugh isk to have a fully fitted Faction Battle Ship...run it trugh some suspisius ganking systems ...and when you loose it make inugh isk again to buy a new one...(without codes).. Try to play it like new players have to play it...(3 month old) Fly to Jita and take a good look in lokal.... Is that what you designed the game for... cheeters...??
BTW any comment on this from any other than CCP will be ifnored ..so dont bother answering... |
Rented
Hunter Heavy Industries
112
|
Posted - 2013.09.13 03:48:00 -
[89] - Quote
Holy wall of crying Batman! |
SpacePhenix
KnownUnknown
0
|
Posted - 2013.09.27 12:00:00 -
[90] - Quote
CCP are you going to contact me.... u are destroying the game STOP it.!!! |
|
Lelira Cirim
EVE University Ivy League
98
|
Posted - 2013.09.29 01:07:00 -
[91] - Quote
It is theirs to destroy. Someone people often forget. Do not actively tank my patience. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |