EVE Search - Bloggers #52, Tuxford's Take on Need for Speed

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Bloggers #52, Tuxford's Take on Need for Speed

» 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 9 10 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
RossP Zoyka	Posted - 2007.02.16 19:31:00 - [181] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 16/02/2007 17:33:55 Originally by: RossP Zoyka Yes, i know. I am giving arguements against that "nessesary decrease" because i dont think it holds water. A damage, range, and tracking bonus is suppousedly built into lasers which are meant to be completely unique to the Amarr. If they make the change you are suggesting then any race could use lasers which ruins that "unique advanced technology" philosophy. I am not saying don't do it! But I am saying that removing cap need for lasers and replacing with another bonus is not as simple as it sounds. Main problem being that future changes to lasers after that point would always have to take EVERY OTHER race into consideration. What would be easier would be for you to identify what weapon bonus you want associated with Amarr ship skills the most. Then build that bonus into the current cap-sucking lasers. This would make Amarr ships more effective without giving other races a chance to indirectly benefit from their "unique technology". No, it is as simple as it sounds because with pulse lasers there is no supposed damage or tracking boost, only a range boost[which is a damage boost, but only if the range advantage is sufficient enough that the divide cannot be crossed easily by opposing ships]. And with beams they are running the lowest range of all the long range weapons. At the point where range is more important than damage. Giving lasers a universal bonus does not work because different ships for different roles need to do different things. Ships that need more DPS dont get it, or, if they do, ships that dont need more dps get too much. That is why you have to build the bonus into each ship and not the weapon. I agree. That being said, actually implementing a change like that would require a huge amount of work and storyboarding possible exploits with lasers and every other race's ships while improving lasers would only require investigation with one race's ships. Either scenario works with me. (though to be honest, I would prefer if they took your route!)
Phelan Lore Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.02.16 20:29:00 - [182] Tuxford do you have any response to my comments that nerfing speed simply encourages blobbing and camping and reduces the feasibility of tactical small gangs? In 0.0 speed is life. You either go fast or you blob or you die. Those are the only options. Removing speed leaves dying and blobbing. -
Steppa Gallente Sturmgrenadier Inc R i s e	Posted - 2007.02.16 20:34:00 - [183] Originally by: Hektor Ramirez Any word on stealthbombers yet? You gotta love Eddie Izzard. He's not doing much of the trans thing anymore, I noticed.
Szent AdamKiraly	Posted - 2007.02.16 21:49:00 - [184] Nerfing Nanoboats is a move away from tactical PvP, a move toward stationary combat, and directly promotes blob warfare. Furthermore, it makes low sec less survivable for younger players. The nanoboat tank is paper thin and relies on a maintinance of velocity for it to be effective. To maintain proper velocity and effectivly engage targets requires skill and tactics, (correct orbit range, awareness of large colidables, enemy speed and vector) much more so than sitting at a gate and hitting F1-F8 (not to mention a lot more fun). Following the ECM and Stab nerf I have noticed many younger characters speed tanking, as it is one of the few viable options to get past and even engage a blob gate camp. I see the Nanoboat nerf discouraging younger players from low-sec and 0.0 exploration. If you want the giant alliances and long standing players to be the only ones having fun with PvP, then I say nerf it.
Buccaneer Bill Caldari Skill Level Six	Posted - 2007.02.16 22:20:00 - [185] I strongly agree with Szent. Why nerf something that encourages younger players to participate in eve PvP ? I thought we whole point is to get more people to enjoy the game quicker, rather than to grind up the SP before you can be effective against the "Blob" Working out a tactic to counter is them is the way to go - Nerf is the easy way out for those that have a lot of SP. "Have you hugged a Pirate today"
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.02.16 22:35:00 - [186] I have to disagree with people who insist that nerfing nanoships would encourage "blobbing". If anything, things like nanoships are one of the things that cause "blobbing". If you've got two or three nanophoons and/or vagabonds going 12km/s farting around your space, there is no way that you're going to catch them with anything less than a blob, you will simply not be able to tackle them and maintain it because you will either a) not be able to keep up with them, b) you'll get nossed so you can't keep your own scrambler, MWD, or webs going, c) in the case of the vagabond, you'll get pretty much one-shotted if you're in an interceptor, d) a few nano ships will have enough DPS and NOS to blow up major damage-dealing ships. So basically, yeah, you're going to need a whole bunch of buddies to take care of it. That said, the problem with speed isn't the microwarpdrive, because that already is sustainable only on battleships with the help of Heavy Nosferatus and injectors, so leave that alone. The problem is that there are too many things that push ship speeds to the extreme, those being rigs, inertia stabilizers, Skirmish Warfare bonuses, and possibly the worst and oldest offender, Snake Implants. 8km/s vagabonds were already a huge pain to deal with before revelations, especially if they had stabs, but even without stabs they are pretty heinous, though less gutsy. I hope that, after this fix, you can still go 3 or 4km/s in a nanoed out battleship, because that is genuinely fun and can be dealt with. 6km/s is difficult, 8km/s is really getting silly, but 10km/s and above is right out stupid. I feel that this is the most important distinction to make about speed with regard to imbalance. Sig removed, lacks game related content. Please contact [email protected] for more info (including a copy of your picture!) -wystler TRIP DRIVE ACTIVE
BlackHorizon Caldari Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.02.16 22:53:00 - [187] Originally by: Humpalot I hate to be the carebear PvE gal here but on looking at the proposed changes for Amarr I am still not seeing a complete fix. Or rather, the fix proposed seems to mostly apply to PvP (EANM's, giving Amarr a cap warfare role, etc.). However, that still does not help them in the PvE side of the universe. Being stuck with just EM and thermal damage still gimps them. There are numerous stories around of people in Amarr ships being wholly unable to drop some Angel Cartel ships for insance whereas every other race has a ship that could do so. Further, cap warfare versus NPCs is of no use so that role while nice in PvP is a non-starter in PvE. I realize many of you couldn't give a crap about the PvE world but it is part of the game and seems it needs consideration. This is a good point. Perhaps the Apocalpyse role change will address it. The question is, what sort of role change is it? If it's a cap warfare change (eg bonuses to nos/neut drain amount), then it won't help PvE. However, if it's towards the much-wanted Big Arbitrator, then it will help enormously. I would hope its the latter. I've suggested this before (ie. turning the apoc into a Big Arbitrator). It would add great PvE ability in addition to unique PvP capabilities (not to mention the first T1 Amarr ship with more than 4 mid slots). Grid/CPU/stats similar to a Dominix (slightly lower grid than a domi, but more CPU) 6/6/6 slots (4 launchers hardpoints, 2 turrets) 10% drone HP/damage, 20% Tracking Disruptor Optimal per level 225 m3 drone bay Tux, what sort of role change are we talking about?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.16 23:09:00 - [188] One would assume that they would leave, at least, the most expensive of the faction ships alone. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys	Posted - 2007.02.16 23:09:00 - [189] One would assume that they would leave, at least, the most expensive of the faction ships alone. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew"
Steph Wing Gallente Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.02.16 23:29:00 - [190] Quote: . Looking at microwarpdrive stats it shouldn't come as a big surprise that these modules aren't supposed to be sustainable, Then why does the Thorax get a reduction in cap loss from MWDs? --- "I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.16 23:49:00 - [191] So it has enough cap to tank & shoot after it uses the MWD to get into blaster distance?
Kayscha	Posted - 2007.02.17 00:30:00 - [192] Many suggestions have been made on how to do it, yet I still fail to see exactly WHY my close combat inty cycling targets at high speeds and small orbits needs to be nerfed. Sure, I'm a nuisance to the big guns, but I don't pack that much damage and smartbombing me is a valid counter, not to mention the regular splash damage missile hits I still get even though I should be able to outrun them. I thought variety was all-important to every aspect of eve - why shouldn't there be a reasonable trade-off between weak but fast and slow but powerful? I don't want to be forced to field a bs from some point forward to accomplish anything at all, combat-wise (mission-running, that is)? Or am I just going to be the sad sacrifice to the greater good of improving some miniscule PvP balance detail?
Nebulae Mem	Posted - 2007.02.17 01:42:00 - [193] My suggestion: 1. Drop Nanofibers from the game. Or find a different role.. 2. Give Overdrives a slight mass/agility penalty (Torque steer ) 3. Lower the mass/inertia bonus on Istabs from -15% to -10% (I'm using T2 Istab for an example) 4. Give Istabs a stacking penalty so that fitting more than 3 is pointless If you want speed, Use overdrives and suffer a bit of penalty If you want agility, use the Istab, or two. If you want both, use both, but at less effectiveness. And don't frack with MWD.
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.02.17 02:25:00 - [194] Edited by: Nyxus on 17/02/2007 02:23:44 A couple of suggestions. On downsizing lasers Consider this: Projectiles get the same range with slightly less damage when downsizing. Blasters get more range with slightly less damage when downsizing. Make downsized lasers do more damage with lesser range. It would fit the precedents already established for range and damage while making downsized lasers more useful than they are now. Currently thier less damage, less range makes them an all crappy choice atm. Apoc suggestion Amarr are capacitor specialists. Use the already balanced Bhaalgorn amarrian bonus for the apoc. Change dronebay to 200m3 -10% laser cap use per level +10% Nos amount per level Less dronage than a Domi, sacrifices damage to do cap warfare, can still use lasers. Cap bonus has been on the Bhaalgorn for a LONG time and has already been balanced (if you have ever fought one, it's a good ship with bonuses but not uber). It would be Amarrian, interesting, and a good addition/niche for our fleet. Thanks for listening Tux. We appreciate it. Nyxus The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.
Kiwimagic Caldari Star Ocean Corporation	Posted - 2007.02.17 02:28:00 - [195] Nice blog, I think the idea of dropping EM resist's on armour is an awesome idea, its not nice know every single ship in eve has a min 60% resist to your primary damage type. Nano nerf - long time comming IMO bs's just aren't ment to go that fast, was far to much of a advantage for gankers. MWD's I don't see an issue with them other than what you've posted that they aren't designed for that. rather than going to change alot of mods, would it be easier to just give everyship a max speed, weather u fit a pile of nano's your ship never went faster than X spd. but if you didn't fit spd mods you just went at the speed you have fit to go. You could not allow weapon systems to function while MWD is active.
Oedus Caro Caldari Caldari Deep Space Ventures	Posted - 2007.02.17 03:41:00 - [196] Tux, in a totally non-fruity way, I love you man... For me, this is some of the nicest EVE news ever. P.S. While you're tinkering with MWD's, either make them work in dead-space or take them away from those pesky NPC's, eh?
Leon 026 Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.02.17 05:30:00 - [197] An inty that isnt moving at those speeds, is a dead inty. And imo, MWD isnt the problem, its ships putting on more than 3 nanofibers/i-stabs that are the problem. Wont matter whether the MWD uses charges or not, they'll still be flying at stupid speeds. Whereas, interceptors NEED to sustain the MWD if they actually want to live. ------- Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.02.17 09:06:00 - [198] I have to LOL @ the supposed tactics and strategy part for EVE combat. There are no benefits to outmanouvring ships on the tactical scale of things ( other than range that is ). If we had weaker rear armor/shields( in effect a damage multiplier based on bearing of target ship), then maybe. Cruisers are supposed to be able out manouvre BS on both the tactical and strategic scale of things. While they may be able to go a good 2x as fast on the tactical sense it doesnt matter much given large gun ranges and the drawbacks of engaging MWD @ range. Strategical movement is also right out given that they both move @ the same warp speed ( the only difference being the faster align speed ). BC have it worse given that they have similar tactical speeds as BS and the same align and warp speed ( ok they align marginally faster ). Destroyers are in the same situation vs Cruisers as Cruisers and BC are vs BS. Not enough tactical and strategic speed differences.
Lygos Amarr	Posted - 2007.02.17 09:15:00 - [199] Best way to "fix" Amarr: -Make shield tanking in pvp both practical and viable with tactical lowslots, or powerful lowslot anti-ew. -More need and opportunity for mid-range combat. -Take another look at the Neutralizer. Consider making it a "capless" weapon that reduces max capacitor for both target and user. It's a "big PG, big cap" weapon, and it could become a good counter for the Nos. -Cap booster bonuses. 3rd bonuses for all ships? 2nd bonuses were awesome, and popular. Individual ships: -Coercer: Sensor booster AND Tracking computer. -Omen: Speed or dps or drones. 1/3 plenty. -Geddon: Needs more cap. -Arbi: Just about perfect. I'm pretty sure there are no other T1 Amarr ships. --- T2 Risk \| Corp Divisions
Fon Revedhort Aeria Gloris Inc United Legion	Posted - 2007.02.17 09:43:00 - [200] Originally by: Max Hardcase I have to LOL @ the supposed tactics and strategy part for EVE combat. There are no benefits to outmanouvring ships on the tactical scale of things ( other than range that is ). If we had weaker rear armor/shields( in effect a damage multiplier based on bearing of target ship), then maybe. Cruisers are supposed to be able out manouvre BS on both the tactical and strategic scale of things. While they may be able to go a good 2x as fast on the tactical sense it doesnt matter much given large gun ranges and the drawbacks of engaging MWD @ range. Strategical movement is also right out given that they both move @ the same warp speed ( the only difference being the faster align speed ). BC have it worse given that they have similar tactical speeds as BS and the same align and warp speed ( ok they align marginally faster ). Destroyers are in the same situation vs Cruisers as Cruisers and BC are vs BS. Not enough tactical and strategic speed differences. QFT

Ulitio	Posted - 2007.02.17 10:15:00 - [201] I dunno about anyone else, but when I read the blog, I was kinda offended. I know CCP has ideas on what EVE is and I fully respect that. But I would think that CCP would be better off by actually going for what their customers want rather than what they want. I know you guys can do it, you did warp to zero and made a good part of what I *****ed about in eve just go away(and I thank you for that) I know EVE won't likely be twitch, but imagine if that did happen. I think Id have to take a leave of absence or something like that. I can just imagine the fun of a game like EVE where I the player actually DOES count for something. One thing CCP should consider... The Nanodomi and Nanophoon are symptoms of a problem(People like to go fast.) You can solve the symptoms, but I believe that if you do all you will buy is time. People in this game(like other MMOGs) do the damndest things, and they will likely find something just as fast. So what I would do is rather than nerf the Nano, make the damn thing obsolete. Give us something fast er and fun.
Martin Mckenna D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.02.17 10:32:00 - [202] Originally by: Razin Could we get more detail on NOS "overhaul"? /signed at the moment these are the key factors that write the outcome of a 1 v 1 fight (apart from intys maybe)
Kleintje Caldari Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.02.17 11:18:00 - [203] Originally by: welsh wizard The MWD capacitor use increase sounds pretty harsh as far as inties and interdictors are concerned. Perhaps those ships should get a bonus to mwd cap consumption? I agree. For instance ... Recon : Crusier Skill Bonus, Recon Skill Bonus, Role Bonus (ozone use) Command : Cruiser Skill Bonus, Command Skill Bonus, Role Bonus (reduction in Link module CPU need) Interceptor : Frigate Skill Bonus, Interceptor Skill Bonus, Role Bonus (reduction in MWD cap nerf) Also in relation to the OMNI tank sitution. Maybe if you gave us the choice to set our own resistances to the ships like you have the choice of attributes on the character start screen. A - / + button next to the specific resistance on the ship fitting screen would allow us to adjust our base resistances to that which we choose. I can see how this would unbalance some ships though so might not be a good idea "BoB is like Tom on MySpace, soon as you start an alliance BoB has the first default character"
Grytok	Posted - 2007.02.17 13:26:00 - [204] If you want to stop a BS hitting those ridiculous speeds without nerfing the other Shiptypes (Interceptors f.e.), then change the boni of the Modules as follows Inetria Stabilizer: 15% Inertia, -10% Structure HP Nanofibre: 10% Speedbonus, with stacking-penalty like Hardeners Overdrives: 15% Speedbonus and -10% Agility Problem solved! .
Mastin Dragonfly Amarr	Posted - 2007.02.17 16:01:00 - [205] Would be nice if you had split the blog into two parts, one for speed and one for amarr. Split discussion threads ftl.
babylonstew Caldari Caldari Scouting and Intel Group	Posted - 2007.02.17 16:36:00 - [206] if one of the major problems is speed rigs, you have a couple of options with them tbh you could either up the calibration cost to (for example) 225 for tech 1 and 250 for tech 2. (means you cannot fit 2 or more to any ship) or, change the drawbacks tech 1 -10% powergrid for example, this forces people to drop an i/stab/ nano for a rcu for example that way, it wont nerf travel set ups, but forces people to either fit a grid rig, loose a low slot or 2, or loose some highs? thoughts? Originally by: Devilish Ledoux Don't think of it as being kicked out of the Federation; think of it as beating the rush
Siri Blue Gallente Duvolle Laboratories Blue Division	Posted - 2007.02.17 17:50:00 - [207] You don't have to fiddle with rigs nor any of the modules except for the MWD. Reduce the AB speed boost for Battleship size to 50% and the Speedboost for MWD Battleship size to 125% (and cruisers 250%)...and thats it. Now listen to me or I will throw random pink fluffy pillows at you!
Udyr Vulpayne Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2007.02.17 18:35:00 - [208] Originally by: Tuxford We could always just drop the damage by 20% and the cap need by 50% and then replace cap need bonuses with damage bonuses. But you can see that wouldn't really be change at all... It's not a change in itself but it would allow a much needed change to the amarrian tank line of ships while leaving our damage dealers alone. the cap use reduction bonus is not a problem on the geddon, omen or harbinger. these ships already have a valid use for lasers. ships like the punisher, maller, prophecy, apocalypse could finally have a usefull bonus for lasers. as they are meant to be tankers it doenst even have to be a damage bonus. optimal range seems a very nice idea for example (works for the alpha race). or a 2nd tanking bonus...maybe even something related to cap warfare if you want to give that a try. as it stands now these ships have 1 wasted bonus if you want to use them as really good tanks.
Max Hardcase Art of War Cult of War	Posted - 2007.02.17 19:24:00 - [209] Originally by: Fon Revedhort Originally by: Max Hardcase I have to LOL @ the supposed tactics and strategy part for EVE combat. There are no benefits to outmanouvring ships on the tactical scale of things ( other than range that is ). If we had weaker rear armor/shields( in effect a damage multiplier based on bearing of target ship), then maybe. Cruisers are supposed to be able out manouvre BS on both the tactical and strategic scale of things. While they may be able to go a good 2x as fast on the tactical sense it doesnt matter much given large gun ranges and the drawbacks of engaging MWD @ range. Strategical movement is also right out given that they both move @ the same warp speed ( the only difference being the faster align speed ). BC have it worse given that they have similar tactical speeds as BS and the same align and warp speed ( ok they align marginally faster ). Destroyers are in the same situation vs Cruisers as Cruisers and BC are vs BS. Not enough tactical and strategic speed differences. QFT If you think about it there is only 1 thing that matters tactically for engaging enemy fleets : Get a cloaking ship close to the enemy fleet. Solves all your problems since close range can engage at their prefered distance + ditto long range. After that its just calling targets and sticking to them. So 2 thumbs up for tactical game play. Right ?
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.02.17 19:33:00 - [210] Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne Originally by: Tuxford We could always just drop the damage by 20% and the cap need by 50% and then replace cap need bonuses with damage bonuses. But you can see that wouldn't really be change at all... It's not a change in itself but it would allow a much needed change to the amarrian tank line of ships while leaving our damage dealers alone. the cap use reduction bonus is not a problem on the geddon, omen or harbinger. these ships already have a valid use for lasers. ships like the punisher, maller, prophecy, apocalypse could finally have a usefull bonus for lasers. as they are meant to be tankers it doenst even have to be a damage bonus. optimal range seems a very nice idea for example (works for the alpha race). or a 2nd tanking bonus...maybe even something related to cap warfare if you want to give that a try. as it stands now these ships have 1 wasted bonus if you want to use them as really good tanks. This is a fantastic point. The tanking line of ships has never been about overall damage. Losing some damage doesn't effect them much (if any). Gaining another tank bonus would differentiate them significantly. Imagine a maller with resist bonuses and armor repair amount bonuses. THAT would be something worth flying. Nyxus PS- Please give ships with an extra "utility highslot" enough fittings to put something in there. A nos or smartbomb of appropriate size would be nice. The Gallente ideals of Freedom, Liberty and Equality will be met by the Amarr realities of Lasers, Armor and Battleships.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 :: 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.