Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Jack Miton
Semper Ubi Sub Ubi Unmentionables
2926
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:57:00 -
[151] - Quote
Another not needed random nerf. 1.1 is turning into a running joke CCP. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
456
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:06:00 -
[152] - Quote
A rational observation from a C6 WH corp's persepctive:
I am told by those in our corp who run incursions in hisec that they make as much isk per hour doing that as running escalated c6 sites in (very high risk) WH space.
This change seems likely to tip the balance of reward further towards the (relatively) riskless incursions, which seems counter-intuitive.
WH space seems to have become much quieter since incursions appeared, and prices have certainly risen*. It would seem wise to me to reduce the rewards in hisec incursions to compensate for this change.
* PLEX, the universal store of absolute Eve value, has risen by 20% since incursions appeared.
Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".
|
gr ant
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:07:00 -
[153] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Please slow down the rate at which you are "balancing" the game. I as a player appreciate that you guys wish to work directly on mechanics on the game in the hopes of trying to make the game better. But the speed that you wish to "fix" the game is very quickly paced and if anything Rubicon 1.1 is a prime example of this. Drones are being slightly nerf'd (which is reasonable) but who was the one to make them so powerful? CCP. Interceptors are fast, and this became apparently obvious when you made them faster with Rubicon, now in Rubicon 1.1 you are making them slightly less agile. What this shows is the overall lack of foresight that CCP has, ideas which seem good are implemented quickly and with haste only to be changed in a sub patch on the SAME EXPANSION.
So CCP I implore you to focus and slow down with these ADHD derived patches that seem to wish to "balance" many different aspects at once. |
gr ant
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:08:00 -
[154] - Quote
well i ****** that one up |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8538
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:11:00 -
[155] - Quote
Man if you hadn't quoted yourself I'd have never seen your post. Thanks for that. My EVE Videos |
Bailian Moxtain
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
15
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:12:00 -
[156] - Quote
last time i used my titan on the field was in may 2013, Im quite happy where this is going! |
gr ant
Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion
26
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:12:00 -
[157] - Quote
hitting quote instead of edit is pro |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8538
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:13:00 -
[158] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Instead of nerfing to placate the CFC and Goonswarm Fozzie, maybe when the CFC picked up their CSM/CCP Batphone and whined and b!tched someone in CCP could have had the ballz to tell them to ESCALATE! ESCALATION = PROBLEM SOVLED! Totally disapprove of a change like this in the middle of a War! Srsly? I'm sure you have lots of Goonswarm and CFC posts to bring up in support of your assertion that we've been calling for dread tracking nerfs. My EVE Videos |
Buys The Things
State War Academy Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:14:00 -
[159] - Quote
Is it possible to somehow opt out from updates, and just keep playing the game as it is now? |
Rall Mekin
End-of-Line
204
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:16:00 -
[160] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.
Constructive criticism: Virtually everyone posting here thinks this change is a bad idea and not needed; therefore, why make the change? Don't we essentially pay you guys for a game? Why do something a huge major of your paying customers seem to not want?
#Constructive-Criticism Join End-of-Line, -EOL, today, and kill your CEO! (Terms and conditions apply.)
http://imgur.com/yEQqAeb |
|
Citrute
Whale Girth Grand Sky Wizards
120
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:17:00 -
[161] - Quote
I expect to see plenty of jetcanned, burnt out tracking computers next to my dread. v0v
Not sure why there are so many tears. It's not like tracking computers are much more expensive or larger than ammo. |
Kais Fiddler
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:27:00 -
[162] - Quote
Thanks for the armor tanking dread buff CCP. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
288
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:35:00 -
[163] - Quote
Citrute wrote:I expect to see plenty of jetcanned, burnt out tracking computers next to my dread. v0v
Not sure why there are so many tears. It's not like tracking computers are much more expensive or larger than ammo.
If the intention is to dump fitted modules and refit them with a mobile depot rather than repair them with nanite paste - I fear that it could eventually be classified as a pseudo-exploit, and patched out in one way or another.
EG. The slot itself gets damaged, rather than the module. There's all sorts of nasty things that could be done to prevent this sort of mechanic-evasive behavior. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:45:00 -
[164] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:You all new this was coming...
Stealth Buff to Phoenix!
Actually theres an even bigger stealth nerf to the phoenix as well, with the TP reduced by 10% in effectiveness, that means that missiles against a similar size target on average have 5% less damage projection. Against smaller targets the damage projection gets much much worse.
But no worries, you can also overheat your target painter, to get your damage up slightly again... You do realise ofcourse that Capital guns get an even better bonus from target painters then Capital missiles do in comparison.... |
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:47:00 -
[165] - Quote
I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf.
The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc..
In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works.
TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
290
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:48:00 -
[166] - Quote
Citrute wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:If the intention is to dump fitted modules and refit them with a mobile depot rather than repair them with nanite paste - I fear that it could eventually be classified as a pseudo-exploit, and patched out in one way or another.
EG. The slot itself gets damaged, rather than the module. There's all sorts of nasty things that could be done to prevent this sort of mechanic-evasive behavior. I intend to refit them off a carrier, mobile depots have too few hp to be reliable place to refit. You also cant repair a burnt out module with paste, inconvenient for those that live in wormholes. Carrying more tracking computers also implies less cap sticks for injector refit v0v Refitting isn't a new concept nor is it an exploit.
So the whole thing is justified by people fighting by continuously refitting modules?
I suppose that's valid, in a way.
Just seems a bit ugly to me. Carry on. |
Sheeana Harb
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
3
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 23:51:00 -
[167] - Quote
Rall Mekin wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.
Constructive criticism: Virtually everyone posting here thinks this change is a bad idea and not needed; therefore, why make the change? Don't we essentially pay you guys for a game? Why do something a huge major of your paying customers seem to not want? #Constructive-Criticism
Because what customers want isn't always in line with what's best for the game. One can only have faith (in CCP) this change is actually needed. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8545
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:08:00 -
[168] - Quote
To everyone saying "oh I'll just swap out my tracking computers when they get destroyed from overheat":
Have you not overheated before? Other modules take heat damage as well. Are you going to carry multiples of all your other midslot modules so that you can replace them as well whenever they get destroyed? My EVE Videos |
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat Working Stiffs
3083
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:09:00 -
[169] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Actually theres an even bigger stealth nerf to the phoenix as well, with the TP reduced by 10% in effectiveness, that means that missiles against a similar size target on average have 5% less damage projection. Against smaller targets the damage projection gets much much worse.
But no worries, you can also overheat your target painter, to get your damage up slightly again... You do realise ofcourse that Capital guns get an even better bonus from target painters then Capital missiles do in comparison.... You can always use a 'Nozh' Modified TP too! |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
541
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:18:00 -
[170] - Quote
Dreads blaping T3s is so a bad design. 5% reducing tracking is too small, 10% would be optimal. BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
|
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
290
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:20:00 -
[171] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:To everyone saying "oh I'll just swap out my tracking computers when they get destroyed from overheat":
Have you not overheated before? Other modules take heat damage as well. Are you going to carry multiples of all your other midslot modules so that you can replace them as well whenever they get destroyed?
This is how I was getting confused. At some point you just end up carrying what, 5+ of the same fit around everywhere you go?
How? In your personal hauler companion? Or does every fleet now have a few jump freighters go with it with tons of modules so they stay overheated 24/7 and just constantly refit?
I don't know -- I know the metagame changes quickly but this all sounds startling unrealistic |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
541
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:21:00 -
[172] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf. The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc.. In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works. TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is.
Exactly this! CCP the default nerf of the tracking should be 10% BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10017
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:23:00 -
[173] - Quote
This really screws things up with XL LR turrets, CCP. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Mirel Dystoph
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
88
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:25:00 -
[174] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:To everyone saying "oh I'll just swap out my tracking computers when they get destroyed from overheat":
Have you not overheated before? Other modules take heat damage as well. Are you going to carry multiples of all your other midslot modules so that you can replace them as well whenever they get destroyed? Uhm...yes? "Nothing essential happens in the absence of noise."-á |
Faydhe
SECURITY SQUAD N.O.B.O.D.Y.
2
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:43:00 -
[175] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules. I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one. When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion. In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster. These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback. Thanks!
Why nerf again? Only few % use owerload. SSQ - -¥-¦-¦-+-Ç -Ü-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-+-Ç-¦-é-+-¦ |
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
541
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 00:48:00 -
[176] - Quote
Faydhe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules. I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one. When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion. In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster. These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback. Thanks! Why nerf again? Only few % use owerload.
It is barely a noticable nerf. Use you brain and don't jump on the brainless wagon. Blaping dreads are just OP. There needs to be a penalty on the siege module so the Dreads can't even "look at" anything smaller than a BS.
BALEX is recruiting -----> tinyurl.com/oscmmlv |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
466
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:09:00 -
[177] - Quote
Aebe Amraen wrote:I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf. The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc.. In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works. TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is.
You're ruining what was a perfectly good rage thread with ~FACTS~
Thanks a lot Aebe. You had to go and be that guy with the graphs and everything |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
295
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 01:47:00 -
[178] - Quote
Jafit McJafitson wrote:Aebe Amraen wrote:I made some graphs to demonstrate the effect of a 5% tracking nerf. The first demonstrates the effect of the tracking nerf on chance to hit. The second demonstrates the effect of the nerf on expected dps, which is slightly different than the effect on chance to hit because :ccp:. The third shows the ratio of expected damage after the nerf to expected damage before the nerf. All three graphs assume that everything other than tracking is remaining unchanged--i.e., you are in the exact same ship, exact same fit, exact same skills, exact same target, exact same positions (optimal and falloff), etc. etc.. In the worst-case scenario, when the target's transversal is approximately 3.3x your tracking, you lose about 8.5% damage. However at that point you're only doing (pre-nerf) about 8% of your paper DPS anyway, so you should probably try to fix that. In more realistic cases the 5% tracking nerf results in a less-than-5% loss in damage, because of the way the damage formula works. TL;DR: 5% tracking nerf is not nearly as big a deal as you think it is. You're ruining what was a perfectly good rage thread with ~FACTS~ Thanks a lot Aebe. You had to go and be that guy with the graphs and everything
Well, to be fair those aren't exactly well scaled graphs. The last one (overall DPS) is particularly offensive in that regard.
Eg he talks about an 8.5% damage difference - but nowhere on those graphs do I see what would visually represent 8.5% - that's a pretty big indicator that things are scaled funny/selectively.
|
ROSSLINDEN0
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
171
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:03:00 -
[179] - Quote
**** you in the eye mate |
Scarlet Thellere
University of Caille Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 02:05:00 -
[180] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Faydhe wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Hello again! This thread will cover the changes to the base tracking stats of all capital turrets alongside the expansion of heat to Tracking Computer modules. I advise reading the Heat Iterations post before this one. When expanding the ability to overheat to Tracking Computers, we investigated the effects that the change would have on different levels of turrets and the doctrines that use them. With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion. In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster. These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback. Thanks! Why nerf again? Only few % use owerload. It is barely a noticable nerf. Use you brain and don't jump on the brainless wagon. Blaping dreads are just OP. There needs to be a penalty on the siege module so the Dreads can't even "look at" anything smaller than a BS.
I think that ship that needs to work in team, have high cost and skill req, have low scan res and need to commit for 5 min can be expected to wreak small havoc on single ship that is being webbed and painted by multiple hostiles. What you think dreds should be used for? Just glorified pos removers? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |