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 [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 96 post(s)
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:32:00 - [301] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Moraguth You said that "we've never really had a meeting where we sat down to try and tinker with amarr"... paraphrased. And yet, I don't remember how long ago it was (6 months? a year?) one of the devs posted a blog about giving amarr more "oomph". Please have that meeting. I meant: Most of us agree that Amarr need oomph. We didn't have time to do it now, but we'll start looking at it soon. Originally by: Moraguth Okay, I hate the nano fleets and gank squads. Probably because of my mentality of if you're gonna fight, fight and die (even though I'd run away/warp out if I could.... meh). So, I realize that sounds like a pretty weak arguement, so here's a better one: Please take a look at "speed tanking" in general, and here's why I'm mad at it. A speed tanked ship can theoretically tank "infinate damage" by nature because it just doesn't get hit. I've seen the speed tankers outrun missiles, they DEFINATELY outrun drones (a little love for my gallente friends) and when guns/missiles do it, they very often do almost no damage. (my cruise missiles from my purifier hit a vaga for 0.0 damage.... i was so ****ed). A shield/armor tanker can only take so much DPS before the tank breaks and the ship goes boom. This disparity between the two types of tanking seems VERY unballanced to me. With the introduction of the new T2 frigates, it'll be easier for many people to get into ships that have a range bonus to webbing, which I hope will be enough. Probably not though. Are there any plans to take a look at the "speed tank" in general? Some ships are meant to go fast, some ships shouldn't. There are some modules out there that may need minor tweaking, but remember. If you meet a ship that has low base speed and is "speed tanking" it's sacrificing almost everything else to be able to do so. One simple web, or one mistake on that pilots behalf, and he's pretty skewered. Yes... that's pretty true. Webs are the counter. And yes, I know that they have pretty much no "damage tanking ability" (If they get hit), and their damage doesn't really scare me if i'm in a tanked ship. BUT: It's still not ballanced. My armor tanked ship can only handle so much DPS before it goes boom. I was in a carrier fight a couple weeks ago and even with the might of many remote reps trying to keep someone alive, once someone gets called primary in the fleet fight, they're pretty much done for if they try to tank. We were going up against a mostly speed tanked fleet. We couldn't hit them, but they could do the hit and run thing (with enough numbers to cause alot of damage) without taking many losses themselves. The point is that speed tanked setups (if done really well) will allow someone to use their momentum to take them back outside of web range very quickly. But, like i said, with the new recon frigs, things might be a little more manageable. There's been alot of talk about nerfing things based on their intended role. Would it be possible for the devs to share with the playerbase what they have as the intended role for all the ship classes somewhere? Okay, if not all... how about for the ships getting nerfed (or are underused). I'd like to see what you think should be able to kill what (in a very general way). Should a dictor be able to kill anything besides 1 T1 frig on its own? Should a stealth bomber be able to kill anything on it's own? etc... good game

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:32:00 - [302] Originally by: Pacala Edited by: Pacala on 07/11/2007 19:57:52 OK, so barring any stupidity the OP is correct. This game has been fun since Beta, but the nerf bat has been swung enough times. A Kestrel with cruise missles requiring a rollback... fine. A Thorax with 10 drones... fine. A Rupture with 2 MWDs... fine. Everyone who PVPs fitting a WCS... fine. There is no need to make adjustments right now because nothing is currently unbalanced to a great degree. EVE was noted for the amount of social creativity and interaction it allows, not for the complexity of its nerfs and counternerfs. Bring us more original content, imagination, story, and overall vision as opposed to newer and better tables in your database. The simple act of adding new content is.. well... not simple at all. Adding a new ship, new module or even something like a new ammo type can drastically change how other ships and modules work and interact. By adding new content we HAVE to keep balancing older content simply because everything in EVE is connected.

Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:32:00 - [303] Edited by: Splagada on 08/11/2007 21:35:51 A casino with grand prizes like gametime would be sweet. or whatever bpc you'd spot a zillion farmers under 3 days too :p seriously, this kind of little wasted time (for you) by replying all this is like a big bowl a fresh air for us addicts ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:34:00 - [304] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Oveur, give these guys raises, now!!! Thank you, Nozh pasted that to Oveur. I'm waiting for my raise.

Maltitol Gallente Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:36:00 - [305] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I'd love something like that, but that's for the art guys, not us game designers :) good, please do mention it! but dont you have to program it in? im talking interactable things here... broken moons... you'd mine them directly for moon minerals, with specialized barges or something....etc Originally by: CCP Wrangler Well boohoo.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:38:00 - [306] Originally by: Gungankllr While I applaud the introduction of the new anchorables (Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Generators) I think we've all seen as a direct result far more blobbage to take those down. Do you guys have any hope on the horizon for rewarding players and/or alliances that use less combat resources to complete objectives? For me, small scale combat is fun, and we'd like to encourage it (not force it!) somehow. However, as long as it's better to bring more ships, that's what players will do. Originally by: Gungankllr Is there any changes in the pipeline for POS warfare and Soveringnity? That's a good question. We've been having some general discussions about this in the last few days, and this is something we'd like to look into. Not saying we can change anything, but it's definitely something we want to examine after the Trinity release.

Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:38:00 - [307] I'd really appreciate an answer to my earlier question, namely; Why have you gone for an absolute nerf with carrier logistics? You have entirely removed their ability. This is meant to be a sandbox, and the recent dev blogs displayed this (to an extent). The aim was (supposedly) to allow the carrier to still perform as a multi-role support platform, but not to perform all its roles at once. So why, after all the shenanigans surrounding the blogs, have you again decided for an absolute nerf after the response you got to your proposed absolute fighter nerf? (also. Cheers for answering all the questions. You've gone a long way to alleviating a lot of concerns with regards to the upcoming patches. The responses and feedback gained in this thread have basically shat all over previous dev blogs + Q&As, good job.)
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:39:00 - [308] About the new jump freighters. most alliances (like ours) have cyno beacons. you go through lowsec, you run around, and oops theres a hostile gang. right click, cyno away. takes under 1 second. for the non cyno-beacon enabled guys, itll take a cyno alt, another hand and 1 more second, well big deal. arent you afraid that glorified superuber hauler will first : totally kill the freighters? and 2 : become a total isk boink (opposite to isk sink) for their owners? you know already the 2-3B cost itll have wont prevent many alliances to buy some of them ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:40:00 - [309] Zulupark, what about the Pilgrim? I realise its a pretty niche ship, but quite a few of us curse/pilgrim pilots are beginning to wonder what we said to get hit by so many consecutive bats. The curse is on the edge of being pretty munch unflyable vs its peer group and Im now just using my pilgrim as a cloaking hauler - please help!!! C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:41:00 - [310] Originally by: Maltitol Originally by: CCP Zulupark I'd love something like that, but that's for the art guys, not us game designers :) good, please do mention it! but dont you have to program it in? im talking interactable things here... broken moons... you'd mine them directly for moon minerals, with specialized barges or something....etc We've got content developers working on more unique content all the time, a lot has changed since we finally got "triggers" so I guess you'll see more non standard content flowing in soon. I'm not necessarily saying they're doing exactly what you're suggesting, but they're definitely working on new content everyday. New "features" like you're talking about require a lot of art support which has been scarce to say the least the past few months due to Trinity upgrades etc. now when we're soon getting past that? Who knows? Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:42:00 - [311] Originally by: CCP Zulupark For me, small scale combat is fun, and we'd like to encourage it (not force it!) somehow. However, as long as it's better to bring more ships, that's what players will do. I agree completely! I know it's been mentioned in a dev blog before, about how it makes no real sense to have a focused fire nerf/stacking penalty. But in the name of ballance and fun, CCP does alot of things that don't make sense "with real life". Can something of this nature be re-examined? good game
Ithur'Iul GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:42:00 - [312] Here's some balance suggestions to consider. Change the Golem's bonus to target painting to a 100% increase in cruise missile hitpoints per level. Increase the powergrid on the Vargur so that it can actually fit guns and something else. At the moment it can hardly fit 4 1200mm artillery cannons. Switch the shield and armor hitpoints of the Typhoon. It is an armor tanker that has more base shields than armor. Make Defenders useful by making them target missiles that agress you and your gang and make them fire on their own when you have the module activated. At the moment they require far too much micromanagement plus they only help if you yourself is being fired at. Change the 4th bonus on Assault Frigates to something useful (not the resistances that are already built in) and lower their mass slightly to give them some oomph. Look at the fitting requirements of battleship missile launchers. Blasters use less fittings than railguns, why do cruise use less than siege launchers?
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:42:00 - [313] Originally by: Cailais The curse is on the edge of being pretty munch unflyable vs its peer group and Im now just using my pilgrim as a cloaking hauler - please help!!! Hahah, at least the curse's racial EW still works. Spare a thought for the arazu and lachesis, subject to a nerf aimed at all other ships, with no accompanying buff to make up for it.
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:42:00 - [314] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Splagada Edited by: Splagada on 08/11/2007 21:27:34 When will we see casinos and bordellos! its supposed to be a pixelthug game Players have already ran lotteries (a form of gambling). Prostitution however is a little more on the gray area ;) Actually I remember being contacted a year ago by someone who claimed to be a young lady offering cybersex for Isk. "She" said she got lots of business although I didn't take her up on the offer and have no way to guess how many others did or didn't! Zarch AlDain
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:44:00 - [315] Just a quick question for you guys - There are a few modules that for whatever reason have either been obsolete from the beginning or made so through later balances/patches. Two examples that come to mind here: Capacitor Batteries (Topic Discussing them here) Tech 2 Stasis Webifiers Would you guys mind taking a look at them? ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:45:00 - [316] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Malachon Draco Question 2: Would you consider introducing the jumpfreighters ASAP and waiting 2-3 months with the carrier cargo nerf to enable alliances to make preparations? We remember that we discussed this, but I'll let Nozh answer this one as I don't have the facts 100% We did consider it yes, but came to the conclusion that even if we weren't introducing "Jump Freighters" we'd still want to remove this ability from carriers (since it's not an intended role). We did also discuss not introducing an alternative to the "hauling carriers", to encourage freight runs and make moving stuff in mass quantities more challenging. Thats also part of the reason why "Jump Freighters" are hard to obtain (T2). Then I beg you to go and run a freighter 70 hops and see how much "fun" it is. 4-5 hours freighter ops are not a good direction to take the game. _________________________________

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:46:00 - [317] Originally by: Tarminic Just a quick question for you guys - There are a few modules that for whatever reason have either been obsolete from the beginning or made so through later balances/patches. Two examples that come to mind here: Capacitor Batteries (Topic Discussing them here) Tech 2 Stasis Webifiers Would you guys mind taking a look at them? I'm the module guy, I'll put these on my list for review. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:46:00 - [318] I'd just like to thank you guys for answer the question me and others have posted. This type of interaction between the developers and the players really encourages me about the future of eve. Oh, I lied about the last question, sry... which forum would be the best forum to post our ideas, when laid out in a easy to read and comprehensive manner, where the development team would find it? _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Sebastien LeReparteur Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:46:00 - [319] This thread deserves a sticky. Originally by: Turin The problem is, lately, your not carrying a nerf stick, but more like a small scale tactical nuclear nerf bomb.
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:47:00 - [320] Originally by: CCP Nozh And I think I'm pretty much boned if I want the players to like me, it's been like this forever, you all hate the man with the nerfstick. The problem is, lately, your not carrying a nerf stick, but more like a small scale tactical nuclear nerf bomb. _________________________________

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:47:00 - [321] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Tarminic Just a quick question for you guys - There are a few modules that for whatever reason have either been obsolete from the beginning or made so through later balances/patches. Two examples that come to mind here: Capacitor Batteries (Topic Discussing them here) Tech 2 Stasis Webifiers Would you guys mind taking a look at them? I'm the module guy, I'll put these on my list for review. Thanks CCP Nozh, I appreciate the effort. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:47:00 - [322] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Tarminic Just a quick question for you guys - There are a few modules that for whatever reason have either been obsolete from the beginning or made so through later balances/patches. Two examples that come to mind here: Capacitor Batteries (Topic Discussing them here) Tech 2 Stasis Webifiers Would you guys mind taking a look at them? I'm the module guy, I'll put these on my list for review. take a look at pos modules anchor/online/offline timers please!!! it takes like 1 hour to unanchor a refinery, some of them take 2mins while other 20 i understand timers on the "warfare" modules, but stuff like silos takes wayyy long when its obviously not such a big "raid" module :p ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
Sebastien LeReparteur Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:48:00 - [323] Originally by: Turin The problem is, lately, your not carrying a nerf stick, but more like a small scale tactical nuclear nerf bomb. Signature material. Originally by: Turin The problem is, lately, your not carrying a nerf stick, but more like a small scale tactical nuclear nerf bomb.
J Valkor Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:50:00 - [324] Originally by: Ithur'Iul Change the Golem's bonus to target painting to a 100% increase in cruise missile hitpoints per level. Oh god no.
Jita TradeAlt	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:51:00 - [325] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Gungankllr While I applaud the introduction of the new anchorables (Jump Bridges, Cyno Jammers, Cyno Generators) I think we've all seen as a direct result far more blobbage to take those down. Do you guys have any hope on the horizon for rewarding players and/or alliances that use less combat resources to complete objectives? For me, small scale combat is fun, and we'd like to encourage it (not force it!) somehow. However, as long as it's better to bring more ships, that's what players will do. You know what encourages small scale pvp? Static complexes. They were the only place I can think of where actually skilled groups faced off against eachother, and since the more people you would bring lowered profit then people were always trying to keep their gangs as small as possible. They were also mostly in 0.0 so they could be fought over, unlike cosmos and L4 missions that are being farmed in high-sec.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:54:00 - [326] Originally by: Turin Originally by: CCP Nozh And I think I'm pretty much boned if I want the players to like me, it's been like this forever, you all hate the man with the nerfstick. The problem is, lately, your not carrying a nerf stick, but more like a small scale tactical nuclear nerf bomb. Last reply from me tonight. LOL. Catch you tomorrow guys.

Maltitol Gallente Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:55:00 - [327] any comments about items like: - dna - corpses - drugs (mission type drugs) i think you see where im going here... so much in this game is not used/useless and it just stacks up... any plans in the books? Originally by: CCP Wrangler Well boohoo.
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:55:00 - [328] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Turin Originally by: CCP Nozh And I think I'm pretty much boned if I want the players to like me, it's been like this forever, you all hate the man with the nerfstick. The problem is, lately, your not carrying a nerf stick, but more like a small scale tactical nuclear nerf bomb. Last reply from me tonight. LOL. Catch you tomorrow guys. Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:56:00 - [329] Edited by: CCP Nozh on 08/11/2007 21:57:00 Originally by: Elmicker I'd really appreciate an answer to my earlier question, namely; Why have you gone for an absolute nerf with carrier logistics? You have entirely removed their ability. This is meant to be a sandbox, and the recent dev blogs displayed this (to an extent). The aim was (supposedly) to allow the carrier to still perform as a multi-role support platform, but not to perform all its roles at once. So why, after all the shenanigans surrounding the blogs, have you again decided for an absolute nerf after the response you got to your proposed absolute fighter nerf? (also. Cheers for answering all the questions. You've gone a long way to alleviating a lot of concerns with regards to the upcoming patches. The responses and feedback gained in this thread have basically shat all over previous dev blogs + Q&As, good job.) Because we've never considered the hauling capability of carriers an intended role, it was more an unwanted side effect that everyone got used to. I've always wanted carriers to be a bit more logistic focused but not as haulers, but rather as remote repairers etc., with spare ships and modules for the fleet. We're however going a completely different direction like we've said many times, the final solution is still being discussed but it will involve people setting up for their desired role. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:57:00 - [330] Originally by: CCP Nozh Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. EANM/Hardener CPU changes for one. Any CPU change intending to make an EANM tank less common than a tri-hardened tank needs to produce a system where it is harder to fit the EANM tank than the tri-hardened tanks. Now, the changes to EANMs and Tri-hardened tanks took the already difficult to fit on many ship eanms and made them harder, while taking the already ridiculously hard to fit unless its faction easier. Which, on the surface seems great... but the eanm/DC tank still took far less CPU than the tri-hardened tank[between 19 and 4 CPU less]. This means that instead of eanm tanks becoming less common or less optimal, they just got harder to fit. And we told you this when the changes came out. Here is another. The Zealot PG boost. Supposedly added because the zealot couldnt use its utility high slot. Right now, after 4 Heavy Pulse lasers, the Zealot has over 600 powergrid left. The boost was what, 90 PG, so a total fo 120. Anyone could figure out that if you were PG starved in a Zealot you were doing something wrong, you had over 450 powergrid to fit the rest of your ship! You could have added a 5th turret at that point without increasing the powergrid and not really had any problems. The problem with the Zealot is that it does pathetic DPS. Its outclassed in every way by the Vagabond or the Muninn. The Muninn as a sniper because of carb lead [12>10], and alpha strike[a 300% advantage], the Vagabond because any setup for a speed Zealot that you can build you can build a vagabond to do the same thing except be faster, tank harder, and do more DPS in better damage types out with no other disadvantages[yea, you can make it cap stable with an mwd as well] to nearly all reasonable ranges. Originally by: CCP Nozh Weren't the Amarr recons "the flavour of the month" after RMR? Personally I don't think Amarr are "gimped", I fly a lot of Amarr ships myself, they are however lacking something. Lets get some things straight. There were, at the time of Amarr Recons being flavor of the month three types of Amarr ships. 1. Laser ships 2. Drone ships 3. Poorly designed split weapon ships.[split weapon ships can be good if designed right] The poorly designed split weapon ships were changed into missile ships fixing any problems not associated with ship class. I.E. The Malediction, Sacriledge, and Damnation were good ships, and the Vengeance still sucked because it was an assault frigate[not much you can do about that, so its not a black mark] No one had any problems with the drone ships, except that NOS meant the ships were able to fly much too long. Unfortunatly now we have some other problems, such as the range on the Pilgrim without the ability to perma drain with NOS, its kinda out of luck having to get within 10km to neut people. And now the sentinel is going to be added despite everything you should have learned from the NOS/Neut changes to the Pilgrim and Curse. The ship is neither a ewar boat or a dps frigate. Its no better at taking out any type of target than any of the other ewar frigates are, and worse at taking out frigates. Its another ship without a role. And then we get to the laser ships, which is what the problem has always been, the split weapon ships because they were designed for lasers and not given a full compliment of supporting DPS types and drones, the cruisers for sucking more than an 8 pound Orec, and the rest for being half decent. The Geddon and Abaddon are good, and they are good in a single role for specific reasons that are the same reasons that the other ships arent. The Harbinger literally has no advantages over the Hurricane, the only reason its flown is because its not so much worse than its competitors as to be useless. The rest are just plain terrible That's not even get into the "why bother having Amarr short range BS in the game" torp changes.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: 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.