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)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:26:00 - [421] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais So my question is do you belive that leaving TDs unscripted would make them over powered in comparision with other EW effects? C. It would just not make any sense to not script Tracking Disruptors. In which case can you add a third script for falloff pretty please... With Cherries And sugar on top
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:27:00 - [422] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais So my question is do you belive that leaving TDs unscripted would make them over powered in comparision with other EW effects? C. It would just not make any sense to not script Tracking Disruptors. Yes I see your point in regard to 'we're scripting a 'group of modules': but as I understand it the scripts are being introduced because specific modules were very much FOTM and unbalancing combat because their dual effects were too powerful (specifically damps). TDs however come 'ready balanced' because there effects are limited to just turrets. If webs, nos, scrams etc etc operated by utilising optimal range and tracking then yes, TDs should be scripted: but they don't. Did your testing show unscripted TDs to be significantly better than fitting a scripted Dampner? The reason I ask this question is that we see something like the curse often not fitting TDs in favour of the more useful Sensor Dampner despite getting a bonus to TDs. Perhaps if TDs were left as they are, or given improved scripts they might be regarded as a more useful EW system? C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:30:00 - [423] Edited by: Goumindong on 09/11/2007 10:31:20 Originally by: CCP Zulupark mobile EM drones? He means the Amarr racial drones. The ones that do EM damage. Took me a moment to realize it as well. To elaborate. Currently the EM damaging drones do less damage against armor than all other drones[understandable], no matter what type of reasonable hardening the ship has[possibly unreasonable], and as well do less damage against shield than Ogres[which isnt understandable], with ogres benefiting more from reasonable hardening situations[I.E. a single EM hard on shields is more likly than thermal hardening without EM hardening] Even against EM weak NPCs, Thermal drones do more damage. This basically means that there is never ever a single reason to field EM damage drones.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:34:00 - [424] Ah, EM drones, quite. Well, we'd like it if people wouldn't omnitank so much. That would effectively "fix" that issue, as well as a lot of other Amarr issues. There are some ideas floating around, but nothing really concrete yet.

Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:34:00 - [425] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Theron Gyrow From what I hear, with maxed skills damps are currently pretty much not worth the trouble even with the ships with bonuses on them. Are there any plans to increase the damp bonuses on Celestis/Lachesis/Arazu? You can still take a BS down to 11km locking range and 70 sec locking time (on a command ship) with a Lachesis or Arazu. I think that's pretty fine. Could you let me know what skills and how many damps were required? Any rigs? Also, isn't that "or" instead of "and"? Anyway, I hope you are correct and the damps will still be worth fitting also for the locking range reduction mode, but I have to say that I doubt it. We'll see. Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Theron Gyrow Now that we are at it, a couple of other questions as well: Do you consider the torpedoes balanced after the change? As they currently are, they seem to me to be much stronger than the other short-range (or even medium-range) weapons. I think they're fine. They do a lot of damage, but you have to remember that they don't do well against ships that are moving at any decent speed, or smaller ships. Nanoships are indeed a problem for them. Is that enough of a drawback to balance the greatest effective damage against BSs at longest range and zero cap cost? Time will tell, but my guess is that T2 Raven will be the pick of any close-to-mid range fleet/gang from now on. Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Theron Gyrow Are there plans to improve the mobile EM drones somehow? Currently they are absolutely worthless. Oh, and thank you for this Q&A thread. Much, much appreciated. mobile EM drones? Acolyte, Infiltrator, Praetor. There is currently no reason whatsoever to use them. Thermal drones do 40% more damage, explosive drones are fastest (and their damage type is good), kinetic drones drop just a little damage and are usable if you want to get kinetic damage. EM drones? Pfft. -- Gradient forum
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:35:00 - [426] 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? :) In the moment the problem is, that you cant defend your industrial gear good enough, because it just would get ganked. Perhaps you can keep a Hulk alive with Carrier-suport, but nearly all other ships just have a too low base-defense for being remote-healed. I think we could need some form of shield projecting, where you can setup a shield for your industrial gear like barges or industrial caps. Another option would be sort of a lock catcher, where the attacker is not able to lock the industrial ship, but locks the defending ship instead. Sure, this all might be quite difficult to balance (abuse in other situations), but I think it would be worth a discussion. Btw: Why didn¦t you comment my questions about carriers, specially about increasing the volume of industrials?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:38:00 - [427] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ah, EM drones, quite. Well, we'd like it if people wouldn't omnitank so much. That would effectively "fix" that issue, as well as a lot of other Amarr issues. There are some ideas floating around, but nothing really concrete yet. Currently no. A tri-hardend tank results in thermal drones doing more damage to armor than EM drones.
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:40:00 - [428] Edited by: Helison on 09/11/2007 10:42:54 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Jason Edwards Ok from what I read... they don't mind the dreads or rorqual hauling because they severe their capabilities by equiping a hauling setup. This boggles me... So the carrier pilot jumps in their carrier. They remove all their medium and low slot modules. Put Expanded cargoholds tech 2 in the lows. You expand to 15000ish m3. Cap rechargers tech2 for the mediums. This way it isn't anywhere near as long to recharge back to the 95% needed for the next jump. Obviously CCCs in the rigs. Hi slots dont matter. It doesn't matter at all. There's absolutely no tank for these unless they willingly want to wait the extra time just to perserve their shield tank. Even then... they most likely really don't want to get involved in any fights. Even if they perserved their shield tank. When they transfer over too transportation mode they are just as severed as any dread or rorqual. Carriers were hauling stuff around by placing cargo expanded Industrial Ships in their ship maintenance bay, then placing a large number of "stuff" in the Industrials cargo hold. They don't have to fit any cargo expanders. Hmmm, I nearly never fitted a tank on my carrier, when transporting stuff. Cargo expanders and cap rechargers were the only modules in low and medium slots, every m3 counts, if you have to transport large quantities. You don¦t need a tank if you only jump to friendly systems.
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:41:00 - [429] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ah, EM drones, quite. Well, we'd like it if people wouldn't omnitank so much. That would effectively "fix" that issue, as well as a lot of other Amarr issues. There are some ideas floating around, but nothing really concrete yet. Currently no. A tri-hardend tank results in thermal drones doing more damage to armor than EM drones. Yes. That +40% raw damage that thermal drones do is rather hard to overcome. -- Gradient forum
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:43:00 - [430] The pace this game is changing at is quite incredible... Ive only been away from the forum for a few months, and yet all this stuff with new ships and scripts is new to me. Im guessing lots of other stuff will be new as well (im going to check out the info portal blogs later). Keeping up with this game can be difficult. :) --- The Disclosure Project \| My UFO Thread (read it!)


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:44:00 - [431] Originally by: Theron Gyrow Could you let me know what skills and how many damps were required? Any rigs? Also, isn't that "or" instead of "and"? Anyway, I hope you are correct and the damps will still be worth fitting also for the locking range reduction mode, but I have to say that I doubt it. We'll see. 4x damps, 2x range script, 2x signature analysis scripts. No rigs. Originally by: Theron Gyrow Nanoships are indeed a problem for them. Is that enough of a drawback to balance the greatest effective damage against BSs at longest range and zero cap cost? Time will tell, but my guess is that T2 Raven will be the pick of any close-to-mid range fleet/gang from now on. Every ship has a counter and so does every setup. Remember that torpedos are most effective against huge, slow targets. They won't work so well (or at all) against smaller and faster ships. Originally by: Theron Gyrow Acolyte, Infiltrator, Praetor. There is currently no reason whatsoever to use them. Thermal drones do 40% more damage, explosive drones are fastest (and their damage type is good), kinetic drones drop just a little damage and are usable if you want to get kinetic damage. EM drones? Pfft. Answered above.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:46:00 - [432] Originally by: Helison In the moment the problem is, that you cant defend your industrial gear good enough, because it just would get ganked. Perhaps you can keep a Hulk alive with Carrier-suport, but nearly all other ships just have a too low base-defense for being remote-healed. I think we could need some form of shield projecting, where you can setup a shield for your industrial gear like barges or industrial caps. Another option would be sort of a lock catcher, where the attacker is not able to lock the industrial ship, but locks the defending ship instead. Sure, this all might be quite difficult to balance (abuse in other situations), but I think it would be worth a discussion. Btw: Why didn¦t you comment my questions about carriers, specially about increasing the volume of industrials? Sure, everything warrants a discussion. I'm sorry if I missed your question about carriers, this thread has simply grown so large so fast it's hard to keep up, could you link me to that question? :)

Cygnus Zhada Amarr The Wild Hunt	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:47:00 - [433] Zulu, any comment on the 'cap race' idea I had (complete post on page 13). Quote: but what I'd REALLY like to see is something special; Since Amarr is the cap race you could give them a racial 'treat' of reducing any NOS/Neut applied to them by a set amount, like 30%, or 50%. That way anyone attacking Amarr without using NEUTS is fighting the 'normal' Amarr. HOWEVER, anyone using a massive cap bleeding setup wouldn't have that much of an impact. He's ofcourse still able to strangle the Amarr ship but it's not set in stone anymore. To me that feels like a real special 'cap race' bonus. Would you do it the other way round (buffing NOS/Neut used by Amarr) would create something way too overpowered and would bring back the solo pwn mobile called Pilgrim. Doing it the mentioned way (reducing nos/neut effects done TO the Amarr ship) simply makes it a more even playingfield. Welcome to EVE Online: Press 1 for Caldari, PVE Online Press 2 for Minmatar, PVP Online Press 3 for Gallente, PWN Online Press 4 for Amarr, Lulz Online
Dracorimus Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:48:00 - [434] Amarr should not be so limited, I mean EM/Thermal only kinda sucks as its so easy to tank.... You say an Absolution is only a tanking laserboat ? Heres me thinking it was a Combat Commandship capable of ripping through most lesser ships quite well.... I may as well fly a prophecy then, same role no ? Tanking laserboat LOL Is that all Amarr was envisioned to be, Tanking Laserboats? I sure as hell cannot compete with the likes of a Sleipnir or an Astarte for damage output, (I have used the Astarte on SISI and it owns the Absolution for DPS & TANK)....and can easily kill an Abso....Tanking Laserboat.....pfft Amarr is in need of much ooomph as you put it.... -

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:50:00 - [435] Originally by: Cygnus Zhada Zulu, any comment on the 'cap race' idea I had (complete post on page 13). Quote: but what I'd REALLY like to see is something special; Since Amarr is the cap race you could give them a racial 'treat' of reducing any NOS/Neut applied to them by a set amount, like 30%, or 50%. That way anyone attacking Amarr without using NEUTS is fighting the 'normal' Amarr. HOWEVER, anyone using a massive cap bleeding setup wouldn't have that much of an impact. He's ofcourse still able to strangle the Amarr ship but it's not set in stone anymore. To me that feels like a real special 'cap race' bonus. Would you do it the other way round (buffing NOS/Neut used by Amarr) would create something way too overpowered and would bring back the solo pwn mobile called Pilgrim. Doing it the mentioned way (reducing nos/neut effects done TO the Amarr ship) simply makes it a more even playingfield. That's a very interesting idea, scribbling it down for future reference :)

Grim Vandal Caldari Burn Proof	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:53:00 - [436] Since so many questions seem to get considered, I have one as well: Speed modules and webifiers: I find it a pity that at close range speed is totally ignored (due to webs) while on the other hand at medium range nano ships fly way too fast ... I would like to see speeds over 1km/s nerfed while on the other hand speeds in close range (while webbed) upped to reasonable amounts ... is something similar considered by the devs ... and if it is considered is it far far away in the future or could it make it, in one of the post patches of trinity ... thank you for your time ... Greetings Grim

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:53:00 - [437] Originally by: Dracorimus Amarr should not be so limited, I mean EM/Thermal only kinda sucks as its so easy to tank.... You say an Absolution is only a tanking laserboat ? Heres me thinking it was a Combat Commandship capable of ripping through most lesser ships quite well.... I may as well fly a prophecy then, same role no ? Tanking laserboat LOL Is that all Amarr was envisioned to be, Tanking Laserboats? I sure as hell cannot compete with the likes of a Sleipnir or an Astarte for damage output, (I have used the Astarte on SISI and it owns the Absolution for DPS & TANK)....and can easily kill an Abso....Tanking Laserboat.....pfft Amarr is in need of much ooomph as you put it.... The raw DPS of an Absolution is a little less then that of the Sleipnir (a quick check gave me 618,6 DPS from guns only with 2x heat sinks). The problem is the omni tank, and that's something we want to look into.

Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:55:00 - [438] Edited by: Greenwing on 09/11/2007 10:55:37 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Sure, everything warrants a discussion. I'm sorry if I missed your question about carriers, this thread has simply grown so large so fast it's hard to keep up, could you link me to that question? :) Linky
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:56:00 - [439] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I'm sorry if I missed your question about carriers, this thread has simply grown so large so fast it's hard to keep up, could you link me to that question? :) I formulated it first at the end of this post: Link It¦s about removing the nerf for cargo within ships, but nerfing instead industrials, so that they are too big for carriers.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:58:00 - [440] Originally by: Grim Vandal Since so many questions seem to get considered, I have one as well: Speed modules and webifiers: I find it a pity that at close range speed is totally ignored (due to webs) while on the other hand at medium range nano ships fly way too fast ... I would like to see speeds over 1km/s nerfed while on the other hand speeds in close range (while webbed) upped to reasonable amounts ... is something similar considered by the devs ... and if it is considered is it far far away in the future or could it make it, in one of the post patches of trinity ... thank you for your time ... I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. Orbiting at closer ranges takes into account agility and mass of the ship, therefore its speed is naturally lower when doing a tight orbit.



CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:00:00 - [441] Originally by: Helison Originally by: CCP Zulupark I'm sorry if I missed your question about carriers, this thread has simply grown so large so fast it's hard to keep up, could you link me to that question? :) I formulated it first at the end of this post: Link It¦s about removing the nerf for cargo within ships, but nerfing instead industrials, so that they are too big for carriers. Ah, yes. I'm saving that one for Nozh, since it's both his territory and you addressed it directly to him :)

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:02:00 - [442] Originally by: CCP Zulupark The raw DPS of an Absolution is similar to the Sleipnir (a quick check gave me 618,6 DPS from guns only with 2x heat sinks). The Sleipnir does 617,2 DPS (220mm Vulcan Autocannon II, 2x gyrostabilizers) The problem is the omni tank, and that's something we want to look into. Why is the Sleipnir using 220s instead of 425s when the Absolution is clearly using Heavy Pulses? Shouldnt the Sleipnir be using 425s in such a comparison?
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:04:00 - [443] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Una D Is it here that a vaga that gets almost insta locked by 2 huginns (so 4 webs on it) can power down to the gate before even half it shield is gone even when 15 ships or so are going for it?. I guess that will be solved with new heavy dictors that will prevent use of jump gates so I don't care too much (still would be nice to get a bit balance on t2 webers). Being quadruple webbed should stop any ship from powerdriving back to a gate. Except maybe officer fitted Vagabonds, but then again, if you kill them it's a pricey loss for the pilot. The problem is inertia and locking times. 1. Vagabond (or any other nano/speed ship) jumps through gate. 2. Vaga decloaks instantly approaching gate and MWDing 3. In the .5 seconds it takes to lock Vaga is already at near max speed. 4. Webs hit but the vaga has enough speed and inertia left to 'coast' to the gate. I can't say I've tried it with 4 webs but I've seen with my own eyes a nano dommi do this with 2 webs on it. Inties are even worse, half the time you can't even lock them before they get to the gate - but at least that is a frigate sized ship. Zarch AlDain
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:05:00 - [444] So with the new jump freighter and the mass changes to the regular freighters you are pretty much sinking the last nail into the titan coffin. It now has now purpose in this game what so ever. Kinda fun how a ship that we were eagerly awaiting for over 3 years, combined with thousands of manhours are now nerfed to nothing. And besides with these amounts of nerfs all over the board, well i recon you guys will have your asses full until next year trying to balance this. Haste slowly, don't rush into things that will ripple the entire game.
Grim Vandal Caldari Burn Proof	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:06:00 - [445] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Grim Vandal Since so many questions seem to get considered, I have one as well: Speed modules and webifiers: I find it a pity that at close range speed is totally ignored (due to webs) while on the other hand at medium range nano ships fly way too fast ... I would like to see speeds over 1km/s nerfed while on the other hand speeds in close range (while webbed) upped to reasonable amounts ... is something similar considered by the devs ... and if it is considered is it far far away in the future or could it make it, in one of the post patches of trinity ... thank you for your time ... I'm not entirely sure I understand your question. Orbiting at closer ranges takes into account agility and mass of the ship, therefore its speed is naturally lower when doing a tight orbit. Its all about the webifier. Once you are webified speed is out of any equation. eg. Using an afterburner for your BS makes nearly no sense at all ... But if you would simply nerf webs nanos get even more powerfull, I'm talking eg. about fitting one Afterburner on your BS ... but its just not worth it. something like less web penalty on non mwding ships: eg. -90% speed reduction against mwding ships -60% speed reduction against abing ships -30% speed reduction against normal drives (includes overdrives) I pulled the numbers out of my hat but I hope you get the gist of it. Greetings Grim
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:10:00 - [446] Originally by: Silvero and the mass changes to the regular freighters The mass changes on the testserver is a mistake, it is already said by the devs it is not intended.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:14:00 - [447] Originally by: Goumindong Why is the Sleipnir using 220s instead of 425s when the Absolution is clearly using Heavy Pulses? Shouldnt the Sleipnir be using 425s in such a comparison? Silly Goon, it was because it was "Amarr oomphf" - showing that Amarr CAN do damage compared to other races crappier weapon. Oh btw, my new signature is f-a-n-t-a-s-t-i-c ! It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:15:00 - [448] I'd like to ask about motherships and titans. Post trinity they will only be able to be used in limited fights, when you have a support fleet with you, major op's, etc etc. This is because of their vulnrability when there is not a large gang to support them to kill HIC's. However, as supercap pilots cannot leave their ships unless they'd like it stolen from a POS, it seriously limits the play of those pilots. Should they be allowed to dock these ships so that the pilots can still play the game in other ship types? They could then fly other ships where a super cap would be overkill, or too vulnrable to use. Basically giving those pilots options to play eve when there is less than 50 people in gang. Additionally moving forward, those pilots would also be unable to use ambulation if they cannot dock up. Max --------------------
Gemini Zero Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:16:00 - [449] thank you all for replying to all the questions, and before i ask my questions i did read it ALL to make sure i'm not backtracking. here goes: 1) the nerf bat hits what the nerf bat hits, thats fine, but after scripts are implimented, do you really see any reason for someone to fly an eagle? they lost most of their use after the spike nerf/hp boost. now with scripts they get severly nerfed again since most eagle setups use multiple sensor boosters and tracking computers. so again, not arguing the scripts, i just would like to know if there is any hope for the eagle 2) someone covered some mods that need to be looked at, some mods like target painter IIs and large shield transporter IIs are a joke. they are actually worse than best named mods (and the best named mods are CHEAPER, go figure, people will buy anyting if you slap a yellow II on it). they usually offer the same moduler stat, with more training time reqiured and more fitting cost. was this intended? thanks again!
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:18:00 - [450] Originally by: Silvero So with the new jump freighter and the mass changes to the regular freighters you are pretty much sinking the last nail into the titan coffin. It now has now purpose in this game what so ever. Kinda fun how a ship that we were eagerly awaiting for over 3 years, combined with thousands of manhours are now nerfed to nothing. How can people say that a ship capable of insta incinerate a entire fleet, or insta jump a entire fleet has no purpose is beyond my imagination.



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.