EVE Search - in this thread we tell CCP to lay off of our modules

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

in this thread we tell CCP to lay off of our modules

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Belligerent Monk	Posted - 2007.10.28 00:22:00 - [1] http://inorpo-b.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/73/73b540e4a87aa187880d553d9278b090e4c1b095.jpg http://waffleimages.nwpshost.com/files/2b/2b5b252a8bf53aee14fbcee6c9d8c38c80536a38.jpg this is a terrible idea. dont implement it. ps. sig amps are in no way a good replacement.
Merin Ryskin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.28 00:34:00 - [2] Absoultely not. Seriously, what the hell, CCP? Sensor damps need some re-balancing, but that doesn't mean you have to show off your new toy by nerfing everything else. Sensor boosters, tracking comps, etc are NOT overpowered. The worst thing here is that not only are you now forced to pick between modes, but you get less of a bonus to that single mode! Even with the most favorable application (add the script bonus, not multiply the module bonus by the script bonus), that still leaves both modules weaker (55% vs 60%, for sensor boosters) than a single attribute of the existing modules.
Kil'Roy Minmatar The Rat Patrol	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:13:00 - [3] Originally by: Belligerent Monk http://inorpo-b.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/73/73b540e4a87aa187880d553d9278b090e4c1b095.jpg http://waffleimages.nwpshost.com/files/2b/2b5b252a8bf53aee14fbcee6c9d8c38c80536a38.jpg this is a terrible idea. dont implement it. ps. sig amps are in no way a good replacement. Get a dose of reality We pay to play "Their" game. I think you would loose in a court of law. All they have to say is that "All your Modules belong to us", and they would be right.
Merin Ryskin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:37:00 - [4] Originally by: Kil'Roy Originally by: Belligerent Monk http://inorpo-b.mirror.waffleimages.com/files/73/73b540e4a87aa187880d553d9278b090e4c1b095.jpg http://waffleimages.nwpshost.com/files/2b/2b5b252a8bf53aee14fbcee6c9d8c38c80536a38.jpg this is a terrible idea. dont implement it. ps. sig amps are in no way a good replacement. Get a dose of reality We pay to play "Their" game. I think you would loose in a court of law. All they have to say is that "All your Modules belong to us", and they would be right. Obviously you can't take legal action over this. You'll notice he didn't mention something that stupid. While it may be CCP's game, it's our money. With all these pointless, poorly thought-out "balance" changes, I'm really starting to reconsider giving CCP more of it. So in the end, CCP can have "their" game, balanced as poorly as they want... and played on an empty server.
Futher Bezluden Minmatar ORIGIN SYSTEMS Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:38:00 - [5] Damps and tracking disruptors need fixing because they are the newest I-win ewar flavors of the season. Why CCP is making script for "Dual-Mode" I just don't know. 1 for range damping, 1 for scan res damping. Same for Tracking Disruptors -optimal and tracking. Then Sensor Booster Scripts for enhancing range and scan res. What the hell. Just set them to low strength so they aren't uberized on every damn ship in EVE, just decent on the ewar ships that are supposed to use them. Is isn't going to solve a damn thing without a serious strength decrease and buff for the ewar ships that are suppose to specialize in their use. THUKKER -Be Paranoid Skeet Skeet L33t
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:42:00 - [6] um.. they take charges now... read up, don't jump to YARR NERF. they can be used without charages for that pitiful amount, but with a charge they are more usefull this means that... a frigate can not use them at full power forever. that's it, that's the only change on sisi. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
Merin Ryskin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:45:00 - [7] Originally by: MotherMoon um.. they take charges now... read up, don't jump to YARR NERF. they can be used without charages for that pitiful amount, but with a charge they are more usefull this means that... a frigate can not use them at full power forever. that's it, that's the only change on sisi. Did you even bother looking at the pictures? With the charges, you only get ONE attribute at a decent strength, the charge has a high penalty to the attribute you aren't boosting. Even with the charges, the boosted attribute is still LOWER than the current TQ modules.
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:55:00 - [8] I think in CCP's atempt to specilize combat, they are killing the game by going over board... your taking the fun out of the game. try to sit back, and think about it.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.10.28 01:57:00 - [9] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: MotherMoon um.. they take charges now... read up, don't jump to YARR NERF. they can be used without charages for that pitiful amount, but with a charge they are more usefull this means that... a frigate can not use them at full power forever. that's it, that's the only change on sisi. Did you even bother looking at the pictures? With the charges, you only get ONE attribute at a decent strength, the charge has a high penalty to the attribute you aren't boosting. Even with the charges, the boosted attribute is still LOWER than the current TQ modules. well I'll edit but the picture I tried didn't load seemed broked. ----------------------------------- I'm working my way through college target CCP need...more room...
Belligerent Monk	Posted - 2007.10.28 02:31:00 - [10] Originally by: Kil'Roy Get a dose of reality We pay to play "Their" game. lurk more, you are terrible at trolling. I think you would loose in a court of law. All they have to say is that "All your Modules belong to us", and they would be right. lurk more, you are a terrible troll.
Beast Rabban Minmatar GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.28 02:51:00 - [11] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Even with the charges, the boosted attribute is still LOWER than the current TQ modules. This is what makes the new changes so ill conceived - the idea that ships that rely on both targeting range and an increase in scan res (i.e. sniping ships) will now have to close the distance to well within the capabilities of their guns, or be unable to counter a smaller ship. There's no solid argument for this nerf, other than it is a buff by default for smaller frigate sized ships. Couple this with the buff inty's are getting and the introduction of EA frigs, the incentive of flying anything larger than a frigate just became significantly riskier. As a CCP said in another thread with great enthusiasm, 2 10M isk EA frigates can now easily lock down a 100M+ isk vagabond and render it useless (webs and TD's).
Icome4u Caldari Dark and Light inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.10.28 03:12:00 - [12] WTB nerf to neuts!
Belligerent Monk	Posted - 2007.10.28 12:40:00 - [13] back onto the front page because i really do not like this.
Angelik'a Gallente	Posted - 2007.10.28 12:47:00 - [14] A lot of these changes I'm seeing are so poorly thought out it's sickening. Sack the balancing team tbfh.
Maximillian Dragonard Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.10.28 12:52:00 - [15] It's starting to look like CCP is implementing a "grand plan" to force more close range fleet fights. This would make mixed fleets more viable than BS blobs certainly, but it's a dramatic shift in current game mechanics which should have been disclosed openly, rather than introducing a series of unexplainable nerfs to assorted mods. Not stating that this is their explicit reason, just starting to look more probable... ____________________ EWAR... love it or hate it.... learn to deal with it!
Leandro Salazar The Blackguard Wolves Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.10.28 15:21:00 - [16] So where are these scripts? I can't seem to find them on Sisi market... There is no 'n' in turret There is no 'r' in faction There is no 'a' in Scorpion There is no 'e' in Caldari There is no makeup in rogue drones
infinityshok	Posted - 2007.10.28 15:30:00 - [17] All this overboard nerfing is contagious. Im getting the urge to nerf my credit card.
Sky Marshal Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.28 16:07:00 - [18] Edited by: Sky Marshal on 28/10/2007 16:09:43 CCP want reduce the use of long-range fleets, but they don't realize that if it is employed, it is also because the game is laggy... At least at +160km, this give time to the antisupport to manage the destruction of some annoying dictors before they arrive, and this give us chances to warpout if it is totally impossible to do anything. So, OK, nerf the Sensor Booster. I will use 4 Sensor instead of 2, it is all. Yes, as long that you don't solve the lag problem, don't expect any changes in OUR gameplay. We will not do close range combat in more than small gangs, ever. This is also a bad news for close-range battle since it will be more long to lock someone, so scramble someone. Dictors will be more requested, but it is difficult to find some volunteers...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.28 16:17:00 - [19] Edited by: Goumindong on 28/10/2007 16:17:51 Its not necessarily a bad change, i want to see how it plays out first, but i suscpect it will give smaller gangs a bit of an advantage over larger gangs for manuverability due to lock times of ships scripted to lock far. It also makes tracking boosts much more important the longer range you are and emphasises tech 1 ammo more, which brings ships back to their original balancing points with regards to range.
Stelteck Minmatar Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.10.28 17:40:00 - [20] Nerfing sensor booster to 30% is a terrible idea. Please CCP do not do it. Having to chose between a range effect and a speed effect, ok it may be a good thing. But keep previous bonus please. Stelteck.
WildSide Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions	Posted - 2007.10.28 17:53:00 - [21] cant understand why ccp try to ruin a elsewhere very very nice game. carrier nerf....then this nerf aswell... even I fly arazu I could take a nerf...but why nerf sensorboosters?? or tracking computers. _______________________________ Vids produced by me
Merin Ryskin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.28 18:29:00 - [22] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 28/10/2007 16:17:51 Its not necessarily a bad change, i want to see how it plays out first, but i suscpect it will give smaller gangs a bit of an advantage over larger gangs for manuverability due to lock times of ships scripted to lock far. How the hell does gang size have anything to do with lock time/range? If anything, the large gang gets STRONGER under this change, since it can run more interdictors/interceptors as dedicated tacklers. Or just forget about long lock range, fit close-range guns, and still massacre the smaller gang. Focused fire and the N^2 law aren't just for snipers. Quote: It also makes tracking boosts much more important the longer range you are and emphasises tech 1 ammo more, which brings ships back to their original balancing points with regards to range. I realize you have this bizarre obsession with T1 ammo, but this is a really stupid idea. And I'm saying this as a Caldari pilot. My ships are going to be the least-nerfed of the snipers, and I still think it's a bad idea. With few exceptions (the split slot layouts on the Eagle/Vulture, maybe the Zealot, the 250km locking cap on the Rokh), snipers are already balanced just fine.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Blood Corsair's	Posted - 2007.10.28 18:47:00 - [23] FFS ppl. Stop being so alarmist. Sensor boosters will not have an effective 66% nerf. That's just the base stats w/o the 'scripts' in. Once those are implemented, the resulting performance will be comparable (or maybe even slightly improved) to the existing modes of performance for a given module. "It's not done yet." Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.28 19:02:00 - [24] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 28/10/2007 16:17:51 Its not necessarily a bad change, i want to see how it plays out first, but i suscpect it will give smaller gangs a bit of an advantage over larger gangs for manuverability due to lock times of ships scripted to lock far. How the hell does gang size have anything to do with lock time/range? If anything, the large gang gets STRONGER under this change, since it can run more interdictors/interceptors as dedicated tacklers. Or just forget about long lock range, fit close-range guns, and still massacre the smaller gang. Focused fire and the N^2 law aren't just for snipers. Quote: It also makes tracking boosts much more important the longer range you are and emphasises tech 1 ammo more, which brings ships back to their original balancing points with regards to range. I realize you have this bizarre obsession with T1 ammo, but this is a really stupid idea. And I'm saying this as a Caldari pilot. My ships are going to be the least-nerfed of the snipers, and I still think it's a bad idea. With few exceptions (the split slot layouts on the Eagle/Vulture, maybe the Zealot, the 250km locking cap on the Rokh), snipers are already balanced just fine. Because larger gangs are more likly to favor range over dps. Fitting short range guns is well and good, but if you cant cover the entire battlefield, which makes it a terrible idea. Otherwise you just get bubbled, tackled and warped into at 150km and slaughtered. Reducing lock times makes this a bit more interesting. As for t1 ammo, yea, t2 long range ammo for long range guns was a bad decision as far as balance went.
Merin Ryskin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.28 19:03:00 - [25] Originally by: Bellum Eternus FFS ppl. Stop being so alarmist. Sensor boosters will not have an effective 66% nerf. That's just the base stats w/o the 'scripts' in. Once those are implemented, the resulting performance will be comparable (or maybe even slightly improved) to the existing modes of performance for a given module. "It's not done yet." Wrong. The current scripts produce a lower bonus than the TQ modules, even on the boosted attribute. In the case of sensor boosters, on TQ you get 60% to range and speed. In the test version, you have either 30% to both, or 55%/5% either way.
Merin Ryskin FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.10.28 19:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Goumindong Because larger gangs are more likly to favor range over dps. Fitting short range guns is well and good, but if you cant cover the entire battlefield, which makes it a terrible idea. Otherwise you just get bubbled, tackled and warped into at 150km and slaughtered. Reducing lock times makes this a bit more interesting. Note the "or" in that sentence. More likely, the large gang just brings a couple more interceptors for the fast lock/tackle. Larger gangs will always be better in every way. Also, I find it rather amusing that you think fitting short-range guns in a large gang is a terrible idea, but somehow that problem of being unable to cover the entire battlefied goes away if you bring fewer ships. Quote: As for t1 ammo, yea, t2 long range ammo for long range guns was a bad decision as far as balance went. And again, you're wrong. If anything, the nerf to long range ammo damage needs to be reversed. But regardless of whether it was originally a good idea or not, what matters is the state of snipers at the moment. And right now, with two (maybe 3, if you absolutely must have the Zealot as a sniper... but don't expect to keep the pulse Zealot if you do) exceptions, sniper balance is just fine. There is no need to randomly nerf things just to show off their new toy.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.10.28 19:45:00 - [27] Yes larger gangs will always be better, the question is how much better. Smaller gangs tend to gravitate towards thes short range because dps is more important than range. I.E. better dps later > less dps now. Larger gangs tend to gravitate towards range because less dps now > Better dps later. A big gang that jumps a small gang at range wins w/ 0 losses. A big gang that jumps a small gang up close wins w/ x losses where x > 0. The lock time reduction increases the ability for the small gang to leave, or get close, reducing the deficiency against the longer ranged gang.
DMF KingBob	Posted - 2007.10.28 20:36:00 - [28] i dont like this nerf
Jasmine Dupre Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.10.28 20:42:00 - [29] well there goes my mission boat i use a mach for range and motor out of harms way :( Originally by: CCP Sharkbait we are screwed. delaying startup again.
Jessica Molla	Posted - 2007.10.28 22:44:00 - [30] if ccp keeps nerfing everything this way, next year we all will be flying shuttles until they get nerfed too...or will anyone actually still play the game at all? ccp dont nerf things that are fine and dont have to be nerfed...you are killing the game for gods sake!!!

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.