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)
Rusty PwnStar Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:52:00 - [511] As 'Super Caps' seem to have lost the super status, don't you thinks it's time to allow them to dock? People were willing to remain in space and understood the reasons not to be able to dock, for the super status they held. As you've basically removed that, why limit their chars anymore? I know you've already mentioned in this thread, about this and said something along the lines of Anchoring at a POS. But no one in their right mind would leave a supercap at a POS, anchored or not. The whole Mothership and Titan idea, seems to have been washed away, in a very short time, leaving the over one and a half years of training, blowing in the wind. You said in this thread, ship diversity is what makes EvE, but then you are slowly removing that diversity, and making EvE, what you claim to be, balanced. People were drawn to this game for the hard edged threats it possessed, not sure I'm putting this across well though tbh. Regards Rusty
Pitt Bull Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:56:00 - [512] I didn't read the thread much past the first whiner (page 1). CCP I don't know what you've changed over the years, but what you have here is a gaming masterpiece. Keep up the good work and I'll be playing for years. Seems like some of you already have been playing for years, well, I guess you really like what CCP has done too! :) If you're upset about changes to the game, take a break for a month or two and when you get back you'll realise what you were missing.
Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:59:00 - [513] honestly, you should hire 1 or 2 guys to just answer all the questions that are posted daily... that wouldnt be time wasted, just see the morale boost about the dev "careness" this thread only has made to many of us ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:03:00 - [514] Originally by: Amarria Black Zulu: I know you're busy and being inundated, just calling attention to post #471 in case you missed it. Thanks for all your time here, mate. I've sent that to another dev for answering as I don't know enough about it.

Kazuo Ishiguro House of Marbles Zzz	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:12:00 - [515] Since this thread seems to be getting a lot of attention, perhaps you could answer this question: Will it be possible to build T2 freighters at NPC stations in high sec space? If not, where will it be possible to build them? I hear there might be plans to reduce the copy time (29 days at the very least). If not, can someone on the test server please spawn a bunch of freighter BPCs so people can try inventing them without having to wait for nearly a month? My research services Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant stats
Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:27:00 - [516] Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro Since this thread seems to be getting a lot of attention, perhaps you could answer this question: Will it be possible to build T2 freighters at NPC stations in high sec space? If not, where will it be possible to build them? I hear there might be plans to reduce the copy time (29 days at the very least). If not, can someone on the test server please spawn a bunch of freighter BPCs so people can try inventing them without having to wait for nearly a month? Getting some more info on JF's in general would be nice, like the questions/PoV's from page 15 :P Linkage to post!
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:30:00 - [517] Originally by: CCP Fendahl Originally by: Kaylana Syi 3) ... With "affordable" modules the Nidhoggur can armor tank better with the new 5/6 setup than it could shield tank before. Additionally, it's a lot easier to get a high effective capacitor recharge with armor tanking than with shield tanking. This in turn improves the remote repping capabilities. In the current 6/5 setup of the Nidhoggur I have a better recharge rate then if I would use armor tank in the new 5/6, although the shield tank I use is 10% weaker in repair output when using "affordable" gear (T2 invuls) then the armor tank of the new layout. The only issue I have though, is when I want to use capital shield transporters with shield tank, The Nidhoggur having less cpu (and less grid) then Thanatos is a bigger issue then the slot layout of the ship. Changing the Nidhoggur removes one of the shield tanking capitals from the game, at the moment there aren't that many of them(current ones not including supers are the Phoenix, Chimera and Nidhoggur, 3 out of 8 total). Besides that it sort of removes the link between the Nidhoggur and the Hel, unless you intend to also turn the Hel into an armor tanker with 5-7 layout. If not, I would expect to see the Nidhoggurs description changed to reflect that it is now the Thanatos' foreign adopted brother rather then little brother of the Hel. What I would suggest for the Nidhoggur is rather to increase the cpu by 75-100 to 775-800 base(50-25 less then Chimera). That would help a great deal with actually utilizing the shield logistics in a spider tank(which is currently unlikely due to shortage in cpu). Next to that, has there been any thought in changing the cpu/grid requirements of capital sized tanking modules, particularly the Capital shield booster appears out of whack. On an average carrier a capital shield booster + shield boost amp uses half the base cpu while the armor tank equivalent(2 capital armor repairers) is at 40% base grid. Reducing the Capital shield booster to 230 cpu would drop the cpu use to 40%, combine it with an increase of booster grid to 125000 to put grid use on par with cpu use of armor tank. -- stuff --

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:36:00 - [518] Originally by: Amarria Black Busy day, Zulu? A couple of questions: As decryptors are being removed from static plexes and demand is set to increase from a new wave of T2 ships, are the number of hacking sites slated to be increased in order to keep pace? Are the individual hacking sites having their decryptor availability increased? Has the econ genius taken a hard look at the impact of the decryptor changes and what they will do to the overall market? Has he also looked at the impact of increased demand for Mechanical Engineering datacores, and how that will affect both the overall datacore market and invention in general? Considering the upcoming changes, do you consider ship invention to be balanced for T2 ships which have BPOs? read this , and the blog as well. We would not increase supply to 'keep pace' with demand unless it was in severe shortage as decryptors are still regarded as luxury items and are also tiered by rarity. As for mechanical engineering datacores, we are still looking at options which may range from changing modules based on mech. engineering to electrical engineering to start of with and leaving ships to be the main item for mech. engineering to changing their balance in a much wider method. Also, supply and demand being the forces they are, appear to be working quite well and the prices are falling across the board currently whilst global player supplies are increasing rapidly.

Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:42:00 - [519] Originally by: Pheonix Kanan Originally by: CCP Zulupark I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. Does this mean that you plan to nerf omni tanks as well or just the natural armor resistance to EM damage? Then please remove natural high explosive resists on shields too, kthx. Or in other words, stop throwing diversity overboard.
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.09 14:56:00 - [520] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Drykor Can you address my points on the 5th page please Nozh? http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=5#126 I believe I already did good sir, a few posts up. I don't believe you did. You mentioned them in 1 post, saying the following: "The overall speed reduction was also like you said and other have pointed out an attempt to differentiate Interdictors and Interceptors. Don't worry I'm sure they're still going to be annoying as hell, they're still "almost" the only ship that can have an active effect on a battlefield while not being present." While I said (and please do check this yourself) that speedfitted inty's are already alot faster than even a sabre with simular fits. This is a very important point, the whole idea that Sabres are faster than interceptors is a MYTH coming from non-speedfitted interceptors such as the Taranis. They are only formally named interceptors, but they can't intercept anything, their description would be 'a fast small damagedealer.' Which is perfectly fine of course but you can't compare them to a speedfit Sabre. Just try messing around with all inty's and see how fast they go with a combination of overdrives/nano's in the lows and then compare the sabre, you might be surprised. On top of that, they need their speed to be a bit survivable for a primary target. I also mentioned alot of other points that you didn't address. I know dropping a bubble is nice (which you mentioned later in this thread) but it also means that everyone wants to kill you. They NEED to be survivable or people just won't bother with them except in very very specific situations such as capital tackling, where they expect to possibly lose the dictor but it will be worth the quite heavy cost. Of course they'll still be flown somewhat but why ruin an already impopular class by making them even less interesting?

Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:03:00 - [521] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Also, supply and demand being the forces they are, appear to be working quite well and the prices are falling across the board currently whilst global player supplies are increasing rapidly. One Problem with mech eng datacores is that there's max 3 lvl4 agents per faction that can actually research this category. Adding mech eng to more lvl4 R&D agents might eventually enable people to supply all the demanded cores, so prices would drop.
Oosel Nightmare Holdings Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:05:00 - [522] this is why i also play wow......when eve is no fun set a skill and keep setting skills until it becomes fun again. when enough people are not playing someone sees a drop off and goes eeeeeeek something is not right eve isnt fun for a player who for the most time plays solo but that doesnt mean its not the game for me i now just bin my 2 years of carrier skills and go back to mission in my nightmare or navy apoc in high sec and decide where to put my next lot of skill training
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:12:00 - [523] Reducing EM base resist will only make the omni issue WORSE. Because then no one would fit tri hardener setups. Everyone would use EANM. What needs to be done is BOOST single resist Hardeners (for example make them MUCH easier to fit CPU wise). Or simply remove the EM armor compensation skill. If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:30:00 - [524] Make lasers even more powerful, reduce base EM resist, decrease active's CPU need. Pow. In hte right proportions it'll work. Sure, it'd be more graceful to figure out a non-damage/resist way of making amarr viable, like the excellent nos/neut idea, more cap, or finally adding subsystem damage (Minnie arty's reeeally need this) Hell, making it so that lasers have a chance to give heat damage to other players modules, eventually shutting them down would be neat. I dont even fly amarr either. ----------------- Friends Forever Kill. BoB. Dead.
Viashivan Amarr FM Corp Insomnia.	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:32:00 - [525] I have to say IÆm impressed by this thread, I havenÆt seen anything like this for ages. Thus I will try to participate with my two questions to our beloved devs. My first question is related to speed. I was stated a few times that some ships are considered to too be faster than they are intended to be. It was also stated that speed tanking is a valid fitting option. But donÆt you have the feeling that the general speed especially for cruiser sized ships is too high? I think that the general speed level is too high and speed should be brought back to a level inside game-mechanics. With that I mean, that nano-ships have should have at least a chance, even if it is a low chance, to be hit and damaged by cruise-missiles or turrets with a high tracking speed. Do you follow this logic or do you disagree? As you have said amarr needs a boost and you are thinking about solutions, are you aware of this thread? It would be awesome if you could reply to it. That would first of all get more people to participate and would surely be appreciated by many amarr pilots. Thanks in advance for your time Via P.S. Thanks Rells for initializing this threat
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 15:34:00 - [526] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Amarria Black Busy day, Zulu? A couple of questions: As decryptors are being removed from static plexes and demand is set to increase from a new wave of T2 ships, are the number of hacking sites slated to be increased in order to keep pace? Are the individual hacking sites having their decryptor availability increased? Has the econ genius taken a hard look at the impact of the decryptor changes and what they will do to the overall market? Has he also looked at the impact of increased demand for Mechanical Engineering datacores, and how that will affect both the overall datacore market and invention in general? Considering the upcoming changes, do you consider ship invention to be balanced for T2 ships which have BPOs? read this , and the blog as well. We would not increase supply to 'keep pace' with demand unless it was in severe shortage as decryptors are still regarded as luxury items and are also tiered by rarity. As for mechanical engineering datacores, we are still looking at options which may range from changing modules based on mech. engineering to electrical engineering to start of with and leaving ships to be the main item for mech. engineering to changing their balance in a much wider method. Also, supply and demand being the forces they are, appear to be working quite well and the prices are falling across the board currently whilst global player supplies are increasing rapidly. Thx Chrono for your prompt reply, and thx Zulu for bumping it to the proper party. As suggested above, adding more L4 Mechanical Engineering agents per faction would go a long way toward filling the demand side, as would your suggestion to move mods away from Mechanical cores as a primary invention component. The supply of decryptors issue seems to be addressed by your linked post, in that the supply should stay somewhat stable, but not abusably farmable. Assuming you continue to improve exploration, obtaining decryptors shouldn't be an issue for people who could previously handle the static plexes. As to the current trends of T2 ship availability and price, surely you realize that this trend cannot hold. With twenty new T2 ships being introduced, demand for datacores will only go up. Compound this with the steadily increasing prices (and soon, scarcity) of decryptors, and you're looking at significant increases in invention costs across the board. Were the market completely invention driven, this wouldn't be an issue, but T2 BPO holders act as a spoiler to artificially deflate prices below a sustainable level for inventors. Again, if Dr. Eyjog has not been made aware of the breadth of the upcoming changes then I strongly suggest he be brought to speed, and if so, then his expert analysis would go a long way to quelling any concerns over the upcoming changes. On a tangent, excellent choice of Econ Genius. I can tell from the quality of his Econ blogs so far that he definitely knows what he's talking about.
Trojanman190 Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:09:00 - [527] Originally by: Kuolematon I still don't get it why minmatar T2 gets uber EM resists to SHIELDS when others does not. This makes Minmatar T2 ships overall resists very nice and slapping one extender or invul makes you happy bunny. Also guns that does not take cap is gooood.. can burn that MWD much longer. MWD in amarr ships is kinda .. suicidial I think it's perfectly fair. Try fitting an armor tank to a vagabond or a munin. You have two massive holes on your armor. Granted you are pretty much immune to em, you need to fit at least a kinetic and an explosive hardener. Each of these t2 ships has only 5 low slots. Look at a deimos. 6 low slots with only one hole on its armor. fit an explosive hardener and then plates. Armor tanking is just not feasible for minmatar t2 ships because of the disadvantage this armor hole puts us at. All other t2 ships in the game have only one hole to cover on their armor due to the naturally high EM resistance on all ships, and this leads to other races just armor tanking better than minmatar t2s. Since our (t2) ships kinda blow at armor tanking I think it is balanced they they enjoy a nice little bonus on the shields. Minmatar t2 ships are NOT as flexible as the t1 ships, we really don't have a choice between armor and shield tanking because of that EM resistance. Shield tanking, unless we are completely ewar fitted, just usually makes more sense. Also, slapping on an invuln is rather wasteful as you are boosting your extremely high em and fairly high explosive shield resists by a very small amount while barely getting your weak kinetic over 50%. With the prevalence of blasters, rails, and kinetic bonused caldari missiles, you are far better off tossing a kinetic hardener on. Also, I can't remember the last time my vagabond (or pest, or munin or <insert ship>) was being hit with lasers, much less EM missiles (even being attacked by them actually). Right now, with the lack of EM damage in PVP due to the lack of amar, the high EM resist isn't helping us much. It may look cozy for pilots looking at a vagabond and thinking "wow, they have everything covered with that EM hole fixed" fail to realize that few pilots actually shoot EM and we are far more worried about getting hosed with kinetic stuff. To counter some of what I have said (for the sake of good arguement) maybe the reason nobody shoots EM is because most nano ships ARE minmatar and have great EM resists, so there is no point in shooting it as us. And... armor tanked ships have a nice em resist even before an omnitank kicks in, so again, not much use for EM there.
Matrixcvd Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:09:00 - [528] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Or, OR, bring the new content in as A COMPATIBLE ADDITION with the current suite of ships, mods, and game mechanics. Spend more time thinking about how its going to impact the existing content and less time running around the office doing gee whiz engineering spouting "Hey dave thats a nice design for a ship we paid you 2 months salary building, lets stick that in TQ and justify the expense for your game development time, oh don't worry about balance, will just nerf the beejesus out of whatever doesn't quite fit that, its more important, ITS NEW!!!!" Nerfs and changes are one thing, concensus had it that cyno DD's had to go, but its the petty changes because 1 dev on the Nerf squad, decieded, "You can't put cargo in a ship then in another ship, thats lame!" What happens when another dev gets up and says, well i don't like that new pilots can get killed by older pilots, lets make it so guns will only train on people within +6 months of your creation date, or a myriad of other changes. Its a slippery slope here that just flat out scares people. There was no chorus of people calling for carrier changes, just seems like you need to justify new content by making the old stuff more irritating and useless followed by a vale of BS used to cover up weak justifications
Kagura Nikon Minmatar MASS HOMICIDE Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:17:00 - [529] Originally by: Viashivan I have to say IÆm impressed by this thread, I havenÆt seen anything like this for ages. Thus I will try to participate with my two questions to our beloved devs. My first question is related to speed. I was stated a few times that some ships are considered to too be faster than they are intended to be. It was also stated that speed tanking is a valid fitting option. But donÆt you have the feeling that the general speed especially for cruiser sized ships is too high? I think that the general speed level is too high and speed should be brought back to a level inside game-mechanics. With that I mean, that nano-ships have should have at least a chance, even if it is a low chance, to be hit and damaged by cruise-missiles or turrets with a high tracking speed. Do you follow this logic or do you disagree? As you have said amarr needs a boost and you are thinking about solutions, are you aware of this thread? It would be awesome if you could reply to it. That would first of all get more people to participate and would surely be appreciated by many amarr pilots. Thanks in advance for your time Via P.S. Thanks Rells for initializing this threat On my view this problem only exist with Snakes and or deep space MWD. Snakes can use a nerf and ALL mwd could use a reduction as well. Much better to reduce overall ships speed by reducing MWD than hiting ONLY ships that focus on speed. That because those ships need to go THAt fast exaclty because evry ship even the heavy BS go > 1 km/s If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:20:00 - [530] Originally by: Amarria Black nice points I have a blog due out in next few days covering yet more changes to invention which should ease some of your concerns. The next invention blog after that one will look at what the future holds for invention and starting the ball rolling on a path for invention to evolve towards in the next year. Something which some players are already talking about here to link a current example.


Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:25:00 - [531] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Amarria Black nice points I have a blog due out in next few days covering yet more changes to invention which should ease some of your concerns. The next invention blog after that one will look at what the future holds for invention and starting the ball rolling on a path for invention to evolve towards in the next year. Something which some players are already talking about here to link a current example. Thanks a lot for the links and the responses. I'm looking forward to your future blogs and posts. You guys seem to at least be on the same page as I, which by itself is reassuring. I'd not happened across the game dev forum post, as I regard that as the place where good ideas go to die. -_^
Letrange Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:29:00 - [532] Cargo SUGGESTION: Ok, reading between the lines (and some explicit posts from the devs) the big problem with carriers atm is the way they exploit he ability to contain ships that themselves can be expanded to allow the carrier to haul a ridiculous amount of stuff. How about adding a stat to the cargo expanding things (rigs and modules), that they not only expand internal volume but also EXTERNAL volume. And make sure that the external volume is always bigger than the internal volume. This way you'll never run into a situation where it's better to stuff things into a ship and then put the ship into the carrier. Note that this wouldn't impact the packages volume, just the unpackaged volume. Or would this not work? (and yes, I've always been disturbed by the containers that can hold more than the space they take up). Or was this fixed in a previous patch? - not a carrier pilot.
Dracorimus Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:32:00 - [533] Edited by: Dracorimus on 09/11/2007 16:33:10 I still feel lasers should be hitting much harder.. as look at what a laser is, its a beam of light that is very hot (in this case a weapon ofc) therefore it should be capable of doing much more damage than it does..... As for the Amarr/Minnie argument, minnie are way to fast still for Lasers to track well, and thus gives the advantage straight away to back the minnie pilot unless he gets in web range (how often does that happen?) Vaga vs Zealot I cant hit the vaga but with hail and 220's the vaga will always win, I shoot EM/Therm to no effect as he got 2 x large shield ext II mostly and big EM resist... Not to mention usually a LG/HG snake set + polycarb rigs 10k+ .. mmm I will put my thinking cap on when Im home.... -
MingRan	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:40:00 - [534] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Myrmidon has an impressive damage output and can still field 5 medium drones. The Vexor is a tech 1 cruiser and can still launch a 2/2/1 drone combination (2x heavy, 2x medium and a light drone) for some impressive damage and can still hold spare drones. Sorry, I didn`t read all 19 pages (skipped about 7) so if this already has been answered, forgive me. Any chance the dronebandwith on the Myrmidon can be increase to 80 (maybe even on the Vexor) ? Don`t get me wrong, I don`t want the extra dps from using a 2/3 mix instead of a 2/2/1 mix, but I just don`t like the idea of using 3 different sizes at once. Or at least promise to finally fix the light buggers, they still don`t get back to the ship most of the time (warriors II).
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:44:00 - [535] Edited by: Elmicker on 09/11/2007 16:47:54 Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Emphasis added on the important bit. A rook can comfortably jam 2-3 BSes with very few breaks. The celestis, arazu and lachesis, once this nerf comes into play, have to focus all their EW capability onto a single target to take them out of a close-mid range fight. That's hardly balanced for the racial EW of the close-range race.
Polinus	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:48:00 - [536] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Emphasis added on the important bit. A rook can comfortably jam 2-3 BSes with very few breaks. The celestis, arazu and lachesis, once this nerf comes into play, have to focus all their EW capability onto a single target to take them out of a close-mid range fight. That's hardly balanced for the racial EW of the close-range race. But a BS can easily defend itself against even several ECm ships, just using an ECCM. An Hyperion with an ECCm for example, very high sensor strenght.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:52:00 - [537] Originally by: Polinus But a BS can easily defend itself against even several ECm ships, just using an ECCM. An Hyperion with an ECCm for example, very high sensor strenght. The exact same can be said for a hyperion with a sensor booster, loading whichever script is more needed. The arazu and lachesis now serve no role other than long-range warp scrambling. You may as well bring a keres for dampening. Or hell, even a maulus. They all get the same bonus. It was useful pre-nerf because you could lock down any ship with 2 damps, to the 3 an unbonused ship would have to use. Now you have to use 4 to lock down a single ship, and even then you've not knocked him below web range.
Gealbhan Caldari The SAS The Kano Organisation	Posted - 2007.11.09 16:59:00 - [538] There is an old Minmatar proverb... "The squeeky wheel gets the grease" ...they use a lot of grease. "Concentrate all your fire on one target, when it is destroyed, move on to the next. That is how you secure victory". - Tactica Imperium.
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.09 17:23:00 - [539] Edited by: Moraguth on 09/11/2007 17:24:42 Edited by: Moraguth on 09/11/2007 17:24:02 CCP Zulupark... I totally take back all the mean things I said when you introduced the carrier nerf as your introduction to us. I didn't say anything mean to you, but alot of people did, so sorry for them too. I have a couple ideas, been thinking about scripts lately, that I think could help me "adapt" to certain playstyles that really are difficult for me to overcome. yes, i'm still worried about speed tanks. What if we introduced scripts for webifiers too. Keep the base stats the same (because they're pretty limited right now), but give people the option to put in a script. The one I'm thinking of, decrease effectiveness by 50%, increase range by 50%. Those are just random numbers, but you see where I'm going with this. Also, http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=528097 Idea on being able to "defend" other ships by having damage that would be dealt to them be dealt to you instead. Also, http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=590613 Idea on boosting cap batteries (maybe tie this into amarr oomph boost) where cap batteries (give even more cap than they do now, and) also create a "protected" reserve of cap that can't be nossed/neutralized. This is honestly the best thread I've ever seen. With this much communication, there's no limit to how happy I'll feel and how much better I think the game will be because of it. Thank you so much Zulu and Nozh. EDIT: And now Chronotis too. good game
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 17:23:00 - [540] Originally by: CCP Zulupark The Hactor (lol) is going to have severe drawbacks while scrambling, so I think that's a fair trade-off. Originally by: CCP Mindstar Just to confirm - The focused warp disruption script does indeed remove all of the drawbacks of the warp disruption field generator when it is loaded.



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.