EVE Search - CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

CCP, Where are you going wiith all of these changes?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 96 post(s)
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:22:00 - [1] Keep up the good work Nozh. Speaking as a player who has written lengthy whines on game balance points in the past i think you are doing an excellent job with these changes and a lot of people agree. Do not let uneducated concensus make you second guess your credentials. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:44:00 - [2] I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that logistics were not meant to be as easy as carries make them. People keep saying that if a new substitute isn't added that there will be major problems. It seems clear to me that there are supposed to be major problems. How much risk is there in jumping carriers around to fuel posses? How much risk is there in using carriers to transport your goodies out of 0.0? Carriers allow you to circumvent the intended amounts of risk and reward in the game, and so they are fixing them. Why would they give you a new way to get out of the risk? _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:07:00 - [3] Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 07/11/2007 22:56:25 Originally by: CCP Nozh the hauling carriers were over the top. In what way? Fuelling POSes with carriers takes literally hundreds of man hours of work, and using carriers to haul ships and modules is exactly within their role. Nerfing carrier logistics will simply make people turn to dreadnoughts, which can do exactly the same job. I always thought carries were fleet support ships meant for combat logistics (shield and armor transferring). "Sensing the need for a more moderately-priced version of the Nyx, Federation Navy authorities commissioned the design of the Thanatos. Designed to act primarily as a fighter carrier for small- to mid-scale engagements, its significant defensive capabilities and specially-fitted fighter bays make it ideal for its intended purpose." The description of the Thanatos doesn't meantion it being a pos fueler, and neither does the description of any other race's carrier. This leads me to the conclusion that carriers were not intended as pos fuelers, and so the fact that they are being used for it so often is kind of a dead give away that the hauling carriers were over the top, exactly as Nozh has said. Yes, POSing fueling is a *****. But if people think its out of line they should be arguing for a fix to that, one that is inline with CCPs vision of the game. We should not be arguing to keep the bandaid that is overpowered to the point of bordering on exploitation. Let CCP fix carriers, AND argue for a fix to POS fueling if you think its such a problem. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:08:00 - [4] Originally by: PCaBoo Originally by: Necrologic I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that logistics were not meant to be as easy as carries make them. People keep saying that if a new substitute isn't added that there will be major problems. It seems clear to me that there are supposed to be major problems. How much risk is there in jumping carriers around to fuel posses? How much risk is there in using carriers to transport your goodies out of 0.0? Carriers allow you to circumvent the intended amounts of risk and reward in the game, and so they are fixing them. Why would they give you a new way to get out of the risk? I think CCP wanted to give the industrial guys a break. Hence JB's and the coming jump-freighters. Both of which have problems, as pointed out by many people in this thread. They have elements of risk much more inline with the benefits of the industry. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:13:00 - [5] Originally by: shinsushi Edited by: shinsushi on 07/11/2007 23:09:23 Originally by: Necrologic I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that logistics were not meant to be as easy as carries make them. People keep saying that if a new substitute isn't added that there will be major problems. It seems clear to me that there are supposed to be major problems. How much risk is there in jumping carriers around to fuel posses? How much risk is there in using carriers to transport your goodies out of 0.0? Carriers allow you to circumvent the intended amounts of risk and reward in the game, and so they are fixing them. Why would they give you a new way to get out of the risk? Aren't they doing exactly that in the form of jump freighters though? I actually think jump freighters are going to be even more secure way to transport goods than carriers. Here is how. 1)buy cheap fuel in jita or wherever 2)jump to 0.4 3) cyno out as soon as you decloak. 4)......... 5) profit. EDIT: now that I think about it.... jump freights will pretty much never have to goto lowsec... they can cyno in on low-sec gates to jump into high-sec too. There is a good deal of discussion and whining around the forums lately talking about the various problems jump freighters face and how they won't fully replace carriers if carrier logistics get the bat. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:23:00 - [6] Originally by: Elmicker Edited by: Elmicker on 07/11/2007 23:16:39 Quote: We should not be arguing to keep the bandaid that is overpowered... But it's not overpowered... If you honestly think that, you've never had to keep a POS chain alive relying solely on carriers. Allow me to clarify: Overpowered in comparison to intended industrial ships. Working on the assumption that carriers were never intended to be used for fueling posses and that we are supposed to be using regular indies and frieghtors, carriers make the job way easier than it was intended to be. As i said, i am not contesting that POS fueling is very time consuming and tedious. I am simply saying that carriers were never meant for it, and that it is up to CCP to decide how hard pos fueling is really supposed to be. They cannot tweak it with the current state of carriers. Leaving carriers as they are and making jump freighters even better is still working against the point that pos fueling is easier than CCP intends, assuming that regular indies and freightors is how they intended it to be done. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:52:00 - [7] Happy to help. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:43:00 - [8] Originally by: Drykor Edited by: Drykor on 08/11/2007 01:21:52 I appreciate you take the time to answer some questions, so here is mine: What exactly ARE the reasons for slowing down interdictors? I haven't seen any yet. I have some reasons NOT to: - They are a niche in the first place, with relatively long training and skills that aren't terribly useful from there on. Meaning not alot of people train for them in the first place. After this nerf it will be even harder for 0.0 alliances to find dictor pilots that will fly with them in most gangs. - They are almost always primary and rely on their speed to get out. - If you want a bubble to be dropped close to a ship, you WILL be in web range. The bubble isn't that large at all and you can't drop it too far away due to mwd's and not being too precise in the first place due to lag. - They are very expensive for paperthin ships. - Last but not least of all, NOTHING was wrong with them. No one was whining about them. Yes the Sabre and speedfitted Heretic are fast ships but the only real problem was when the pilot had snakes in. If this is something to buff inty's (just speculating here), please give me a single inty setup that isn't faster than a sabre when you speedfit the inty. But you can't, 'cause there aren't any. In fact there's a fairly large gap between inty speeds and sabre speeds, as long as you fit them in the same way. What this also means is that they can be tackled by any speedfit inty, after which the gang can warp to it. Or it can be destroyed by 2 inty's staying out of range, especially after the upcoming inty boost. This whole thing comes across me as someone looking at base Sabre speed, not taking into account the mass that will reduce the actual mwd speed alot, or the fact it has only 2 lows, then saying "hmm that doesn't look right" and then decides to just remove 25% without looking at how they are used in the game. 25% is ALOT, you don't balance things by completely ruining it. I can understand 5% which will already matter alot, but this is far too much. If you want to fight nanoships, consider having a look at polycarbons that are totally out of line with other rigs, as well as the insane bonus a snake set gives. But don't ruin a shipclass for people that don't have the cash to fit it like that anyway. So please, do give us your reasons. Nerfing interdictor speed reduces their ability to run up too and tackle targets but does not really change their ability to bubble gates or stations. With the current speed of interdictors there is considerably less reason to use an interceptor if you can use a dictor instead. The speed nerf means the interdictors are still usuable for bubbling of gates and stations but that interceptors are needed for more classic tackling. Again i'd say this is a case of removing an unintended role from a ship when there are other ships intended to fullfill that role. And assuming my above assumption is correct, then "completely ruining" its performance in that role is exactly the way to fix it. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:36:00 - [9] Quote: If you force carriers out of being able to haul ships with items in the hold, simply because of this new mantra of ''carriers != haulers'', then you have to stop Badgers from being able to fit dampeners, for one. Haulers != EWAR platforms, right? This is a terrible argument. Badgers can equip ewar but make terrible ewar platforms the same way every ship can put stuff in its cargo hold without it being a good hauler. The carrier is the exception to this. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:18:00 - [10] Originally by: Druadan Originally by: Necrologic Quote: If you force carriers out of being able to haul ships with items in the hold, simply because of this new mantra of ''carriers != haulers'', then you have to stop Badgers from being able to fit dampeners, for one. Haulers != EWAR platforms, right? This is a terrible argument. Badgers can equip ewar but make terrible ewar platforms the same way every ship can put stuff in its cargo hold without it being a good hauler. The carrier is the exception to this. I'm not saying keep the carrier the way it is. I'm saying what I actually said in my post, believe it or not. Lessen the hauling ability so it isn't uber, without just totally removing it. How would that be an exception. I am not arguing with or commenting on the core of your post, i'm just saying the analogy your threw in at the end for effect was a faulty one. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.

Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:08:00 - [11] Quote: So, explain, why you think the analogy doesn't hold? It's about ships being used for roles outside their intended purpose, sucking at that role, but being useful in certain situations due to what the ship actually is. What you said just now is perfectly reasonable. However you originally said: Quote: If you force carriers out of being able to haul ships with items in the hold, simply because of this new mantra of ''carriers != haulers'', then you have to stop Badgers from being able to fit dampeners, for one. Haulers != EWAR platforms, right? This reads as "Since you are nerfing my carriers secondary role you should remove the already nerfed secondary roles from other ships." I think what you meant to say was more along the lines of "If you are going to nerf carrier hauling ability don't overnerf it. Even a badger can fit some dampeners with decent effect, and by the same token the carrier should still have a decent sized cargo capacity even if hauling is no longer a feasable primary role." _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:13:00 - [12] Quote: I'd be interested to know how much logistical work a roaming PvP alliance like Pandemic Legion actually does, and whether Necrologic actually gets his hands dirty. Its ******* easy to support a nerf when it doesnt affect you. I have had adequate experiance dealing with POSes in the past, even back before we had carriers to make it easier (look up the old PA invasion). It would not affect me directly at this point, but that is irrelevent. My posts do not talk about my own agenda or desires (which are significantly more genocidal). All i am doing is making educated assumptions based off extrapolations of what the devs have already told us, in an attempt to figure out their larger plan. It seems i've been spot on so far. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:20:00 - [13] Originally by: HenkieBoy @CCP: Why don't you give a list of ships and items and tell what the intended use is? If somebody uses it for something else we all know it will be changed in the future, you won't get discussions like this. Even you guys at CCP knew these reactions would come. From my own point of view I must say i really dislike the words "not intended", I play EVE because it is a sandbox game. Changing game objects because people are creative in using ships/modules and use the words "not intended" feels like I am playing a strict controlled game like WoW (I played it for 2 years). EVE isn't a game a game company wants to control, it is just impossible. EVE is what it is, a sandbox game. Changing one rule has a far bigger impact then everybody can predict, even the game creators. I strongly believe that adding things in the game is far more effective then changing things when it comes to balancing and keeping the community happy! Its a sandbox game that is supposed to have balance. We are placed in a sandbox and given tools to choose from. The tools however should be balanced, and offer different advantages and disadvantages. If certain tools were useful to the point that you won't use other tools because you don't need too then you have effectivly decreased the number of tools in the game, which is what really decreases the size of the sandbox. People were not "creative" in using carriers for logistics. And since they are so good for it they are used by everyone for it. Everywhere you see carriers dominating this part of the game. Now thats boring. That is what makes the sandbox smaller, when somthiing is so clearly superior to the other options that everyone uses it. If CCP didn't pay any attention to game balance everyone would end up flying the "best" ship with the "best" kit, meaning the exact same ship and kit. Where will your sandbox be then? _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:29:00 - [14] Quote: The changes doesnt make sense to the playerbase, and the playerbase obviously knows more about the game and its mechanics as they(some) spend all their time playing the game. They even pay for it. Is this playerbase that supposedly knows so much about the game the masses of whiners who can't see past their own agendas and constantly post obviously flawed arguments? Or is it the few people using civil arguments that they actually back up, who generally agree with the devs and disagree with the whiners? The playerbase may know more about playing the game (although i doubt they really do) but it is not really possible for them to know more "about the game and its mechanics" than the people who invented those mechanics and decided what they should be and why. We do not have access to the information the devs have and so do not know the bigger picture. Paying money for somthing doesn't mean you know anything about it. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:35:00 - [15] Originally by: Greenwing Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: CCP Zulupark You can bring quite a lot more than that, large weapons, drones, ammo, etc. Your 100 number is at best pessimistic. Ah your right, I can bring gasp 200 cruiser items with me! Whoa! Thats nice to arm .. umh 10 ships! Coolness .. NOT! Just as a random test, I put into my Thanatos on SISI: 300 425mm Railgun II (20m3) 300 Sensor Booster II (5m3) 88 Ogre II (25m3) And 40 other completely random items (including armor hardeners, missile launchers and some ammo) And how far can you jump if you fill all of the remaining space with fuel ? With full skills i already have to fill my ship with fuel to even make the required jumps (max 5 jumps), if i want to take items with me i cannot even make those jumps. As i said, it's ok the carrier is nerfed somewhat because it is too good at hauling now, but after the nerf it will be way too bad. What use those a carrier have if you can only take ships with you without the ability to have refits/ammo. Isn't it an idea to have a separate fuel-hold so you can really use your hold (logistics will still be a nightmare though because how do you make sure the right items go to the right ship-owner) ? Perhaps CCP doesn't want you making 5 jumps with a full hold of ships and kits? It makes perfect sense to me that the more you want to transport the less ground you can cover. This opens up new possibilities for needing to refuel, which adds a whole new twist to carrier logistics. Will this make carriers not useful enough to be worth using? I don't know, but sombody can do the math and figure it out. As for keeping items seperate, i don't really see the big deal. For the majority of the games existance this has been a problem. Only recently has it stopped being one. People handled it before, they can again. Sure it would be nice if we don't have too, but its not a game breaking thing either way. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:35:00 - [16] Originally by: Odewad Originally by: Necrologic Quote: The changes doesnt make sense to the playerbase, and the playerbase obviously knows more about the game and its mechanics as they(some) spend all their time playing the game. They even pay for it. Is this playerbase that supposedly knows so much about the game the masses of whiners who can't see past their own agendas and constantly post obviously flawed arguments? Or is it the few people using civil arguments that they actually back up, who generally agree with the devs and disagree with the whiners? The playerbase may know more about playing the game (although i doubt they really do) but it is not really possible for them to know more "about the game and its mechanics" than the people who invented those mechanics and decided what they should be and why. We do not have access to the information the devs have and so do not know the bigger picture. Paying money for somthing doesn't mean you know anything about it. once again ... you um ... got a little something on your nose there.. Oops? _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:46:00 - [17] Originally by: Jenea Edited by: Jenea on 08/11/2007 19:42:43 I am very glad to see CCP has hired such a disciplined and tactful developer to act as a spokesperson. I'd rather have no communication than continually be talked down to by representatives of CCP. Here's a couple tips for a certain poster in this thread: Pass over the angry players and speak in a neutral, factual tone. Never forget who is the boss, the player; don't speak down to her, she might stop paying your salary. Say as little as possible while answering a question; you never know when someone will throw your own words back at you. Add some general humor to your comments, it might just make the boss (the person pay $15 a month for your game) like you more. Develop a sense of commonality with people who hold different views. For instance, say, "I see where you are coming from, but we did this because..." That right there tends to help alot. The players pay the salary, but they are not the boss. CCP has shown many times that they do not compromise their view of the game in favor of mass outcry or threats from the players. If they did we would be playing WoW in space by now. Being talked down too is a small price to pay to maintain the integrity of this game, and i don't really see where they are doing it. They don't have to explain anythinig to us. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:53:00 - [18] Originally by: Odewad Originally by: Necrologic The players pay the salary, but they are not the boss. CCP has shown many times that they do not compromise their view of the game in favor of mass outcry or threats from the players. If they did we would be playing WoW in space by now. Being talked down too is a small price to pay to maintain the integrity of this game, and i don't really see where they are doing it. They don't have to explain anythinig to us. /me passes yet another handywipe to Necro.. Dude, if you don't slow down that brown stain is going to be permanent. Sorry, had to get enough to last me through lunch. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 23:57:00 - [19] Well since it looks like it's Q and A time i've got a couple: 1) From an economics standpoint, do you have any plans for low sec? It used to be a great middle ground where you could make decent cash and only had to worry about pirates, not massive blobs and interdictor bubble camps. Now there isn't enough economical reason to go there due to the ease of making money in high sec. It used to be the step between high sec and 0.0, but it seems that has failed. I would suggest that a whole new vision for the point of low sec space is in order. Currently the only empire in empire is wars, and 0.0 has mostly bs/cap ship blobs and roving dictor gangs. Perhaps try to set lowsec up to be somewhere in between? I know the most fun i've had in this game was the inbetween small gang stuff that went on in low sec. Ganking miners in belts was good too, but now its not worth the risk to do that stuff in low sec anymore. 2) Do you have any thoughts on making it more worthwhile to defend your operations? Make it worthwhile to defend your mining or NPCing operation when the gankers (me) show up rather than just dock and log immediatly. Currently pvp consists of either attacking or docking/logging until you can counter attack. There is no Defense in the game with the exception of pos warefare, but even this is more accuratly described as letthing them shoot your pos then preparing a counter attack for once reinforced ends. I think the game could benefit massivly by bringing in defense. Make it lucrative for that mining op to have a combat gang covering them and fight instead of just running. Its like half of combat is missing as we only have offense and retreat. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.10 03:16:00 - [20] Originally by: gpfwestie Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Necrologic 2) Do you have any thoughts on making it more worthwhile to defend your operations? Make it worthwhile to defend your mining or NPCing operation when the gankers (me) show up rather than just dock and log immediatly. Currently pvp consists of either attacking or docking/logging until you can counter attack. There is no Defense in the game with the exception of pos warefare, but even this is more accuratly described as letthing them shoot your pos then preparing a counter attack for once reinforced ends. I think the game could benefit massivly by bringing in defense. Make it lucrative for that mining op to have a combat gang covering them and fight instead of just running. Its like half of combat is missing as we only have offense and retreat. That's another very very interesting idea. It would be very interesting to look into it but I'm not entirely sure where we'd start. It is something we want to see (i.e. more defensive roles) but it would probably be a pretty large change to gameplay. Who knows what the future holds, eh? :) This would just be brilliant. Formations would make this possible, and could solve some other problems as well, such as no real role for certain ships, assault frigs being a prime example. If you added in types of formations people could use then you could add formation bonuses to certain ships etc, giving another role you can apply to t2 ships. You could also have stuff like different damage distribution across the formation, which would spark some life back into tanking setups. Using a certain formation could direct a % of damage taken to a ship set up for tanking, etc. Maybe defensive formations that give offensive and defensive bonuses in return for loss of mobility and warping (siege mode style)? Maybe add formations based around anchorables? A mining formation that includes both mining and combat ships and special anchorables that takes too long to set up and take down to just leave, but gives bonuses to yield large enough to make it worth defending? So many possibilities. Anti blobbing counter measures could also be worked in in the form of formation size penalties, etc. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.

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.