EVE Search - Band of Bloggers #42, Tuxford's This and That

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Band of Bloggers #42, Tuxford's This and That

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.11.23 08:29:00 - [121] Originally by: Shin Ra I'm afraid now that hitpoints have increased, but dmg has increased by more than 25% with the addition of rigs. Once again, having cake and eating it. That is not true. While it is true that you can fit two rate of fire rigs or a damage rig and a rate of fire rig, these rigs are stacking nerfed with modules so if you have damage mod or two,.. three the rigs aren't really adding that much. Furthermore these rigs are adding to the grid need of your guns so putting two will likely force you to either downgrade your guns or force you to change a damage mod for a rcu or pds. _______________

Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2006.11.23 08:38:00 - [122] errrr... i don't see why there should be such a double inflation regarding cap boosters: modules still need the same amounts while the ships have the same "cap levels" (same applies to all kinds of energy emissions). if they have been balanced so far, why do they get +25% amount and-20% volume? this way, they'll be required less often and last longer?
Bluetit	Posted - 2006.11.23 09:02:00 - [123] with the smaller increase to shields for t2 ships and the 25% increase to shield recharge rate accross the board will this not reduce the effectivness of passive tanks on T2 ships? Was this meant or should the rchg rate be increased in line with the shield increase?

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.11.23 09:11:00 - [124] Originally by: Bluetit with the smaller increase to shields for t2 ships and the 25% increase to shield recharge rate accross the board will this not reduce the effectivness of passive tanks on T2 ships? Was this meant or should the rchg rate be increased in line with the shield increase? Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank. Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because (ship_shield1.125 + shield_ext1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t _______________

Flabida jaba	Posted - 2006.11.23 09:18:00 - [125] Thanks Tux for the informitive Blog. its great that you can take some time to give us an idea where we're going with Kali and beyond and I appreciate it. I think you should take your OMGWTFBBQ Hurricain for a spin on the forums more often! It certainly lays down the Pwnage But you do realise I will have to fit a nice tracking disrupter on my Drake to PWNd u noob...lol NEway........ ive only got 1 thing left to say..... and thats in my sig....... Im out! ---------------------- Ferox: Designed as much to look like a killing machine as to be one, the Ferox will strike fear into the heart of anyone unlucky enough to get caught in its crosshairs.
Lucian Corvinus Gallente Expert Systems	Posted - 2006.11.23 09:29:00 - [126] Originally by: Tuxford Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank. Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because (ship_shield1.125 + shield_ext1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t I can understand this, but you've made a static 25% across the board, what about the battlecruisers which recieved a 56% increase, the shield recharge per second will get stronger, and what about the phoenix?? just wondering, not complaining
kDaser Caldari FATAL REVELATIONS	Posted - 2006.11.23 09:53:00 - [127] I've been told carriers are getting a boost to Drone bay and Ship maintanance bay size but cant find any mention of it. Can someone confirm this?
Rafein Eye of God Axiom Empire	Posted - 2006.11.23 10:20:00 - [128] Originally by: Shin Ra I'm afraid now that hitpoints have increased, but dmg has increased by more than 25% with the addition of rigs. Once again, having cake and eating it. Not sure how so, considering rigs stack with damage mods. So, having 3 BCU on a Raven, you adding a rig that either increases damage or ROF is pointless, for the most part. Think of damage rigs as hlf a damage mod. fitting one ROG rig and one damage rig has the EXACT same effect as fitting one BCU, stacking penalty and all.
Bluetit	Posted - 2006.11.23 10:31:00 - [129] Originally by: Lucian Corvinus Originally by: Tuxford Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank. Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because (ship_shield1.125 + shield_ext1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t I can understand this, but you've made a static 25% across the board, what about the battlecruisers which recieved a 56% increase, the shield recharge per second will get stronger, and what about the phoenix?? just wondering, not complaining that was sort of my point. I really don't mind if they are better or worse than T1 only that this has changed them and wanted to know if it had been thought about :) . I understand that the extenders will give 25% bonus and this could over power T2 if they only had the reduced shield charge rate. Also the ferrox now will have an even better passive tank than it did before like the guy above said. Thanks for all the work and i bow to the superior maths equasions :)

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.11.23 10:35:00 - [130] Originally by: Bluetit Originally by: Lucian Corvinus Originally by: Tuxford Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank. Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because (ship_shield1.125 + shield_ext1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t I can understand this, but you've made a static 25% across the board, what about the battlecruisers which recieved a 56% increase, the shield recharge per second will get stronger, and what about the phoenix?? just wondering, not complaining that was sort of my point. I really don't mind if they are better or worse than T1 only that this has changed them and wanted to know if it had been thought about :) . I understand that the extenders will give 25% bonus and this could over power T2 if they only had the reduced shield charge rate. Also the ferrox now will have an even better passive tank than it did before like the guy above said. Thanks for all the work and i bow to the superior maths equasions :) To be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it. _______________


Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.11.23 10:47:00 - [131] Originally by: Tuxford blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it. Bring a translator... --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Lucian Corvinus Gallente Expert Systems	Posted - 2006.11.23 10:50:00 - [132] Originally by: Tuxford To be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it. Rgr, thx for the reply, and looking forward to seeing what you come up with
Pottsey Gallente Acme Shipping Inc	Posted - 2006.11.23 10:56:00 - [133] Edited by: Pottsey on 23/11/2006 10:57:43 ôTo be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it.ö I donÆt know if I should be jumping around and shouting in joy or hiding in fear at what might come. What ever you do I am sure it will be for the best just please donÆt make Gallente rubbish at it. In my mind Caldari should be hitpoint passive or active boost based Gallente should be shield recharge based or active amour. But who knows what is planed. EDIT: Please add T2 shield relays and flux or at least make the named modules better then T1. Passive shield tanking guide click here

Tuxford	Posted - 2006.11.23 11:02:00 - [134] Originally by: Pottsey Edited by: Pottsey on 23/11/2006 10:57:43 ôTo be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it.ö I donÆt know if I should be jumping around and shouting in joy or hiding in fear at what might come. What ever you do I am sure it will be for the best just please donÆt make Gallente rubbish at it. In my mind Caldari should be hitpoint passive or active boost based Gallente should be shield recharge based or active amour. But who knows what is planed. EDIT: Please add T2 shield relays and flux or at least make the named modules better then T1. Hiding in fear obviosly Seriously there are number of things that are different between passive and active tanking, preferably I'd like them both to be viable and neither overpowered. _______________

Kaylana Syi Minmatar The Nest Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2006.11.23 11:05:00 - [135] What are your thoughts on artillery Tux could you please show us what's on your mind? Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Nifel Caldari Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.11.23 11:12:00 - [136] Your thoughts on the Maelstrom then? You didn't mention it the blog and as far as I can see not in any comment. "When I die I want to die peacefully in my sleep like my grandpa. Not yelling and screaming like the passengers in his car." RKK Ranking: (MIN14) Sama
Pastora Russian SOBR Red Alliance	Posted - 2006.11.23 11:32:00 - [137] Just want to make sure, that nobody forgets about t2 frequency crystals for energy turrets. Is their volatility going to change (by 50%), or just their volume? Or will there be no changes at all to frequency crystals? _______________________________________________ If ifs and ands were pots and pans, I would grow mushrooms in my pants.
volly	Posted - 2006.11.23 11:36:00 - [138] Are there any changes of omni tanks planned?
Udyr Vulpayne Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2006.11.23 11:37:00 - [139] Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 23/11/2006 11:36:53 let me rephrase my concern to make it easier to understand: Why do you boost cap equally for all ships without considering how much cap each ship will need?
Tiuwaz Minmatar Omacron Militia	Posted - 2006.11.23 11:58:00 - [140] Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 23/11/2006 11:36:53 let me rephrase my concern to make it easier to understand: Why do you boost cap equally for all ships without considering how much cap each ship will need? initial cap was given to ship on the basis of what they need/should have for balance purposes the cap increase given in Kali is %, so those who had more cap to begin with will also get more cap nominal wise, but in the end nothing changes so whats the issue? if you have problems with the cap of some ships to begin with then thats a different balance issue but utterly non-relevant to this change Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.

Leandro Salazar Aeon Industries Confederation of Independent Corporations	Posted - 2006.11.23 12:19:00 - [141] How about giving the Hurricane back its 7th turret, but having the bonuses only apply to Artillery, not to ACs? No more overpowered AC setups and we get back our 7 turret arty ride! --------- ZOMG my sig was concordokkened! Link removed due to bad language on remote site. -wystler
Udyr Vulpayne Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2006.11.23 12:23:00 - [142] Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 23/11/2006 12:23:55 Originally by: Tiuwaz initial cap was given to ship on the basis of what they need/should have for balance purposes not sure if that ever was the case but it msot certainly is not so now. Originally by: Tiuwaz so whats the issue? if you have problems with the cap of some ships to begin with then thats a different balance issue but utterly non-relevant to this change the problem is that these changes serve to exacerbate the already existing cap problems of laser/hybrid ships. - if fights last longer the risk to run out of cap becomes greater - this is much more of a concern for laser/hybrid users - the more you increase the duration of fights the more ships that require cap to fire will be at a disadvantage - with kali fight duration gets increased - ships that use projectiles/missiles need more ammo to fire longer -> reduce ammo size - ships that use lasers/hybrids need more cap to fire longer -> reduce capneed of guns or increase cap for those ships also see here: earlier reply
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2006.11.23 12:30:00 - [143] Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 23/11/2006 12:35:07 Just thought Id pop in and post my self-centred thoughts on the Gallente ships I (cos I don't know jack about the others). Mymidon: The Gallente Forum Patrol whined for a larger drone bay and we got it..... not the greatest of ideas. With medium drones the ship still does below par DPS, sure with heavies it's a beast (read: potentially overpowered) but who is going to take the risk, 5 volleys and you may as well self-destruct. Should have tweaked the drone damage bonus (for scout drones only) imo. Hyperion: It looks like the mutts nutts but as has been said lacks purpose. C'mon Tux, give me an excuse to fly this baby (perhaps altering the mega to make it more focussed on rails would clarify both ships roles). Other than that I'm pretty happy with the HP increases, I have faith you'll find the right balance in time, and pleased to hear about the tweaks to cap booster volume. I do have some concerns over drones (HP increase or, preferably, sig radius decrease is needed and of course the issues with the AI) and ammo volumes, we'll see what the future holds. oh and NERF AMARR!
Gunship Amarr FATAL REVELATIONS Lotka Volterra	Posted - 2006.11.23 12:39:00 - [144] longer battles = good. It takes pilots ages to get the ships and also time to find a battle, so with it all over in a few seconds, the time boost is well needed. Example: I was in a battle taking down a carrier and had time to play with different damage types till I could inform the fleet what was the best to use. I also like that the T1 ships gets more of a bonus than the T2. So you want to join us?
Alex Tremayne Lyrus Associates Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2006.11.23 12:48:00 - [145] Originally by: Tuxford I didn't mention the Hyperion because I think its fine. So does any other blaster pilot within CCP, well any other blaster pilot I know of. There's nothing wrong with it at all, it's a perfectly servicable blaster ship, the problem is that the Megathron is a perfectly servicable blaster ship too and it might be nice for the two ships to have different roles so there's a reason to fly one over the other apart from how they look or how much ISK you have in your wallet at the time. Lyrus Associates' Diplomat Of Last Resort
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2006.11.23 13:15:00 - [146] sry to be poking this soon again. just wondering if, in the end, there'll be cap booster 1000 with 30m¦. (instead of the 800 with 40m¦ as of now) 'cause then i'd really slap large shield transfers on a scimitar (minnie logistics) and screw cap batteries
Krayl Quantum Industries Prime Orbital Systems	Posted - 2006.11.23 13:32:00 - [147] Pity the a change to Khanid didn't make it into Revalations but ah, well, I can wait. I guess 5% damage to heavy missiles with no damage type restriction isn't an option. Just a slightly worse version of 5% rof anyway. I'm sure it was originally stated that the new BCs should be damage ships, but it seems they've lost their way. Perhaps it clashed badly with the prolonging combat ideal... The best idea I can think of right now is give all the Tier 2 some sort of agility bonus as their second instead of a tanking one. Since we all know BCs are bricks, and bricks don't attack too well. Problem is this would probably make them tank better anyway >_> Offtopic, but the conversation has drifted this way, I had assumed T2 shield relays and the like would be available through invention. I had heard they were in game (from an event). Or perhaps it's going to be possible to blunder about and try and invent things you can't get.
Borothis Quishir V I R I I Center for Disease Creation	Posted - 2006.11.23 13:42:00 - [148] Change the mealstroms shield boost amount to a 5% per lvl hardness I mean 7% shield boost ammount kinda sucks your better off sticking proj on the abaddon and tanking it out.
Gentzen Amarr	Posted - 2006.11.23 14:03:00 - [149] hello. nice blog. my concern is about the assumtion a * t = f(aC,aT,dc) is this reasonable assumption ? cap regeneration formula is not linear, so i cannot judge this assumption is reasonable or not. the assumtion is right if regeneration <<< drain. # it probably requires to solve differental equation, like dc/dt=regeneration(c)-drain can anyone explain ? -- Gentzen http://eve.wmemo.net/index.php?Gentzen
Tiuwaz Minmatar Omacron Militia	Posted - 2006.11.23 16:37:00 - [150] Edited by: Tiuwaz on 23/11/2006 16:38:34 what about the maelstrom? have yet to see someone who's happy about that one /me gets a large stick and starts poking Tuxford >>poke<< >>poke<< Originally by: Oveur This is not the conspiracy you are looking for.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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