EVE Search - Speed reduction thingie

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Speed reduction thingie

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 10 post(s)

Tuxford	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:26:00 - [1] Ok heres the deal, we've talked about reducing speed and stuff like that. Everybody seemed to be in the agreement that some kind of a stacking penalty was the way to go. Here's the problem with that, there are two many things that are being modified. We have the speed obviously, we have the mass which indirectly increases speed of mwd and and we have the propellant injection vent which increases the boost of the mwd. Up until rigs there were only two ways modules affected speed. So when the propellant injection vent came along it gave an option of 15% boost which wasn't really stacking nerfed and more importantly couldn't be stacking nerfed with the other modules rigs. So knowing we **** up it would be great idea to go back through time and take the rig out but thats hardly possible. So we did the next best thing we could. We morphed it into another rig, mainly the auxiliary thrusters one. Why didn't you tell us I was going to honest. We was debating whether we wanted any sort of market speculation going (anyone remember tractor beams incident?) but we figured there would be no way to exploit that knowledge to your advantage. So I was gonna post to day but because of a little miscommunication between me and the operation guy that actually did it he did it today and not in the downtime before the next patch. Zomg my ship goes a lot slower That was rather the point. What happens now, well after next patch that is overdrives will be stacking nerfed together with mwd and auxiliary thrusters, nanofibers will be stacking nerfed with each other and polycarbon engine housing so velocity doesn't come down to who's got the most low slots. Will I be compensated for the rig?** I'd would like no one to feel screwed over but in reality its just unavoidable and we can't compensate everyone in a way they think they should be. In the end I'd just like to apologize for not announcing it sooner and that we had to go this way to fix the problem. P.S. Because of our little misunderstanding Tech 2 versions are still dropping so we're running that script again before downtime on patch day and after that they won't drop any more. _______________

Antebellum Sunshine Carebear Crew	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:29:00 - [2] Bah for not letting me sell my stock (so someone else could feel ripped off instead)
Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:29:00 - [3] Edited by: Dark Shikari on 16/03/2007 13:26:33 Tux, props to you for not telling anyone. When you do tell, it creates a massive selling frenzy and screws up the market. The tractor beam incident was hilarious though! --23 Member-- EVE-Trance Radio--The EVE Textboard
qvacky AUS Corporation CORE.	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:30:00 - [4] Edited by: qvacky on 16/03/2007 13:30:04 Just a shame you swapped it for a rig that uses 1/3 of the components, and is worth 1/3 as much. At least this explains why i suddenly have two Aux thruster bpos, and can't figure out why i don't have 77 different ones :) Is there any chance of dropping all the aux thruster rigs off the ships now, so we can swap them for something more useful? I really don't want to have to repackage my ships...
Jaggeh Gallente Furious Angels	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:32:00 - [5] will you allow people to remove specific changed rigs so they can re-use the slot example i have 2 armor rigs and 1 speed rig now defunct, will you remove the speed rig via petition so i can use the slot for something else rather than having to repack the ship and lose all 3 rigs...? --------------------------------------- Furious Angels are recruiting Carpe Pugya Pyga - Seize the Buttocks

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:33:00 - [6] Edited by: Chribba on 16/03/2007 13:32:51 Edit: OK actually read through the post now and I understand the why's and so, am a little mad about it since I like going fast but I guess I have to take that speed drop with the good and hope the changes are for the better. Help me help you .

hydraSlav Synergy Evolved Serenity Fallen	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:37:00 - [7] Love you Tux == Above comments are my personal views Oveur >Local shouldn't be a tactical tool, it's for chat
Velsharoon Gallente Endgame.	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:38:00 - [8] Sigh, I just bought 120m of rigs yesterday, almost all my isk. Great. I thouht i had two weeks in which to have some fun. Welcome back to eve \o/

Tuxford	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:38:00 - [9] Originally by: Jaggeh will you allow people to remove specific changed rigs so they can re-use the slot example i have 2 armor rigs and 1 speed rig now defunct, will you remove the speed rig via petition so i can use the slot for something else rather than having to repack the ship and lose all 3 rigs...? If you're not using multiple overdrives on your ship that rig gives you almost as much increase as the propellant injection vent. But to answer your question then no, I'd like to and its really up to the GMs but I think its just too much work. On that thought though, I'd personally like that you could just trash individual rigs. I'm fine with the idea that rigs are permanent but sometimes you make mistake, that projectile rig you were going to fit might just boost the grid use over acceptable levels. _______________


Tuxford	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:40:00 - [10] Originally by: Chribba Edited by: Chribba on 16/03/2007 13:32:51 Edit: OK actually read through the post now and I understand the why's and so, am a little mad about it since I like going fast but I guess I have to take that speed drop with the good and hope the changes are for the better. Look you can still go fast, trust me on that, I don't think we've seen the last of nano ships. Now however a cruiser or a frigate can sacrifice as much as a nano battleship and be faster. _______________


Antebellum Sunshine Carebear Crew	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:41:00 - [11] Originally by: Tuxford I'd personally like that you could just trash individual rigs. I'm fine with the idea that rigs are permanent but sometimes you make mistake, that projectile rig you were going to fit might just boost the grid use over acceptable levels. That would be very nice, just like other implants.

Tuxford	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:41:00 - [12] Originally by: Velsharoon Sigh, I just bought 120m of rigs yesterday, almost all my isk. Great. I thouht i had two weeks in which to have some fun. Welcome back to eve \o/ you can still do that but you won't be invincible, you'll be damn hard to kill though. _______________

Alita Tiphares	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:43:00 - [13] Originally by: Velsharoon Sigh, I just bought 120m of rigs yesterday, almost all my isk. Great. I thouht i had two weeks in which to have some fun. Welcome back to eve \o/ You wont find any sympathy for nano*****s here.
Dominique Vasilkovsky Techmart Industries	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:45:00 - [14] Ah well, at least it is one BPO less to research for my Perfect ME Rig BPO sets. Tux, now with this BPO removed are you going to seed the two missing drone rig BPOs instead?

Tuxford	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:48:00 - [15] Originally by: Dominique Vasilkovsky Ah well, at least it is one BPO less to research for my Perfect ME Rig BPO sets. Tux, now with this BPO removed are you going to seed the two missing drone rig BPOs instead? We chickened out on the drone damage rig, I know cowardly and all but we've made the rig and try to get in balancing after next patch. _______________

Fraile Cloudsinger Gallente Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:49:00 - [16] Just wondering Tux, do you want nano battleships(phoon and domi) to be viable setups post patch? If so, what kind of speeds and agility do you think is acceptable. Should 100 million ISK invested in a nano dominix be enough to tank a T1 raven? At the moment, a 200 million ISK dominix setup is able to orbit at 2.2 km/s with an orbit range of 21km on SiSi. Its not possible to tank a T1 fitted cruise raven at all with this setup. Is this how you want nano battleships to be?
juduzz Amarr Memento.Mori	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:51:00 - [17] Edited by: juduzz on 16/03/2007 13:48:38 REALY annoying about the stealthness about it but definately needed, a step in the right direction even if alot of us have lost out on 100-200mill :/
DarkMatter Amarr Mineral Aquisition Group	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:52:00 - [18] I bet you ****ed off a hell of a lot of ppl today, gratz! It's too bad you guys can't test stuff more thoroughly before you release it, then yank it back screwing over your customers... Building the homestead
Velsharoon Gallente Endgame.	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:52:00 - [19] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Velsharoon Sigh, I just bought 120m of rigs yesterday, almost all my isk. Great. I thouht i had two weeks in which to have some fun. Welcome back to eve \o/ you can still do that but you won't be invincible, you'll be damn hard to kill though. Aye im flying it right now like. Dont mind that much as i know the nerf had to come and will prob enjoy it more flying normal setups :) Dont want sympathy or anything..just my 100m emo tear
Moneta II	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:55:00 - [20] Originally by: Fraile Cloudsinger Just wondering Tux, do you want nano battleships(phoon and domi) to be viable setups post patch? If so, what kind of speeds and agility do you think is acceptable. Should 100 million ISK invested in a nano dominix be enough to tank a T1 raven? At the moment, a 200 million ISK dominix setup is able to orbit at 2.2 km/s with an orbit range of 21km on SiSi. Its not possible to tank a T1 fitted cruise raven at all with this setup. Is this how you want nano battleships to be? So you want Battle Ships to be able to speedtank? Think about it a bit. BattleShip = Big bulky ship with lots of firepower. Those kinda ships shouldnt zip around at insane speeds. Thats what frigs and to a lesser extent cruisers are made for.

Dark Shikari Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:56:00 - [21] Originally by: Fraile Cloudsinger Just wondering Tux, do you want nano battleships(phoon and domi) to be viable setups post patch? If so, what kind of speeds and agility do you think is acceptable. Should 100 million ISK invested in a nano dominix be enough to tank a T1 raven? At the moment, a 200 million ISK dominix setup is able to orbit at 2.2 km/s with an orbit range of 21km on SiSi. Its not possible to tank a T1 fitted cruise raven at all with this setup. Is this how you want nano battleships to be? Ever thought that massive, mile-long hulking battleships weren't meant to effectively speed tank? --23 Member-- EVE-Trance Radio--The EVE Textboard

Tuxford	Posted - 2007.03.16 13:57:00 - [22] Originally by: Moneta II Originally by: Fraile Cloudsinger Just wondering Tux, do you want nano battleships(phoon and domi) to be viable setups post patch? If so, what kind of speeds and agility do you think is acceptable. Should 100 million ISK invested in a nano dominix be enough to tank a T1 raven? At the moment, a 200 million ISK dominix setup is able to orbit at 2.2 km/s with an orbit range of 21km on SiSi. Its not possible to tank a T1 fitted cruise raven at all with this setup. Is this how you want nano battleships to be? So you want Battle Ships to be able to speedtank? Think about it a bit. BattleShip = Big bulky ship with lots of firepower. Those kinda ships shouldnt zip around at insane speeds. Thats what frigs and to a lesser extent cruisers are made for. This brings up a whole other discussions about missiles vs. turrets. Missiles aren't that affected by velocity of target unless its going at some insane speed, but you can easy "speedtank" turrets with an afterburner and a few nanos. _______________

Venkhar Krard	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:00:00 - [23] Yeah Im with you. 100mil is to cheap for a 2,2km/s flying bs. On the other side..you could just fit it like a bs and kill the raven without problems..

Chribba Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:02:00 - [24] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Chribba Edited by: Chribba on 16/03/2007 13:32:51 Edit: OK actually read through the post now and I understand the why's and so, am a little mad about it since I like going fast but I guess I have to take that speed drop with the good and hope the changes are for the better. Look you can still go fast, trust me on that, I don't think we've seen the last of nano ships. Now however a cruiser or a frigate can sacrifice as much as a nano battleship and be faster. Meh I dropped from 17.3km/s to 15.4km/s on my speed miner Help me help you .

Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:03:00 - [25] Edited by: Aramendel on 16/03/2007 14:01:02 The problem is more that if you rig your ship for speed you are gonna maximize it. And since overdrives are far FAR more useful to maximize your speed it is pretty pointless to use aux thrusters for speed fittings due to the stacking penality. Essentially, with the new patch thruster rigs are worthless. Housing rigs will be far far more useful if you want to max your speed. It would have been more "fair" just to remove the vents entirely without replacing them, that way people who had not all their rig slots filled with them could at least have saved the other rigs they had installed. Now those will be wasted too since they'll have to repackage they ships since the thruster mods are a waste of a rig space if you use overdrives as well. It might be a good idea to balance the rigs with the modules, because right now this isn't the case. Rigs vs modules (t1 vs t2, but t1 rigs are still a good deal more expensive than t2 modules (at least once their price stabilizes): +speed: 10% vs 20% (rig a LOT worse than the module) -inertia: 15% vs 20 (rig slightly worse than the module) -mass: 15% vs 12.5% (rig slightly better than the module)
Antebellum Sunshine Carebear Crew	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:04:00 - [26] Originally by: Tuxford This brings up a whole other discussions about missiles vs. turrets. Missiles aren't that affected by velocity of target unless its going at some insane speed, but you can easy "speedtank" turrets with an afterburner and a few nanos. Yes, but fact that missiles are nearly useless at long range (in all but PvE) does, in my opinion, warrant some advantage at close range.
Fraile Cloudsinger Gallente Agony Unleashed	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:06:00 - [27] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Moneta II Originally by: Fraile Cloudsinger Just wondering Tux, do you want nano battleships(phoon and domi) to be viable setups post patch? If so, what kind of speeds and agility do you think is acceptable. Should 100 million ISK invested in a nano dominix be enough to tank a T1 raven? At the moment, a 200 million ISK dominix setup is able to orbit at 2.2 km/s with an orbit range of 21km on SiSi. Its not possible to tank a T1 fitted cruise raven at all with this setup. Is this how you want nano battleships to be? So you want Battle Ships to be able to speedtank? Think about it a bit. BattleShip = Big bulky ship with lots of firepower. Those kinda ships shouldnt zip around at insane speeds. Thats what frigs and to a lesser extent cruisers are made for. This brings up a whole other discussions about missiles vs. turrets. Missiles aren't that affected by velocity of target unless its going at some insane speed, but you can easy "speedtank" turrets with an afterburner and a few nanos. True indeed, one might even say that nano tank + damps is a speed tank. However, the question still remains, how do you envision nano battleships after this fix? Will they still be a fresh breath for solo PvPers? Will they be anything like they were pre revelations? Nobody complained back then anyway.
Tulisin Dragonflame	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:08:00 - [28] Originally by: Tuxford Originally by: Dominique Vasilkovsky Ah well, at least it is one BPO less to research for my Perfect ME Rig BPO sets. Tux, now with this BPO removed are you going to seed the two missing drone rig BPOs instead? We chickened out on the drone damage rig, I know cowardly and all but we've made the rig and try to get in balancing after next patch. Do you mean the sentry drone damage rig or are you going to be really cool and make it work on drones people use in PvP too? Either way, thanks a lot for the explanation/apology.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:10:00 - [29] Lol, yesterday I wa s going to buy 3 prop vent. But was tired and decided to let it for teh other day.. I never had luck like that before... :P If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

Tuxford	Posted - 2007.03.16 14:11:00 - [30] Originally by: Fraile Cloudsinger True indeed, one might even say that nano tank + damps is a speed tank. However, the question still remains, how do you envision nano battleships after this fix? Will they still be a fresh breath for solo PvPers? Will they be anything like they were pre revelations? Nobody complained back then anyway. I don't think nano battleship is anything that was ever planned by anyone at CCP it just sort of happend,... twice (or more?). I'd definitly say that they are still viable, of course you would have problems with missile ships but in reality, turret ships aren't going to hit you and they won't get in web range if you're faster. You can't kill everything but if you're careful you can run away from those instances. _______________




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