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

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)
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:01:00 - [1] From the point of view of the people testing on Sisi, it looks like you are SHATTERING the balance of the game. Almost every single ship and pilot will be affected by the massive changes. What I cant figure out is where you are all going with all of these changes? What is the goal of the changes or the vision you are contemplating? I personally c ant figure it out. Modules with scripts are going to be significantly weaker (even with the script installed) than original modules. For example, max targeting range reduction on a tech 2 damp even with a script is only 40% with good skills. The other script modules are in the same boat. These changes to ewar affect every single ship in the game. Carriers are getting nerfed for unknown reasons. If the goal is to make the jump freighter useful then the answer is to change the stats and bonuses on the jump freighter, not nerf the carrier to the point it cant be used in combat. As for motherships and titans, just make them susceptible to warp scrams and give them 10 points built in. Solves the problem of tackling them without the gymnastics of creating a new ship class only to tackle a single ship. Its quite a bit rediculous that a ship class has been created that basically has the only useful role of tackling less than 30 ships in the game. Also motherships should be fearsome damage machines. Heavy interdictors would be great with mobile moving warp disruption field. Slow but mobile rather than to tackle supercapitals. The nerfs across the point makes no sense. I cant see a unifying theme behind it. Its as if you got a new producer that has never played the game before. I would like to know what your goal is. And I would ask you FERVENTLY to reconsider many of the mistakes that are about to be made. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
CharlieMurphy Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:11:00 - [2] Originally by: Rells And I would ask you FERVENTLY to reconsider many of the mistakes that are about to be made. yep, agree with you there CCP better tread very carefully cause it sure looks like they are about to crappy up their game big time but hey we the players dont know what else they have planned (yeah right) and its CCPs game so in the end they can do what they like, the players opinion is irrelevant and if you dont like it leave and can i have your stuff etc etc i think if half this stuff makes it onto tranq then the game will be less fun because of it... but hey - prove me wrong CCP
Delphi Disra Gallente An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:14:00 - [3] agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way...
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar mUfFiN fAcToRy	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:18:00 - [4] Bring it on, CCP! Nerf the hell out of capitals! Nerf ECM! Nerf missiles/torps! Nerf missions! Nerf mining! Whatever you do, I'll be here not complaining about it Originally by: Liz Kali Tic Toc Tic Toc , time is ticking I owned someone on forums!!!
Kali Ananda Minmatar Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:24:00 - [5] Signed. Game balance is fine now, quit nerfing ships and modules. I've been playing for 2 and a half years, and its starting to upset me that ships I have specialized in for large months of training have/are being reduced so much. Its fun to be a specialist, but not if you keep getting the wind knocked out of your gameplay. Come on CCP, there are counters to everything already, stop!!!!! Kali Ananda POD-U
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:31:00 - [6] Originally by: Kali Ananda Signed. Come on CCP, there are counters to everything already, stop!!!!! Agreed. They need to stop listening to the whine parade that cant use their brain to go further than tank and gank. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Tortun Nahme Minmatar Heimatar Services Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:37:00 - [7] Originally by: Rells Originally by: Kali Ananda Signed. Come on CCP, there are counters to everything already, stop!!!!! Agreed. They need to stop listening to the whine parade that cant use their brain to go further than tank and gank. yeah, because this whine is so much more legitimate precious fail Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 04/11/2007 21:34:44 EDIT You know what, Tortun has this one under control...* *Basks in the chaos of this thread
Abrynn Minmatar CCCP INC Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 06:54:00 - [8] I'm afraid the game i love is gonna start to phase out like many others before it, too many nerf's and now stupidity I sure hope they have a plan for all this stuff that plays into were this game goes next and i hope its good.
Tank jr	Posted - 2007.11.07 07:19:00 - [9] CCP's master plane is to make this game a 1 ship, 1 gun 1, race game where nobody is any differnt than anyone else, a new player is just as good as a old player, and all them skills you learned, and training time will just get thrown out the door. this is the path CCP is heading can't you tell
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.07 07:21:00 - [10] Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... you know your sig made everyone ignore you right? rofl. Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
Stakhanov The Good Fellas	Posted - 2007.11.07 07:45:00 - [11] Edited by: Stakhanov on 07/11/2007 07:46:40 Originally by: Rells The nerfs across the point makes no sense. I cant see a unifying theme behind it. Its as if you got a new producer that has never played the game before. Actually , I can. Fool around with the shiny features (ambulation , trinity engine) , have your attention brought to the forums (consumed in flames and whines) , nerfbat the crap out of supposedly overpowered ships / modules and add a lot of mostly useless (pre-nerfed or unbalanced) new features to make it look like a major organized content addition. Back down if the counter-whines set the forum on fire (as seen for carriers) Quote: I would like to know what your goal is. And I would ask you FERVENTLY to reconsider many of the mistakes that are about to be made. Unfortunately , it looks like the only way to dampen (pun intended) these nerfs is to fight whines with whines. I think a good deal of gallente recon pilots have accepted the fate of their loved ships and went straight to the mourning phase. But it's the last straw for amarr recon pilots who get their tracking disruptors nerfed as well. This thread is a good reference for constructive feedback / analysis of Eve issues if you can find a listening dev. Until then , let's just slap their drunken heads silly with nerd rage Originally by: F'nog One does not simply log into Jita.
Baleur Miners In Barges Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.11.07 07:52:00 - [12] Lol you say that it "shatters tha balance of the game" What balance? Amarr? We need all the changes we can get. ------------------------- This post represents my entire alliance views and opinions. Not.. ;(
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.07 07:55:00 - [13] I can be mistaken but the only explanation I see is that CCP is preparing the field for the T3 introduction. To avoid a too high disparity between new player and people with T3 items they need to have a lesser difference and power on lesser modules. Butting top tiers items and adding overly powerful new T3 items would really have a WOW like more sword of uberdoom effect. Reducing the general power level of the currently in game items so the new items don't need to be more powerful can be a better system to introduce them without too much balancing problems.
Shayleigh Snowflower DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.07 07:59:00 - [14] Originally by: Rells From the point of view of the people testing on Sisi, it looks like you are SHATTERING the balance of the game. Almost every single ship and pilot will be affected by the massive changes. What I cant figure out is where you are all going with all of these changes? What is the goal of the changes or the vision you are contemplating? I personally c ant figure it out. Modules with scripts are going to be significantly weaker (even with the script installed) than original modules. For example, max targeting range reduction on a tech 2 damp even with a script is only 40% with good skills. The other script modules are in the same boat. These changes to ewar affect every single ship in the game. Carriers are getting nerfed for unknown reasons. If the goal is to make the jump freighter useful then the answer is to change the stats and bonuses on the jump freighter, not nerf the carrier to the point it cant be used in combat. As for motherships and titans, just make them susceptible to warp scrams and give them 10 points built in. Solves the problem of tackling them without the gymnastics of creating a new ship class only to tackle a single ship. Its quite a bit rediculous that a ship class has been created that basically has the only useful role of tackling less than 30 ships in the game. Also motherships should be fearsome damage machines. Heavy interdictors would be great with mobile moving warp disruption field. Slow but mobile rather than to tackle supercapitals. The nerfs across the point makes no sense. I cant see a unifying theme behind it. Its as if you got a new producer that has never played the game before. I would like to know what your goal is. And I would ask you FERVENTLY to reconsider many of the mistakes that are about to be made. First : Sensorboosters / sensordampners. They are VERY overpowered compared to other modules. The dampner because of the huge falloff, and the sensorboosters because they boost 2 VERY usefull attributes. (range and speed). Sensordampners are the bane of carriers, and they are quite a lot better than the other modules, like, Targetpainters, Weapon disruptors etc. The turnament prooved it to. Scripts will make you able to specialize your trait somewhat.. If you want to lock from 200km, then atleast you will use 15 sec like the rest of the ships. Makes more room for closerange variations. Carriers gets a boost from the nerf of dampners. YARR! Carriers gets a role-nerf, forcing it to have multiple fittings, not just combat fit and speed-cap-fit. There will come more fightertypes, how is that a nerf? You can only use 5 drones yourself, are not either a real nerf, it just FORCE the carrier somewhat into the role of a support ship, where it is supposed to be. A carrier should NOT be a solo pwn mobile. (fix my Nidhoggers plz .. more CPU, and a usefull bonus like the caldari / amarr) MS/Titans, 10 point built in? I am afraid that would be even more deadly for them. Means a single tempest can hold down an avatar until the cavalery arrive, and once there are 5 carriers there, it will be toast.. very bad idea. And the new heavy dictors will be AWSOME for skirmishes. Have you seen the awsome tank? I can see nothing but good things from the last 6-12 months of new game mechanic implementations.
DreadMasters	Posted - 2007.11.07 08:04:00 - [15] Because CCP are doing what every failing game is Slamming lots more new content in, in a vain hope that people won't quit, they lost over 20k subs last year alone. The fact that they would rather add new content than fix the server problems pretty much says how they think - Long as you keep paying we will be ignored. Customer service is **** anyway
Stakhanov The Good Fellas	Posted - 2007.11.07 08:44:00 - [16] Originally by: Shayleigh Snowflower First : Sensorboosters / sensordampners. They are VERY overpowered compared to other modules. The dampner because of the huge falloff, and the sensorboosters because they boost 2 VERY usefull attributes. (range and speed). Sensordampners are the bane of carriers, and they are quite a lot better than the other modules, like, Targetpainters, Weapon disruptors etc. The turnament prooved it to. It's funny that you mention falloff , some people argue that the nerfed damps will find a new niche in disabling snipers. If only... tell that to the stealth bomber that locked me at 140km with 3 damps on it. Sure , you can break a lock from 70km - congratulation , your specialty is now to prevent the enemy from locking you and throw pityful damage while your gang is under fire. ECM is good long range ewar , damps are not. Sure , sensor boosters were popular , they're nice modules to have if you don't use a standard MWD / web / scram / cap injector setup. They're not ewar , they just boost your sensors. So what , some inty pilot is crying because he got locked too soon flying in a straight line towards sniper BS ? Oh , and tracking disruptors are so totally overpowered. Yeah , amarr recons really need to be nerfed again. Maybe we can bring some turret ships to pvp now ? Originally by: F'nog One does not simply log into Jita.
Xtreem Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.07 09:24:00 - [17] if they do nurf carriers as intended i will at leat attempt to send in a petition to get the time taken to train for capitals (and the lvl 5 fighter/carrer i trained) back into a skill set i can use, as they have made the ship not what i wanted to fly
WhiteSavage Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.07 09:35:00 - [18] If i leave its gonna be because of all you old player whining and pounding sand every time ccp adds something/changes something... I enjoy the new content and consider their reasoning behind changes. For example, one of the dev guys said the servers just cant handle the amount of drones/fighters in a sys at once now because of how carriers/caps are being used. I lied if i leave EVE its gonna be cuz peeps on forums make me want to kick rocks. ___________________________________________ Facta Non Verba
Mag's MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.07 09:40:00 - [19] WoW-Online anyone? Mag's
Ralitge boyter Minmatar	Posted - 2007.11.07 09:48:00 - [20] Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:50:46 Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:49:24 Here is a thought: EVE has been around for quite some time, every big new feature nerf/change that gets introduced has resulted in the same complaints. And after every single new patch upgrade and release CCP has seen the number of subscribers rise. Lag is an issue in large scale battles and busy systems, CCP is responding to this a new graphics engine will make for a better FPS rate causing the perceived lag to be far less. On top of this CCP anounced they are, together with some very big names (IBM, Miscrosoft), looking into building a far better cluster that should address the lag issues that we are seeing now. As for the T3 remark before I am pretty sure that that is very close to the mark. Because I am sure CCP would never give us a T2 equivalent to the current T2 weapons as this would mean that new players are effectively banned from playing till they can use at least T2 weapons. The fact that all guns and modules get a bit weaker goes a long way to making for longer more tactical warfare as well again a CCP idea, where we coud even do sub-system targeting and such. In short after playing ever since beta I am quite sure that CCP will not ignore us or ruin the game for us. They will make mistakes that is for sure but ruin what, for at least the core team, is their baby; the thing that provides them with a job, food and a roof above their heads somehow I doubt it. ------------------------------------------- Should you disagree with me, well I guess that is because I disagree with you. If you have a problem with that please feel free not to tell me.
Mag's MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.07 10:10:00 - [21] Originally by: Ralitge boyter Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:50:46 Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:49:24 Here is a thought: EVE has been around for quite some time, every big new feature nerf/change that gets introduced has resulted in the same complaints. And after every single new patch upgrade and release CCP has seen the number of subscribers rise. Lag is an issue in large scale battles and busy systems, CCP is responding to this a new graphics engine will make for a better FPS rate causing the perceived lag to be far less. On top of this CCP anounced they are, together with some very big names (IBM, Miscrosoft), looking into building a far better cluster that should address the lag issues that we are seeing now. As for the T3 remark before I am pretty sure that that is very close to the mark. Because I am sure CCP would never give us a T2 equivalent to the current T2 weapons as this would mean that new players are effectively banned from playing till they can use at least T2 weapons. The fact that all guns and modules get a bit weaker goes a long way to making for longer more tactical warfare as well again a CCP idea, where we coud even do sub-system targeting and such. In short after playing ever since beta I am quite sure that CCP will not ignore us or ruin the game for us. They will make mistakes that is for sure but ruin what, for at least the core team, is their baby; the thing that provides them with a job, food and a roof above their heads somehow I doubt it. I agree, but in the time they have grown, they seem to have become more detached from the player base. As the player base has grown, that close bond between the devs and players has diminished. To a point where, most players believe the devs now, don't understand their own game. I believe they do understand the game as a whole, but I also believe, they are not focused enough on the changes/nerfs they are making. There seems to be an adhoc way, about things atm. New dev blogs, with seemingly little understanding of the ships mentioned. Nerf bats swung on ships, with scant regard as to their future role. Change can be a good thing, but it does need more thought, which in my opinion, seems to be lacking. But then again, I'm just a grunt, so why do I matter. Mag's
Shayleigh Snowflower DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.07 10:18:00 - [22] Originally by: Ralitge boyter Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:50:46 Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:49:24 As for the T3 remark before I am pretty sure that that is very close to the mark. Because I am sure CCP would never give us a T2 equivalent to the current T2 weapons as this would mean that new players are effectively banned from playing till they can use at least T2 weapons. I totally dissagree. Look at the T2 guns. They are custom-made for the T2 amo (that have been nerfed somewhat) 30 people, that are 1 month into the game, can put up a gang and go KILL, easilly , 10 people that have been around since 2003, if they plan it correctly and jump them. 10 blackbirds, 10 armageddons 10 rifters.. Tackle, jam, kill. The ONLY thing 1-2 month old players can't efficiently fight are (super)cap-fleets. 50 3 month old players, dedicated to the cause, each fielding a T1 named gun laser-boat can go out there and kill the POS's to atleast half the alliances in game. 50 3 month old players with a decent plan, can with relative ease go kill/chase a 20 man none-capital BOB/SE/Goon/AAA fleet as long as they get help from a couple of dictors and CovOp probers. All the n00bs need to know are how to set up overview, listen to TS and shoot primary and tackle something. Can I go to WOW, and play 10 hours / week for 3 months, and then take on some 5 x level 65 gang along with my 50 other level 30-40 crew? No. You can ONLY fly 1 ship at a time. You can have a BLAST in a rifter or a caracal.
ZerKar Caldari Zen'Tar	Posted - 2007.11.07 10:49:00 - [23] Originally by: Tank jr CCP's master plane is to make this game a 1 ship, 1 gun 1, race game where nobody is any differnt than anyone else, a new player is just as good as a old player, and all them skills you learned, and training time will just get thrown out the door. this is the path CCP is heading can't you tell You are almost right from what I can see if they keep heading down this road. Already there are only 2 real viable races in EvE, the Gallente and Minmatar (in that order) and if they keep making everything the same they will eventually make SP count for more and more. After all if every ship flown by every person is the same in every way to every one else's the only difference will be how much SP that person has to put behind it. Once they all reach peak SP for that ship then it is all over and everyone is equal. +++++++++++++++ I saw the Sign...! O.o
ZerKar Caldari Zen'Tar	Posted - 2007.11.07 10:56:00 - [24] Originally by: Shayleigh Snowflower Originally by: Ralitge boyter Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:50:46 Edited by: Ralitge boyter on 07/11/2007 09:49:24 As for the T3 remark before I am pretty sure that that is very close to the mark. Because I am sure CCP would never give us a T2 equivalent to the current T2 weapons as this would mean that new players are effectively banned from playing till they can use at least T2 weapons. I totally dissagree. Look at the T2 guns. They are custom-made for the T2 amo (that have been nerfed somewhat) 30 people, that are 1 month into the game, can put up a gang and go KILL, easilly , 10 people that have been around since 2003, if they plan it correctly and jump them. 10 blackbirds, 10 armageddons 10 rifters.. Tackle, jam, kill. The ONLY thing 1-2 month old players can't efficiently fight are (super)cap-fleets. 50 3 month old players, dedicated to the cause, each fielding a T1 named gun laser-boat can go out there and kill the POS's to atleast half the alliances in game. 50 3 month old players with a decent plan, can with relative ease go kill/chase a 20 man none-capital BOB/SE/Goon/AAA fleet as long as they get help from a couple of dictors and CovOp probers. All the n00bs need to know are how to set up overview, listen to TS and shoot primary and tackle something. Can I go to WOW, and play 10 hours / week for 3 months, and then take on some 5 x level 65 gang along with my 50 other level 30-40 crew? No. You can ONLY fly 1 ship at a time. You can have a BLAST in a rifter or a caracal. I always love these exaggerated figures. I know for a fact that 115 noob Fitted Ibis can pwn a Rokh but that does not mean that a Noob is going to be able to get 114 people to join him for an assault. Most Noobs are lucky to even attract 1 person to do anything with off the bat. Why put your trust in some complete stranger with no skill or understanding when you can grab someone you know or who is competent? Yes, eventaully Players can accomplish great things together, but I think it needs to be stated from time to time that this is not something they should expect to be able to do from the first couple of weeks. It takes time to build relationships and trust and even get that "gang" that can take down and older player and that older player has had a lot longer to get themselves together a group of tough vicious ombres. So take a step back from the exaggerated numbers because a lot of Noobs are fairly well banned from real and especaily victorious combat PvP for quite awhile. Though I will agree that unless they are shooting for 0.0 Sec they do not NEED to be flying a T2 Ship and even then 0.0 Still needs BS Blob pilots for the Alliance RTS warfare. +++++++++++++++ I saw the Sign...! O.o
Motokko	Posted - 2007.11.07 10:59:00 - [25] Touch the game mechanics and people will shoot their moves off. Dont touch the game mechanics and people will still shoot their mouths off. Ignore all the whining wh*res because no matter what you do you'll not please them, they'll always find something to whinge about. Keep your heads down and continue to create the game according to your own vision rather than letting all these crying children grab at the steering wheel and pull the game in conflicting directions. ------------------- "Stay Alert! Trust No One! Keep Your Laser Handy!"
Saint Luka The Illuminati. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.07 11:08:00 - [26] Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... From what i've seen so far it appears CCP is at the stage where they have an established playerbase and think they are invulnerable, if they change something the players dont like, they'll stay. Honestly i'm counting down the days for a similar game too come out, they can take my subscription. -
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.07 11:15:00 - [27] It is such a damn tragedy that people new to the game should have to train the same skills for the same amount of time that people who have been playing for a year or more had to. Really, they should just be given half a billion ISK, 5m SP, and and 3 Battleships of their selected race out of the gate.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.07 11:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Tank jr CCP's master plane is to make this game a 1 ship, 1 gun 1, race game where nobody is any differnt than anyone else, a new player is just as good as a old player, and all them skills you learned, and training time will just get thrown out the door. this is the path CCP is heading can't you tell I hate to feed trolls but... the changes will make it so... only minmatar will use painters and tracking links well ammar will use nuets and nos and tracking disruptors well only caldari will use ECM effectivly and only gallente will be able to damp how is this one ship one race? they are making the ships more different, making ships like the rifter bad at damping is a good thing. not IMO but it just is, a good thing. you can still do it,. and you still fit ECM to a rifter. but it won't be very good. while a new player can train for 2 months and get into one of the new EW frigates and be better at ECM, or damps than an 4 year old player. because that player is in the wrong ship. meaning skills mean less than ship type. Which makes ships very different, makes set ups more cookie cutter, and makes skill less important. THIS IS A GOOD THING. so how is the above making all of the ships the same if they are forcing you to use special ships or you suck again? P.s.(sp is a joke the number means nothing, unless you don't have the intellagence to understand simple concepts) Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
Verone	Posted - 2007.11.07 11:27:00 - [29] Originally by: Rells From the point of view of the people testing on Sisi, I stopped reading here. The stats on the test server are never final, that's why it's called a TEST server. There's no need to get worked up about changes there... they're being TESTED, and may not go live. >>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.07 11:27:00 - [30] Originally by: Saint Luka Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... From what i've seen so far it appears CCP is at the stage where they have an established playerbase and think they are invulnerable, if they change something the players dont like, they'll stay. Honestly i'm counting down the days for a similar game too come out, they can take my subscription. CCP doesn't not =EA. this is CCP's game, very since day one people have HATED it. they are an indie company, which means they have allways had weak numbers, and they don't give a ****. they are making the game they want you, and there is no cake. Take off you damn tin foil hat mate! Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
CharlieMurphy Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2007.11.07 12:50:00 - [31] Originally by: MotherMoon meaning skills mean less than ship type. Which makes ships very different, makes set ups more cookie cutter and you really think that a good thing ? sounds about as bad as it can get to me surprise setups are part of the game, they keep things interesting
Stitcher Caldari legion of qui Freelancer Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 12:54:00 - [32] I'd prefer a game that changes to a stagnant, unchanging morass. I tend to back every change CCP makes - I am ESPECIALLY behind the carrier "nerf" (the quotation marks are there for one simple reason - the change will not in any way reduce the carrier's ability as a combat ship, at least not for the people who are using it properly to begin with) Go CCP! - The game is not the problem. The problem is that you are not adapting to the game.
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.07 12:59:00 - [33] Edited by: MotherMoon on 07/11/2007 12:59:48 Originally by: CharlieMurphy Originally by: MotherMoon meaning skills mean less than ship type. Which makes ships very different, makes set ups more cookie cutter and you really think that a good thing ? sounds about as bad as it can get to me surprise setups are part of the game, they keep things interesting sry I should of added that this may not be the best choice, I was just arguing that these changes were in no way making the whole game one ship with one race. Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
Nareg Maxence Gallente Phoenix Wing Acheron Federation	Posted - 2007.11.07 16:28:00 - [34] Is there somewhere that I can get a summary of the changes? If not, could someone please do a summary here? Also, what are scripts? Are they programs that you can write yourself?
Khes	Posted - 2007.11.07 16:42:00 - [35] Im also curious about these scripts. What are those and/or where can I read about them?

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 18:40:00 - [36] Scripts are being introduced to split up bonuses on certain modules, this change has been a long time coming and been discussed a lot here at the office for a very long time. We feel scripts will bring more balance to these types of modules, and add more diversity to combat. Instead of looking at this like a "nerf" just try to see this as a way to make combat a bit more unpredictable. Warping your close range fleet in to an unsuspecting enemy fleet with "Scan Resolution" scripts loaded will surely put you at an advantage. If you're still not sure why we're doing changes to the carriers you should read this dev blog again. The carrier ship maintenance bay is being boosted in its intended role, you might have noticed it has been doubled in size and the volume of most ship classes have been adjusted. Ships inside the ship maintenance bay will still be able to hold ammo and charges. As for the reason of this change, even though many of you have gotten used to it, the carrier was never supposed to be a jump capable hauler. Originally by: Rells As for motherships and titans, just make them susceptible to warp scrams and give them 10 points built in. Solves the problem of tackling them without the gymnastics of cre.... This would be far to overpowered and unfair towards "super capitals". It would also make support fleets pretty much useless since you could just tell all your capital pilots to fit one disruptor. The "hactors" (like someone very clever started calling them) will be vulnerable when tackling and be useful in many situations, not only super capital scrambling. Our goal is to make EVE better, more balanced and more fun for everyone. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.07 18:43:00 - [37] Thanks for the reply Nozh. Of course people will flood in to disagree (using the polite term here) on the specifics, but thanks anyway. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 18:47:00 - [38] Originally by: Tarminic Thanks for the reply Nozh. Of course people will flood in to disagree (using the polite term here) on the specifics, but thanks anyway. Things are slowing down a bit now at the office, so we (the balancing team) will try to be more visible on the forums now. And yeah, I know people will disagree (using the polite term here also) with me, I just hope they don't disagree with me too hard :l Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Matrixcvd Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 18:50:00 - [39] Originally by: CCP Nozh Our goal is to make EVE better, more balanced and more fun for everyone. By making it worse, more difficult, ridiculous for the majority of people who have spent a long time trying to work out the complex mechanics? The worst part are the justifications, not so much the changes themselves. Your devblogCarriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE??? Is completely and utterly inaccurate and it was pointed out earlier in this thread that there seems to be a huge disconnect between how mods and mechanics are thought up and how they are actually used by the players. Tarmac you are useless and remind me of the individuals that run around posting positive comments about apartment buildings when there are rats and baby diapers in the laundry room on apartmentsforrent.com
Turin Caldari Eternity INC. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.07 18:52:00 - [40] Originally by: CCP Nozh Our goal is to make the vet players of eve quit,so the game is more balanced and more fun for newer players. I fixed your post. _________________________________
bobtheminer Damned Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:04:00 - [41] the changes mentioned in the 2nd carrier blog should come in but, i think what many ppl are having a problem with is that your taking away the only resonable logistic tool for 0.0 and not letting your purposed replacments fully setup in build chains/skill training, etc unless your lucky like my self i can be in a rorqual in a matter of hours but i doubt thats the case for alot of alliances, yet to want to remove their capcity to do logistics till they train for more than likely a month or more, the ammount of info flowing on changes that are going to affect almost every 0.0 entity in eve is slightly worrying im sure it needs testing etc, but ppl are woundering why a t2 freighter and not teir 2, considering it takes i think ppl quoted 60 days for freighter 5, im personaly never going to spend that sorta time on 1 skill for a ship thats completely defenceless, make the changes to carriers fine, but dont rush it let rorquals and jump freighters take over if their that much better than carriers at it, ppl will train the skills to save even more time on logistics and X months down the line at a mid patch like the 1 that brought in the rorqual remove their hauling ability, im pritty sure devs dont like doing 6 hour ops to move freighters around and if u dont like it i think i can safely say that the rest of the community dont either

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:06:00 - [42] Skill requirements have actually been adjusted. Racial Freighter 4 Jump Freighters 1 Jump Calibration 1 Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:08:00 - [43] Originally by: Matrixcvd Originally by: CCP Nozh Our goal is to make EVE better, more balanced and more fun for everyone. By making it worse, more difficult, ridiculous for the majority of people who have spent a long time trying to work out the complex mechanics?... Yeah it's really complex to fit a carrier. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Elendar Slacker Industries Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:10:00 - [44] Supply convoys should be vulnerable and be forced to actually move through space, not untouchable jump boats. Personally i'd prefer it if they removed jump logistics altogether. Its a game, adapt to the new meta rather than crying about the loss of the old one ---------------------------- There is no sig
Aram Gishno Caldari Shadow Front Lost Children of Eve	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:11:00 - [45] Edited by: Aram Gishno on 07/11/2007 19:12:47 Originally by: CCP Nozh If you're still not sure why we're doing changes to the carriers you should read this dev blog again. Nozh, Actually, the blog cleared up a lot of misconceptions that I had earlier regarding the changes. Your statement regarding the fact that the changes proposed earlier were not going into effect were interesting. I do wonder if the change team had a chance to evaluate a few players request that the carrier be broken into two classes or tiers? One being support focused while the other combative. For myself, I can fully stand behind this as a resonable alternative and a way to add more dynamics for this class.
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:13:00 - [46] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... you know your sig made everyone ignore you right? rofl. It didn't. -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Bimjo Caldari SKULLDOGS	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:17:00 - [47] Originally by: Verone Originally by: Rells From the point of view of the people testing on Sisi, I stopped reading here. The stats on the test server are never final, that's why it's called a TEST server. There's no need to get worked up about changes there... they're being TESTED, and may not go live. well put come on guys, lets all(including me) just wait and see if they further balance things or not before we all start complaining
bobtheminer Damned Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:18:00 - [48] nozh while we have your attention, i saw it mentioned somewhere about a blog going into some detail to clear up info about the jump freighter a day or 2 ago, is their any more news on said blog, sure it would prolly help spread info if its all in once place, for ppl to read
Arenis Xemdal Amarr Obsidian Core	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:20:00 - [49] Originally by: CCP Nozh Skill requirements have actually been adjusted. Racial Freighter 4 Jump Freighters 1 Jump Calibration 1 Why is the most powerful tech 2 ship in the game also the only one that doesn't need racial lvl 5? I don't get it. Its like you're making concessions to carebears, and I see no other way to interpret it. Same deal with cloaking 5 reduction, it made sense, people whined, CCP caved.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:21:00 - [50] Originally by: Aram Gishno Originally by: CCP Nozh If you're still not sure why we're doing changes to the carriers you should read this dev blog again. Nozh, Actually, the blog cleared up a lot of misconceptions that I had earlier regarding the changes. Your statement regarding the fact that the changes proposed earlier were not oing into effect were interesting. I do wonder if the change team had a chance to evaluate a few players request that the carrier be broken into two classes or tiers? One being support focused while the other combative. For myself, I can fully stand behind this as a resonable alternative and a way to add more dynamics for this class. We discussed it, but we'd have to decide which role the current carriers would fulfill. We actually had a 5 hour meeting yesterday discussing possible solutions. I can't release any information quite yet, we'll probably end up with a system where people can actually choose the role themselves (and possibly be better at it than currently), either through module fitting or rigs. But like I said, we're still discussing it, if you think you've got a super solution just make a constructive post on the game development forum. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:24:00 - [51] Originally by: bobtheminer nozh while we have your attention, i saw it mentioned somewhere about a blog going into some detail to clear up info about the jump freighter a day or 2 ago, is their any more news on said blog, sure it would prolly help spread info if its all in once place, for ppl to read I'll write it tonight / tomorrow, and it will be posted in the next few days. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:25:00 - [52] Originally by: CCP Nozh Scripts are being introduced to split up bonuses on certain modules, this change has been a long time coming and been discussed a lot here at the office for a very long time. We feel scripts will bring more balance to these types of modules, and add more diversity to combat. Instead of looking at this like a "nerf" just try to see this as a way to make combat a bit more unpredictable. Warping your close range fleet in to an unsuspecting enemy fleet with "Scan Resolution" scripts loaded will surely put you at an advantage. If you're still not sure why we're doing changes to the carriers you should read this dev blog again. The carrier ship maintenance bay is being boosted in its intended role, you might have noticed it has been doubled in size and the volume of most ship classes have been adjusted. Ships inside the ship maintenance bay will still be able to hold ammo and charges. As for the reason of this change, even though many of you have gotten used to it, the carrier was never supposed to be a jump capable hauler. Originally by: Rells As for motherships and titans, just make them susceptible to warp scrams and give them 10 points built in. Solves the problem of tackling them without the gymnastics of cre.... This would be far to overpowered and unfair towards "super capitals". It would also make support fleets pretty much useless since you could just tell all your capital pilots to fit one disruptor. The "hactors" (like someone very clever started calling them) will be vulnerable when tackling and be useful in many situations, not only super capital scrambling. Our goal is to make EVE better, more balanced and more fun for everyone. It's good to hear the whys about changes. Now, your thoughts on the Eos and Myrmidon?
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:28:00 - [53] Erm...since it seems to be pester a CCP dev day... Any word on a global GUI overhaul? Solution to Jita? -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:28:00 - [54] Originally by: CCP Nozh Ships inside the ship maintenance bay will still be able to hold ammo and charges. As for the reason of this change, even though many of you have gotten used to it, the carrier was never supposed to be a jump capable hauler. People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:29:00 - [55] Originally by: Arenis Xemdal Originally by: CCP Nozh Skill requirements have actually been adjusted. Racial Freighter 4 Jump Freighters 1 Jump Calibration 1 Why is the most powerful tech 2 ship in the game also the only one that doesn't need racial lvl 5? I don't get it. Its like you're making concessions to carebears, and I see no other way to interpret it. Same deal with cloaking 5 reduction, it made sense, people whined, CCP caved. TBH, I haven't seen any whining about it, I haven't really been reading the forums a lot. I just thought the skill training time was a bit too harsh. The last level gives you a 5% boost and at these quantities thats quite a lot, so I guess a bunch of people would want to train it to lvl5 anyway. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:30:00 - [56] Originally by: Xaen Erm...since it seems to be pester a CCP dev day... Any word on a global GUI overhaul? Solution to Jita? I don't remember exactly, so don't quote me on this, but I believe a complete UI overhaul is scheduled after Trinity is released. As for Jita, they're working on implementing RDMA that will be implemented in the first half of 2008. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:31:00 - [57] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan It's good to hear the whys about changes. Now, your thoughts on the Eos and Myrmidon? Check the OMG YOU NUURFED MY DRONE thread. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:33:00 - [58] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Xaen Erm...since it seems to be pester a CCP dev day... Any word on a global GUI overhaul? Solution to Jita? I don't remember exactly, so don't quote me on this, but I believe a complete UI overhaul is scheduled after Trinity is released. As for Jita, they're working on implementing RDMA that will be implemented in the first half of 2008. I wish they'd consult me for the GUI design, or at least my thread (and others' posts too). It takes a very picky bastard to design a top notch GUI. A merely sufficient GUI is a complete failure. If you can't grasp that as a truth, don't work on GUIs. Tarminic, wtf is RDMA? -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Jack Target Koshaku Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:34:00 - [59] Edited by: Jack Target on 07/11/2007 19:34:19 I don't think the experienced players have anything to worry about, even if their worst fears are realised (but I expect they'll find the changes an interesting improvement). With the skills they currently have, they'll be very close to flying Black Ops battleships. They sound brilliant - I much rather pilot one of these than a carrier anyway.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:35:00 - [60] Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:35:00 - [61] Originally by: Xaen I wish they'd consult me for the GUI design, or at least my thread (and others' posts too). It takes a very picky bastard to design a top notch GUI. A merely sufficient GUI is a complete failure. If you can't grasp that as a truth, don't work on GUIs. Indeed, we can only hope. Quote: Tarminic, wtf is RDMA? Wikipedia Summary: Quote: Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) allows data to move directly from the memory of one computer into that of another without involving either one's operating system. This permits high-throughput, low-latency networking, which is especially useful in massively parallel computer clusters. RDMA relies on a special philosophy in using DMA. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare
punnani	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:40:00 - [62] A ship type that everyone loved and aspired to fly one day. They say it was used as do-it all, all the time - nonsense. No one in their right mind would go solo pvp in a carrier away from a station or go rat in it. No one wants to risk a billion isk. Its used as a resupply ship in 0.0 because of the lack for a substitute. If jump freighter is any good, people will use that. New Freighters need to be able to carry unpackaged, rigged ships for Christ's sake! Taking away damage whoop-ass from a carrier is the most ugly part. WTF!!!! I hate u CCP, you make me wanna cancel my subscriptions. If you turn on your TV or google carriers you will find out, that carriers ARE the ultimate damage deallers. They are meant to strike from far and destroy pretty much everything. They are CAPITAL SHIPS not resupply barges!
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:40:00 - [63] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan It's good to hear the whys about changes. Now, your thoughts on the Eos and Myrmidon? Check the OMG YOU NUURFED MY DRONE thread. I disagree with some of the changes, for instance the Ishtar not being able to use a mix of Medium and Light Drones if the pilot wanted to maximize his DPS like that by sacrificing having backups. I felt it gave the ship a little bit of flavor, and the pilot some variety to work with if he wanted. Can't really comment on the Myrmidon, or the Eos, though, as I'd hardly be qualified. The Myrm I don't have experience with outside of missions quite some months ago, and the Eos I've never even though about flying before.
SexxxSlave	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:44:00 - [64] Originally by: Rells wahhh wahhhh wahhh dont worry, the cloak wont get nerfed for a little while, so agony has nothing to worry about.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:46:00 - [65] Originally by: punnani Taking away damage whoop-ass from a carrier is the most ugly part. WTF!!!! I hate u CCP, you make me wanna cancel my subscriptions. If you turn on your TV or google carriers you will find out, that carriers ARE the ultimate damage deallers. They are meant to strike from far and destroy pretty much everything. They are CAPITAL SHIPS not resupply barges! If you link me to a post or dev blog from me where I say carriers are overpowered and I'm taking away their damage, I'll eat my own head. Also EVE Balance > RL/Other Sci Fi. As soon as people start comparing EVE to real life or battlestar galactica I stop reading. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:48:00 - [66] Originally by: CCP Nozh If you link me to a post or dev blog from me where I say carriers are overpowered and I'm taking away their damage, I'll eat my own head. That would be a neat trick! Originally by: CCP Nozh Also EVE Balance > RL/Other Sci Fi. As soon as people start comparing EVE to real life or battlestar galactica I stop reading. You mean you hate hearing "well RL insurance and police aren't like that!" as much as I do? <3

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:49:00 - [67] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan I disagree with some of the changes, for instance the Ishtar not being able to use a mix of Medium and Light Drones if the pilot wanted to maximize his DPS like that by sacrificing having backups. I felt it gave the ship a little bit of flavor, and the pilot some variety to work with if he wanted. Can't really comment on the Myrmidon, or the Eos, though, as I'd hardly be qualified. The Myrm I don't have experience with outside of missions quite some months ago, and the Eos I've never even though about flying before. Afaik the Ishtar is still getting the 50m^3 dronebay per level bonus, so total dronebay should still be 375m^3 with max skills. Right? Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Fayn Trak Gallente Myridian Trading Systems	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:51:00 - [68] I had a thought a while back but wasn't really paying sufficient attention to all the ideas and rants flying back and forth to be able to tell what the alternate solutions people came up with were, apart from the they're fine don't change anything crowd. Anyway the general line of allowing capital fittings for carriers to allow them to fill the rolls they do currently but not all at the same time, The capital construction components are already there say you had 2 or three slots you could add extra components to through a brief stay in a shipyard(an hour a day a week whatever stops people from just swapping on the fly) Also the best entertainment follows ideas that borrow from real life or battlestar indeed anything that has both is all but law. A herd of cattle A flock of geese A lot of isk
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:53:00 - [69] Originally by: CCP Nozh If you link me to a post or dev blog from me where I say carriers are overpowered and I'm taking away their damage, I'll eat my own head. This is me begging someone to please come up with a way to make him do this. Also, video tape it. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Prydeless Vengeance of the Fallen Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:54:00 - [70] Edited by: Prydeless on 07/11/2007 19:54:51 Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. Disclaimer: I am a God.
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:54:00 - [71] Edited by: Minerva Vulcan on 07/11/2007 19:54:34 Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan I disagree with some of the changes, for instance the Ishtar not being able to use a mix of Medium and Light Drones if the pilot wanted to maximize his DPS like that by sacrificing having backups. I felt it gave the ship a little bit of flavor, and the pilot some variety to work with if he wanted. Can't really comment on the Myrmidon, or the Eos, though, as I'd hardly be qualified. The Myrm I don't have experience with outside of missions quite some months ago, and the Eos I've never even though about flying before. Afaik the Ishtar is still getting the 50m^3 dronebay per level bonus, so total dronebay should still be 375m^3 with max skills. Right? Isn't Bandwith going to limit the usage of Medium Drones in the mix of 5 Drones usable at once, or am I misunderstanding it?
Pacala Gallente AirHawk Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:56:00 - [72] 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 all these adjustments to existing ships 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. __________________________________________________ I haven't needed a signature for 4 years. ccp = cccp? discuss
Major Stallion Four Rings Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:56:00 - [73] Originally by: CCP Nozh As soon as people start comparing EVE to real life or battlestar galactica I stop reading. ^^This ________________________________ High Sec PvP Originally by: "Wylker" CCP has finally mastered stupidity
punnani	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:58:00 - [74] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: punnani Taking away damage whoop-ass from a carrier is the most ugly part. WTF!!!! I hate u CCP, you make me wanna cancel my subscriptions. If you turn on your TV or google carriers you will find out, that carriers ARE the ultimate damage deallers. They are meant to strike from far and destroy pretty much everything. They are CAPITAL SHIPS not resupply barges! If you link me to a post or dev blog from me where I say carriers are overpowered and I'm taking away their damage, I'll eat my own head. Also EVE Balance > RL/Other Sci Fi. As soon as people start comparing EVE to real life or battlestar galactica I stop reading. You nearfing damage where you allow to only launch 5 fighters and not be able to kill small ships with it. EAT IT!
Blackend Sky The Paratwa Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:58:00 - [75] Changes are always good... Personally i am not that kind of pilot who study every fitting or changes that will come,make me bored..have my way already^^ CCP makes the sandbox,we are sitting in it ,allowed to sit with our butt in it, your choice it was,play and have fun.There are many sandboxes out there,but we loaned that box.If thats not good to play in it,there are many many other grounds to test. Enj°y the box betheren.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 19:59:00 - [76] Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Isn't Bandwith going to limit the usage of Medium Drones in the mix of 5 Drones usable at once, or am I misunderstanding it? The Ishtars bandwidth is 125m^3. Thus it can control 5x heavy drones, with that bandwidth it could launch 25x light drones or 12x medium drones, however it's still being limited by max 5 drones in space. So basically we aren't changing the Ishtar at all. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:00:00 - [77] Originally by: punnani Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: punnani Taking away damage whoop-ass from a carrier is the most ugly part. WTF!!!! I hate u CCP, you make me wanna cancel my subscriptions. If you turn on your TV or google carriers you will find out, that carriers ARE the ultimate damage deallers. They are meant to strike from far and destroy pretty much everything. They are CAPITAL SHIPS not resupply barges! If you link me to a post or dev blog from me where I say carriers are overpowered and I'm taking away their damage, I'll eat my own head. Also EVE Balance > RL/Other Sci Fi. As soon as people start comparing EVE to real life or battlestar galactica I stop reading. You nearfing damage where you allow to only launch 5 fighters and not be able to kill small ships with it. EAT IT! God, your parents really should have beat you more as a kid. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare
Minerva Vulcan Caldari The Nexus Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:01:00 - [78] Edited by: Minerva Vulcan on 07/11/2007 20:02:46 Edited by: Minerva Vulcan on 07/11/2007 20:02:23 Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Isn't Bandwith going to limit the usage of Medium Drones in the mix of 5 Drones usable at once, or am I misunderstanding it? The Ishtars bandwidth is 125m^3. Thus it can control 5x heavy drones, with that bandwidth it could launch 25x light drones or 12x medium drones, however it's still being limited by max 5 drones in space. So basically we aren't changing the Ishtar at all. It's here that I realize I'm being a nub and refering to the Ishtar instead of the Ishkur, like I was originally thinking. I was thinking of the Ishkur's ability to no longer field a mix of Medium and Lights at a time if I understand it right. Names are to similar. :\
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:01:00 - [79] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan It's good to hear the whys about changes. Now, your thoughts on the Eos and Myrmidon? Check the OMG YOU NUURFED MY DRONE thread. Ugh. I had to read that whole thread to see your post. CAN HAS DIRECT LINX? Yes, you can! -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:05:00 - [80] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Xaen I wish they'd consult me for the GUI design, or at least my thread (and others' posts too). It takes a very picky bastard to design a top notch GUI. A merely sufficient GUI is a complete failure. If you can't grasp that as a truth, don't work on GUIs. Indeed, we can only hope. Quote: Tarminic, wtf is RDMA? Wikipedia Summary: Quote: Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA) allows data to move directly from the memory of one computer into that of another without involving either one's operating system. This permits high-throughput, low-latency networking, which is especially useful in massively parallel computer clusters. RDMA relies on a special philosophy in using DMA. Oh, that. I thought it was some weird EVE-specific thing. I wasn't accessing the generic-CS portion of my brain. It'll be awesome if it works, but I'm only elevating my hope level slightly. -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:06:00 - [81] Originally by: punnani You nearfing damage where you allow to only launch 5 fighters and not be able to kill small ships with it. EAT IT! When did I say we're doing that? Link me. Please. And if you link me to Zuluparks blog, read it again, and try to notice this time that it was a suggestion, an idea, and we wanted feedback. I'm signing off the forums for today. But like I said earlier, things are cooling down so expect to see us more on the forums. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:08:00 - [82] Originally by: Prydeless Edited by: Prydeless on 07/11/2007 19:54:51 Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. Fixed it for you. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Si Delane	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:08:00 - [83] Originally by: Rells The nerfs across the point makes no sense. I cant see a unifying theme behind it. Its as if you got a new producer that has never played the game before. That, besides the dev posts, are probalby the most important thing I read in this entire post. All I want is the first 3 pages of some powerpoint presentation given about... 3-6 months ago to the design team by a producer. I can even guess the format: "Bringing New Dimensions to Combat: We want to combat in even to be more thingy. All this thingy, other thingy, and Amarr stuff just has to go. Thingies seem over used for this role, regardless of our intention, and we should attempt to respecialize them for this role. We can do this either by reducing thingy or increasing thingy. We should discuss the consequences of such changes." And so forth, I'm sure you get it now. What I want to know is the unified structure behind all these changes. The specifics can be smoothed out on Sisi and by your hundreds or thousands of concerned parties on the forums. Also, why is ever change a "nerf" (to use a word I really don't like). Couldn't you balance things by boosting other things? Ie. don't kill a carriers logistics capability or whatever (although I sort of agree with it! And I thank whatever Gods watch over me that I'm not in logistics), just make the jump freighters the BETTER TOOL. I assure you, if you make jump freighters the best damn logistics tool instead of merely eliminating all other options, people WILL use them. Maybe not right away, but when they lose a carrier, they'll replace it with a jump freighter since it does the job better. Maybe they'll gasp take carriers into combat! It's like you came out with a shiny new (expensive) hammer, and it's pretty good but not super! But everyone is using their old ones and making due with their capabilities them because they do the job. So you decide to sneak in and replace the metal in their old hammers with cotton candy. Seriously.
Frug Zenithal Harvest	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:09:00 - [84] smooth move punanni. Your lack of literacy scared a dev off the forums for the day. - - - - - - - - - Do not use dotted lines - - - - - - - If you think I'm awesome, say BOOO BOOO!! - Ductoris Neat look what I found - Kreul Hey, my marbles
Odhinn Vinlandii Minmatar THE KENSEI Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:13:00 - [85] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: punnani Also EVE Balance > RL/Other Sci Fi. As soon as people start comparing EVE to real life or battlestar galactica I stop reading. EVE is a Sci-Fi game. Sci-Fi is based in reality, not fantasy. Also, think of it from the storyline perspective. Why would Minmatar suddenly decide to make one of their cap ships weaker? That doesn't fit well at all. Why would Minmatar make a such a huge ship without a huge number of huge guns period? How does one rationalize expending so much labor and resources into an unsustainable vessel. It just doesn't make any sense! The further EVE moves on, the more advanced and more ferocious the war machine should become.
Paddlefoot Aeon Neogen Industries Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:16:00 - [86] My major concern is still the availability of Jump Freighters. If you make them T2, the invention time will be brutal, the ships will be super expensive, and super rare. Tier 2 prices, combined with added components and BPO costs, can and will be able to price the ship similar to the rorqual without putting such a huge lag in 0.0 logistics. Now Recruiting. Click sig for details!
punnani	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:17:00 - [87] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: punnani You nearfing damage where you allow to only launch 5 fighters and not be able to kill small ships with it. EAT IT! When did I say we're doing that? Link me. Please. And if you link me to Zuluparks blog, read it again, and try to notice this time that it was a suggestion, an idea, and we wanted feedback. I'm signing off the forums for today. But like I said earlier, things are cooling down so expect to see us more on the forums. My apologies, if thats only an idea. BAD idea , bad ! :) Just think from the perspective of space arms race, what race would invest into a capital ship that does a job that a regular battleship can do. When confused always reference reality. Carriers are uber YES but they are vulnerable to subs and can be easily destroyed if enemy closes range. Maybe reduce its tanking and logistics ability while boosting firepower. Its a fleet ship of doom, let it stay that way. Sorry for being a crybaby, I'm bored
Patch86 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:20:00 - [88] This is quite possibly the best thread I've read this year. So many irritating little questions cleared up. 10/10. While we're discussing drone ships, whats the thinking behind the Eos changes? I've not done any hard maths on it, but at first glance it appears that it's overpowered damage (and it was definitely that) is being fixed by reducing drone firepower....while leaving its turret bonuses intact. Which obviously massively irks me as a drone specialist- it's one of relatively few high-end drone ships (along with the Domi and the Ishtar, and maybe the Myrm if you're generous), and it's being dragged further and further in to turret land. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it's drones where they are (at max 5x unbonused heavys, that still only puts it at around two thirds as powerful as a Domi's bonused drones) and nerf it's turrets instead? Either that or completely redesign the ship without the "CreoDron" label and make it a standard "hybrids+drones" Gallente design from a less specific manufacturer. ------ Originally by: CCP Prism X There's no such thing as playing too much EvE! You all obviously need more accounts!
Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:20:00 - [89] Originally by: punnani My apologies, if thats only an idea. BAD idea , bad ! :) Just think from the perspective of space arms race, what race would invest into a capital ship that does a job that a regular battleship can do. When confused always reference reality. Carriers are uber YES but they are vulnerable to subs and can be easily destroyed if enemy closes range. Maybe reduce its tanking and logistics ability while boosting firepower. Its a fleet ship of doom, let it stay that way. Sorry for being a crybaby, I'm bored That's in real life, and EVE is not real life. Carriers will do whatever the hell developers want them to do, end of story. And if you thought this was a bad idea, why didn't you come up with a solution and post it in the feedback thread, where the developers will actually take it into consideration? ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:22:00 - [90] 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.
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:31:00 - [91] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. I have sort of a question about this, even if you've signed off for the day. What part of 0.0 logistics is considered "too easy"? Do you mean that people should be doing 35+ jump multi-freighter convoys regularly to keep POSes fueled? Should people be mining all of their fuel for POSes and minerals for ships? Building off that, will there be changes to resource gathering that could maybe make this a little easier? For example, Chronotis mentioned in the feedback thread for one of his August blogs that they were considering buffing the Skiff so that it could mine lowend minerals more effectively, or making super-yield asteroids and ices in deep 0.0, and there was a hint at something called "blast mining". Is anything that might make things a little easier a possibility? The thing about carrier-based logistics is that managing POSes is extremely tedious. I can see the point to making it a little bit tedious, but the point is that few people have the stomach to do it dependably. Is there any chance that there could be plans for a little bit of give-and-take when it comes to changing logistics? For example, in Revelations 2.2, the five-POS-per-day anchoring limit was introduced, which made logistics a bit easier since keeping six large POSes going is a lot easier than ten or fifteen. Currently, less than six POS in a station system is practically asking for someone to spam 5 POS before downtime, contesting sovereignty. Unless you reinforce and destroy those POS within a week, you'll lose the system, the station, all the assets inside of it, and all of the built up sovereignty levels. Would you consider reducing the anchoring limit to only three or four per day? I really just can't help but feel concerned for all the logistics people out there. P.S. Last I heard from SiSi, the increased mass of freighters has the possibly unintended side effect that they cannot warp farther than about 40.0 AU. Is there a way to fix that so they don't double or quadruple-jump through every other system?
Sandzibarr A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:36:00 - [92] Originally by: Patch86 This is quite possibly the best thread I've read this year. So many irritating little questions cleared up. 10/10. While we're discussing drone ships, whats the thinking behind the Eos changes? I've not done any hard maths on it, but at first glance it appears that it's overpowered damage (and it was definitely that) is being fixed by reducing drone firepower....while leaving its turret bonuses intact. Which obviously massively irks me as a drone specialist- it's one of relatively few high-end drone ships (along with the Domi and the Ishtar, and maybe the Myrm if you're generous), and it's being dragged further and further in to turret land. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it's drones where they are (at max 5x unbonused heavys, that still only puts it at around two thirds as powerful as a Domi's bonused drones) and nerf it's turrets instead? Either that or completely redesign the ship without the "CreoDron" label and make it a standard "hybrids+drones" Gallente design from a less specific manufacturer. aye. make the Eos Roden... and then at some point introduce tier2 field commands... and then give us the Creodron version of the Myrmidon :) yummy.
DeadRow Naqam	Posted - 2007.11.07 20:38:00 - [93] Originally by: CCP Nozh Also EVE Balance > RL/Other Sci Fi. As soon as people start comparing EVE to real life or battlestar galactica I stop reading. For real. /DeadRow
Alski Gallente Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 21:04:00 - [94] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. Any chance you could elaborate on the “over the top” part? I’m not asking in a whiney way, I genuinely don’t understand. -Do you mean that they were being used too far out of there intended role? -Do you mean they were making 0.0 logistics too easy? If so why? Surely jump-freighters will replace Carrier logistics and so if anything will be just as easy, if not easier? -Do you mean that being able to haul, and tank, and fight all at once was the problem? I can assume you probably mean the former, but as I’m sure your aware, this change has gotten a lot of people worried about the how the replacement methods of 0.0 logistics will run without carrier logistics, and it would be nice to pick you and the other devs brains about what exactly they had in mind with this change, actually I’d be nice to have a big chunk of that as part of the devblog on the freighters, its all part of one very big change and I think we all need to hear it. The other thing I wanted to bring up was; we’re going to be in an unusual situation where a method for performing a VITAL part of the game – 0.0 carrier logistics, POSs and sov – is going to have probably the most popular and ingrained method of doing it (carriers) removed, and a replacement method in the form of rorquels and jump freighters introduced BUT with a weeks to months long gap in-between where we will be forced to fall back on old fashioned freighter runs. For many Alliances, probably the largest ones, this is going to be a MASSIVE headache, is this something that you guys have given much thought to? Esp. with jump-freighters being a T2 item with massively long production times? Again this go’s back to communication, in the opinion of many of us, it would have been better if we could have been told about CCPs plans and thoughts of this change before it was set in stone, the later we get the information the less time we have to prepare, and much of the valued “player created content” out of 0.0 is at stake, balance changes on a code level should not even risk effecting player created content/alliances/space in the actual game, this is one change that does. - (combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.07 21:45:00 - [95] Edited by: Rells on 07/11/2007 21:46:40 Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. First of all, thanks for replying to my thread. Second of all, I have to disagree with you here. The fact that is that jump bridges are a toy for a superalliance. They are totally out of reach for 99% of the player base. Jump feighters wont make logistics easy, but harder. The fact is that rigs were introduced into the game a while back and now there are thousands of ships fitted with them. People cant just obliterate 50 million in rigs to move a ship from A to B. Second of all, the freighter can easily be killed by 10 battleships in the time it takes for the session timer to expire to redock. That is not a sustainable strategy. They dont need to chew through your force, just go right for the multi-billion isk loaded freighter. I posted some jump freighter reccomendations on the game development forum to help them become what they are targeted at but I feel quite ignored on that one. Another changes I object to are The speed nerfs to the interdictors (they are made of paper and primary target man). The sabre was a bit powerful but the answer was to fix the flycatcher (reduce its weight by 30%) and other interdictors, not nerf them all. As for scripts, I wouldnt care if the script loaded attributes for the modules was the same as the current values. The fact is that even with a script loaded, damps have been hit with a 40% nerf and other script modules havent fared much better. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.07 21:51:00 - [96] To be honest, I don't think the jump freighter is meant to replace the logistics carrier. It seems like it's meant to be a fuel-inefficient alternative that you can use to get through a chokepoint; you pay more for fuel but get relatively certain safe transport. I think they want people to either freighter the fuel from empire or mine it themselves and distribute it with industrials and transports. There will be a lot of growing pains if that is the case...
PCaBoo RennTech SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:01:00 - [97] Originally by: Patch86 While we're discussing drone ships, whats the thinking behind the Eos changes? I've not done any hard maths on it, but at first glance it appears that it's overpowered damage (and it was definitely that) is being fixed by reducing drone firepower....while leaving its turret bonuses intact. Which obviously massively irks me as a drone specialist- it's one of relatively few high-end drone ships (along with the Domi and the Ishtar, and maybe the Myrm if you're generous), and it's being dragged further and further in to turret land. Wouldn't it make more sense to leave it's drones where they are (at max 5x unbonused heavys, that still only puts it at around two thirds as powerful as a Domi's bonused drones) and nerf it's turrets instead? Either that or completely redesign the ship without the "CreoDron" label and make it a standard "hybrids+drones" Gallente design from a less specific manufacturer. I believe they call that an astarte. I'm an actual command ship pilot. I use my fleet command ship to fit 3 gang mods... to lose my heavies is a real slap in the face. Everything is being watered down and homogenized... which really defeats the purpose of having multiple races and ships (although, obviously CCP wants you to train everything and keep paying your subs). Some nerfs are necessary, i'm sure everyone understands this, but at what price do we pay to keep things "fair" for everyone? ________________________________ Stop nerfing everything!
Redback911 Malevolent Intentions	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:16:00 - [98] Originally by: Rells The fact is that rigs were introduced into the game a while back and now there are thousands of ships fitted with them. People cant just obliterate 50 million in rigs to move a ship from A to B. Ah dude, didn't you get the memo? Theyre being buffed for carrying fitted ships... Can even carry ammo and boosters in holds as well apparently.
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:39:00 - [99] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. Hi Nozh! I myself have suggested a nerf to carrier hauling before you started to mess with them. BUT: We need first a good substitution for carrier-hauling, otherwise specially the medium and smaller sized alliances (without jumpbridges and titans) will get massive problems with logistics. My adapted plan would be: In Kali3(=Trinity): Introducing jump-freighters: They should cost about 2B ISK and should be buildable within 2 weeks. If this is impossible for T2, then you should make them Tier2. Carriers should stay in Kali3 like they are now. About 3-5 months after Kali3 you can start to nerf the hauling-capabilities of carriers. I personally would make this NOT with disallowing cargo in the scooped ships, BUT by increasing the volume of Industrials. If they have a bigger volume than 1M m3, it¦s impossible to move them with carriers. Problem solved. And with this solution we would have much less other problems like "you can¦t scoop this frigate, because it has one looted afterburner in cargo". Helison.
JamnOne Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:40:00 - [100] In response just to the title: Devs: "To hell if we don't change our ways" ________________________ Originally by: CCP Prism X Hah! Vengeance is sweet!
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:42:00 - [101] Originally by: Redback911 Originally by: Rells The fact is that rigs were introduced into the game a while back and now there are thousands of ships fitted with them. People cant just obliterate 50 million in rigs to move a ship from A to B. Ah dude, didn't you get the memo? Theyre being buffed for carrying fitted ships... Can even carry ammo and boosters in holds as well apparently. I know that but jump freighters should be able to pack the assembled ships in. You cant take them out of the freighter in space so there is no balance issue. Read my thread on jump freighters that I linked. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:44:00 - [102] 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.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:56:00 - [103] 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.
PCaBoo RennTech SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 22:57:00 - [104] 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. ________________________________ Stop nerfing everything!
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:07:00 - [105] 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 - [106] 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.
shinsushi	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:08:00 - [107] 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. ☺☻☺☻☺ SO how do you get me to stop posting? Bump this thread Until devs answer
HenkieBoy	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:13:00 - [108] Quote: Racial Freighter 4 Jump Freighters 1 Jump Calibration 1 Can somebody tell me what this means in learning time? I got Minmatar Industrial lvl4, is this the 'Racial Freigher' skill? And what are the req. for those other 2? Sorry, I am one of them that is fairly new at this game ;) I do think changes a good, it allows new things to be introduced. Just look at those fantasy MMO's, they begin with +50 attribute on the best item, they introduce +60 on the expansion, +70 on the next expansion... etc.. it gets stupid while time goes on. I mean, what stats would you give a T3 ships? 99% resist? I do understand people will be let down if they see their expensive ship can't be used anymore for the role they bought it for. If ISK is the case, CCP could introduce some NPC's that will buy expensive ships for a while. This will give the ISK back to allow them to buy the right ship the need for the role intended.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:13:00 - [109] 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.
PCaBoo RennTech SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:14:00 - [110] 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. you can't cyno into hi-sec ________________________________ Stop nerfing everything!
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:16:00 - [111] But it's not overpowered... If you honestly think that, you've never had to keep a POS chain alive relying solely on carriers. There seems to be a distinct lack of actual carrier experience behind the nerfs. First we're told that their dps output is overpowered (not true), then we're told their remote-rep capability is overpowered (not true except 1 specific situation) and now we're told that their logistical capbilities are also overpowered. Admittedly, we were only told this *******s through an absolute collapse in communication (Hi Zulupark!), but it showed the underlying reasoning behind it. It took a 110 page thread to get CCP to admit that it was not the individual mechanics that were overpowered, but their use in a pure carrier blob. Again, CCP missed the point in that it was the blob that was the problem, not the carriers. Nerfing an individual ship's capabilities to make up for flaws in the game's mechanics should not be a valid design strategy. Carriers should still be able to do logistics in the same capacity they can now, but they should be nowhere near as useful as the jump freighters. This would allow jump freighters to take over the supply lines and the POSes, leaving carriers to do their job of combat logistical support - providing new ships (with alternate fits on board) to combat zones.
shinsushi	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:21:00 - [112] Originally by: PCaBoo 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. you can't cyno into hi-sec Right, cyno onto a gate would work just fine aswell, although I am not sure if you would have to wait the 30 secs to activate the gate or not (session change and all.) Either way, you present much less of a target than haulers/freighters jumping into your local 0.4 station would, as long as your smart about it. Also, you would never present a target jumping out of high-sec, since you can completely bypass low-sec with cargoholds being full. ☺☻☺☻☺ SO how do you get me to stop posting? Bump this thread Until devs answer
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:23:00 - [113] 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.
Torco	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:23:00 - [114] what do you say about all the Amarr-Threads??
sapanda1102222	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:33:00 - [115] Originally by: DreadMasters Because CCP are doing what every failing game is Slamming lots more new content in, in a vain hope that people won't quit, they lost over 20k subs last year alone. The fact that they would rather add new content than fix the server problems pretty much says how they think - Long as you keep paying we will be ignored. Customer service is **** anyway customer service isnt s^^^ its good until you have a problem with something a gm did then there is no wrong performed and you will be ignored until whatever the gm decided even if ultimately wrong has elapsed and only then will they pat you on the head and tell you there there it wasnt so bad was it
Ruciza	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:54:00 - [116] Edited by: Ruciza on 07/11/2007 23:55:07 You can't cyno into high sec, but can you cyno out of high sec? There are two new ship classes incoming that have a jump drive and can still enter high sec...
Viqer Fell Minmatar Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.07 23:58:00 - [117] Originally by: CCP Nozh The "hactors" (like someone very clever started calling them) Thank you. I shall now sit back and enjoy my glory. Click here to visit our site
Emperor D'Hoffryn No Quarter. Vae Victis.	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:04:00 - [118] Edited by: Emperor D''Hoffryn on 08/11/2007 00:04:44 Originally by: Bein Glorious Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. I have sort of a question about this, even if you've signed off for the day. What part of 0.0 logistics is considered "too easy"? Do you mean that people should be doing 35+ jump multi-freighter convoys regularly to keep POSes fueled? Should people be mining all of their fuel for POSes and minerals for ships? Building off that, will there be changes to resource gathering that could maybe make this a little easier? For example, Chronotis mentioned in the feedback thread for one of his August blogs that they were considering buffing the Skiff so that it could mine lowend minerals more effectively, or making super-yield asteroids and ices in deep 0.0, and there was a hint at something called "blast mining". Is anything that might make things a little easier a possibility? The thing about carrier-based logistics is that managing POSes is extremely tedious. I can see the point to making it a little bit tedious, but the point is that few people have the stomach to do it dependably. Is there any chance that there could be plans for a little bit of give-and-take when it comes to changing logistics? For example, in Revelations 2.2, the five-POS-per-day anchoring limit was introduced, which made logistics a bit easier since keeping six large POSes going is a lot easier than ten or fifteen. Currently, less than six POS in a station system is practically asking for someone to spam 5 POS before downtime, contesting sovereignty. Unless you reinforce and destroy those POS within a week, you'll lose the system, the station, all the assets inside of it, and all of the built up sovereignty levels. Would you consider reducing the anchoring limit to only three or four per day? I really just can't help but feel concerned for all the logistics people out there. P.S. Last I heard from SiSi, the increased mass of freighters has the possibly unintended side effect that they cannot warp farther than about 40.0 AU. Is there a way to fix that so they don't double or quadruple-jump through every other system? the changes would seem indicate that you should put up less POS. If everyone put up less POS, I think the game would be immensly better, and alot of issues would be fixed. However, Other game mechanics still dictate all the POS you can put up. We really need to change it so that you dont REQUIRE as many POSes, as well as making logistics mean something. Cause Logisitics SHOULD mean something...if you use proper teamwork and reduce time required for all involved cause you got alot of peeps involved, you win....if you dont/cant, you deserve to fail. Difficulty: Impossible balance to actually achieve. Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!
Acoco Osiris Gallente Sublime.	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:05:00 - [119] Wow, a thread discussing the changes which actually has dev input. Anyways, here's my 0.02 ISK. Most of the changes were in the right direction, but too severe The Myrmidon having no more drone control than the Vexor makes me cry. Even 5 mbit more for a 3/2 combo would make my day. The torp DPS boost for a range cut was again, in the right direction, but giving the Raven gank-Mega like damage at more than hugging distance is a bit too far. Meanwhile, short-range missiles are extra-ordinarily long-range. However, heavy ACs and pulses handily out-range them. Heck, mega neutron IIs with Null L can out-range torpedoes at less than one falloff. ------------------------------ One more soldier off to war... And one Velator in my hangars.
Oz Borne Naughty 40 Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:08:00 - [120] I love how they decide something wasnt designed to fulfill a role after they have already been in the game years. priceless. -------------------
Sean Drake Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:16:00 - [121] I have a question that should shed some light on the ops orig request on where ccp are going. So any devs care to coment on an incident at Fanfest where a recently promoted/hired/wherever they come from dev told a player that "EvE is not complacated after 2 weeks in empire you know everything you need to about the game" apparently the player who was a member of one of the larger 0.0 alliances had to be physically restrained and was laterfound in a corner very drunk banging his head off the wall reapeting " were screwed were screwed were screwed" True story If Goons AND BoB are agreeing with each other that your idea is stupid, it's probably stupid.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:49:00 - [122] Originally by: Alski Any chance you could elaborate on the ôover the topö part? IÆm not asking in a whiney way, I genuinely donÆt understand. -Do you mean that they were being used too far out of there intended role? -Do you mean they were making 0.0 logistics too easy? If so why? Surely jump-freighters will replace Carrier logistics and so if anything will be just as easy, if not easier? -Do you mean that being able to haul, and tank, and fight all at once was the problem? Filling their ship maintenance bay with "maxed out cargospace haulers" transporting fuel, commodities, minerals and items safely was never their intended role. That role on its own might not be a problem, but if you're using the same ship to haul and fight in we obviously have a problem. The Jump Freighter will most likely not make logistics as easy because: They'll cost more - I think we're aiming for something around ~2.8bn build cost (not sure, not at work) They'll be harder to make - Being the first T2 capital ship, it won't exactly be a "Betty Crocker" production. Not everyone will want to fly them - Let's face it, a lot of people have carriers cause they're bad ass. They're much more vulnerable They won't be everyones goal after reaching BS level like the carriers currently are. I do agree the following weeks after the change will be interesting, we've given plenty of thought to it. There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs, but I'm pretty sure the gap won't be too large and a lot of you will probably stock up a bit before the changes hit. Originally by: Rells First of all, thanks for replying to my thread. Second of all, I have to disagree with you here. The fact that is that jump bridges are a toy for a superalliance. They are totally out of reach for 99% of the player base. Jump feighters wont make logistics easy, but harder. The fact is that rigs were introduced into the game a while back and now there are thousands of ships fitted with them. People cant just obliterate 50 million in rigs to move a ship from A to B. No problem, expect seeing a lot more of us. I'm aware that "jump bridges" aren't exactly easy to obtain, super alliances generally have larger areas to cover so this is fine in our opinion. Jump Freighters aren't supposed to be used to ferry ships around, that's what carriers are for, and they'll become much better at it after the changes (I haven't heard any praises for that btw). Like I said before the carriers ship maintenance bay has doubled in size, battleships have be reduced in volume by 50%, and other ship classes have also been adjusted slightly. Originally by: Rells Second of all, the freighter can easily be killed by 10 battleships in the time it takes for the session timer to expire to redock. That is not a sustainable strategy. They dont need to chew through your force, just go right for the multi-billion isk loaded freighter. Second of all again? Yeah, don't undock your freighter when you've got a 10 BS enemy gang outside your station. Use scouts. Originally by: Rells Another changes I object to are The speed nerfs to the interdictors (they are made of paper and primary target man). The sabre was a bit powerful but the answer was to fix the flycatcher (reduce its weight by 30%) and other interdictors, not nerf them all. As for scripts, I wouldnt care if the script loaded attributes for the modules was the same as the current values. The fact is that even with a script loaded, damps have been hit with a 40% nerf and other script modules havent fared much better. Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. Dampeners were overpowered. Other script modules have fared much better. I'll take a look at your jump freighter recommendations tomorrow. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:50:00 - [123] @ Necrologic I like you. @ Torco we'll get to them. Don't fret Amarr have yet to receive their "Oomph" I think I've answered pretty much all questions since I refreshed this page last, probably more been added now. But it's 1am soon and I need to get on with my social life.. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 00:52:00 - [124] Happy to help. _____________________ In the arena of logic I fight unarmed.
Ruciza	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:05:00 - [125] Originally by: CCP Nozh Being the first T2 capital ship, it won't exactly be a "Betty Crocker" production. So it's all true...
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:06:00 - [126] Edited by: Drykor on 08/11/2007 01:15:56 Edited by: Drykor on 08/11/2007 01:11:55 So, what exactly ARE the reasons for slowing down interdictors? 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.
RossP Zoyka	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:07:00 - [127] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan It's good to hear the whys about changes. Now, your thoughts on the Eos and Myrmidon? Check the OMG YOU NUURFED MY DRONE thread. Dude, that was the coolest thread I've ever read LOLLOLhaahahah
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:10:00 - [128] Originally by: CCP Nozh There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs Or if you've got half an ounce of sense; expanded dreadnoughts. Slightly less efficient than a carrier, but you'll already have a bunch of pilots and the ship wont cost you 8bil. Quote: Jump Freighters aren't supposed to be used to ferry ships around, that's what carriers are for, and they'll become much better at it after the changes (I haven't heard any praises for that btw). You havent heard any praises because in nerfing the ability to carry cargo, you've also put a massive dent in the capability to carry ships. There's no point to a carrier's SMA if you can't haul in alternate fits alongside the ship. The only viable way to haul in alternate fits is to carry them in the cargohold of the ship you intend them to be used in. Quote: Second of all again? Yeah, don't undock your freighter when you've got a 10 BS enemy gang outside your station. Use scouts. It doesn't have to be BSes. A single cloaked alt could provide the cyno to drop in sufficient capitals (or even BOBS) to kill it before anything could be done. What use are scouts then? Quote: Dampeners were overpowered. Dampeners in themselves were not overpowered. They were simply overpowered in that they could be fitted to any ship for approximately the same level of effectiveness. In nerfing them and not providing an equivalent boost to the "specialised" (lol) dampening ships, you've given the gallente EW ships a ridiculous nerf for no good reason. As for the other script modules "faring much better", i'd quite like to see how you expect people to fit comparable fleet fits post-nerf. The combined sniping, TD and damp nerf is simply a buff to nanoships. You've nerfed the 3 most effective counters.
ChimeraRouge Caldari Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:13:00 - [129] Carriers != Haulers
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:14:00 - [130] Edited by: Elmicker on 08/11/2007 01:14:07 Originally by: ChimeraRouge Carriers != Haulers Yes, carriers are multirole support ships. Which is exactly why they should maintain their hauling capability, just at an inferior level to the dedicated hauling ships.
ragewind Caldari VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:18:00 - [131] a very active dev this is good to see if the jump freighters end up being 2.8 bil ill be impressed that is a fair cost for the ship weather this ever happens im not sure will be interesting to see. my take on the "ideas for carriers" including the drone suggestions seemed to me that they were thought up by a dev that may be rather inexperienced to the game. the hauler ability's of the carrier may not have been what ccp intended! the damage dealer role may not have been what ccp intended! the remote carrier to carrier logistics tactics may not have been what ccp intended! and the original ideas really did nerf all of these but i think ccp missed the other nerf that that whole original dev blog brought with it!!! NERF the players NERF the sandbox game yes you had an idea for carriers, but then the eve magic happened the eve players used imagination and brain power and thought up a range of roles, this is the POINT of eve to think out side the box can you now see why it was that this reaction was meet with such a fiery reaction as part of it says to the player base, "hay your ideas and uses for stuff.. meh it isnt right were changing it"
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:23:00 - [132] Is that 2.8 billion build cost, or invention & build cost ? Because various people who know a hell of a lot more about invention than i do are saying it's no-where near 2.8 bil total cost, much more like over double that ATM. Max --------------------
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:25:00 - [133] Originally by: Max Teranous Is that 2.8 billion build cost, or invention & build cost? I'm fairly sure that's the ideal ME0 build cost. Most decryptors will (AFAIK - i'm not an inventor), give a hefty penalty to ME, doubling the build cost. throw in the invention costs and the requisite mark up and you're nearing the 8B figure that's being thrown around.
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:25:00 - [134] Originally by: CCP Nozh @ Torco we'll get to them. Don't fret Amarr have yet to receive their "Oomph" <3 I had thought that the series of nerfs/changes/whatever had been a large Amarr boost in disguise, but it's nice to see that there is in fact something in the future for our ships. Hopefully it will have something to do with lasers or cap use, instead of a new role for Amarr entirely __________________________________
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 01:43:00 - [135] 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.
Ket Halpak Cold-Fury Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 02:10:00 - [136] Yay! Questions being answered. /me <3 Nozh :) Just a couple from me :) 1. Why tech 2 freighters over teir 2? 2. What solutions to the logistics gap weeks have been considered? 3. What about holding off the carrier/hauler change untill jump freighters have had a chance to come into the game? A thought I had was to allow ships inside carriers to carry cargo, but cargo expanders and skills dont take affect, just like when someone isnt piloting a ship. I could get about 17km3 into my mamoth while flying it, but if I were to fully load it in station, swap to a different ship and then open the mamoths cargo hold, it would appear to be overloaded (ie 17km3/5900m3 of cargo space used). If you stopped people from being able to load over expanded ships into a carrier, it would vastly reduce the carriers cargo hauling ability, but still provide some sort of logistics during the gap time. I havent done the maths (im supposed to be working atm :) ), but with the newly expanded cargo holds, you would only be able to haul about 20km3 with a carrier. Oh and being able to fit battleships inside a carrier 4tw! _____________ Giving out free ammo, 1 missile at a time.
Tananda Vaakaja	Posted - 2007.11.08 03:16:00 - [137] With the amount of "Free to Play" mmorpgs out there... I'm mystified as to the continued silence from CCP on these changes. If there is a specific "road map" they have in mind fine and dandy.. just for heaven's sake let us know what's going on. The majority of the Eve player base is actually intelligent. I think we could understand an explination of what's in the Dev's minds on these "nerfs". How many people must leave before we get an answer? Very few I hope, every player sub loss is a loss for everyone..
J Valkor Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.11.08 03:21:00 - [138] Edited by: J Valkor on 08/11/2007 03:24:10 Originally by: Tananda Vaakaja With the amount of "Free to Play" mmorpgs out there... I'm mystified as to the continued silence from CCP on these changes. If there is a specific "road map" they have in mind fine and dandy.. just for heaven's sake let us know what's going on. The majority of the Eve player base is actually intelligent. I think we could understand an explination of what's in the Dev's minds on these "nerfs". How many people must leave before we get an answer? Very few I hope, every player sub loss is a loss for everyone.. Umm... have you read this thread or did you just reply? Okay, here is the summation 1. Dampeners were broken and too wildly used. CCP is trying to make it so only specialized ships use them (as with ECM). 2. Carriers should not be fuel haulers. Their ability to move around ships has been hugely increased, however. 3. Myrmi and Eos were out of line with other BC's and CS's. 4. If you say "BUT IN REAL LIFE" the Dev stops reading your post. Incidentally, I love the changes. The carrier as it is shaping up to be is what I imagined them to be when they were first announced. Instead of what it is currently being used as.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.11.08 03:43:00 - [139] Originally by: Verone Originally by: Rells From the point of view of the people testing on Sisi, I stopped reading here. The stats on the test server are never final, that's why it's called a TEST server. There's no need to get worked up about changes there... they're being TESTED, and may not go live. Come on Verone, there have been plenty of things that everyone thought was just being 'tested' (like warp to 0km) that ended up on TQ exactly like they were on Sisi, or worse. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Beowulf Scheafer Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.08 04:02:00 - [140] Edited by: Beowulf Scheafer on 08/11/2007 04:02:19 its very good to see somebody clearing the confusion that rages in theese forums for weeks now. i have 2 questions i would like to ask you: 1) drone recharge: can you pls clarify what you intend to do with that change? i use a dominix for missions alot, and sometimes for pvp. in pvp this change means that my main weapon is destroyable now without a real counter, and i don't see remote repping as a real alternative because of the range. as it is i can scoop and relaunch drones, what takes about 3 seconds under optimal circumstances, so loosing ca. 1400dmg in that time. i have alot of them in both my ishtar and my domi, but no endless amount. and i can't kill others peoples mainweapons anyways (if i can't force him to overheat them for a long time somehow ), so i honestly don't see the need for that nerf. 2)black ops: first, can i use the jumpbridge in empire? if so, do i need a faction standing of 10.0 for the actual space to jump in and/or use it, like stated in a blog i don't find anymore unfortunately? second, are the SISIstats on thoose final, or close to final? especially the sin's tII bonuses seem to be very mismatched, 5% agility is not exactly the essence of my wildest dreams... is that one only heavily prenerfed and might become better? and is there a chance they in general get the ability to use covert ops? i must admit i'm not a very rich player, and atm neither the marauders (which are somewhat meant to be pve ships as i understand) nor the black ops attract me alot to spend such an amount of isk for. as i spent a very long time now focusing on bs-related skills and leaving for example command ships alone to have decent (perfect?) skills when tII bs finally hit tranq, i must admit i'm rather disappointed in the sin in its current state. thx alot
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.08 04:03:00 - [141] Again thanks for taking the time to reply. Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Rells Second of all, the freighter can easily be killed by 10 battleships in the time it takes for the session timer to expire to redock. That is not a sustainable strategy. They dont need to chew through your force, just go right for the multi-billion isk loaded freighter. Second of all again? Yeah, don't undock your freighter when you've got a 10 BS enemy gang outside your station. Use scouts. LOL .. I never said I could count. Anyway the scenario I was envisioning is that you are jumping the freighter in 0.0. The Cyno goes up and the freighter jumps. Now there are 30 seconds before the freighter can dock, because of the session change timer. In the meantime there is a huge beacon in the system saying "come shoot us here" and they can come pop the freighter before it can even dock. This needs to be anticipated and accounted for. I would move their half their effective HP to Armor or Shield with decent resist and then at least they can be remote tanked. Originally by: CCP Nozh Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. I'll take a look at your jump freighter recommendations tomorrow. The problem with the flycatcher is not its speed, its the agility and its weight. Cruisers align faster than a flycatcher. No speed changes will do anything until you lower its mass significantly. As for making them slower, I still disagree. They aret good at living in the mosh pit of combat and only speed keeps them alive. As for differences in speed, that is more because of the number of low slots and weight. I stopped flying a flycatcher because my amarrr cruisers were warping faster. I really appreciate you looking at my reccomendations on the freighter and will be interested to hear your comments. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Cygnus Zhada Amarr The Wild Hunt	Posted - 2007.11.08 04:28:00 - [142] As I see it it's very simple; they want to increase the 'size' of the universe, make it less easy for alliances to occupy large portions of space without a whole lot of effort. This creates more room, room that's needed to accomodate the influx of new players who won't (want to) all be joining the existing (super)powers. Since it's a FACT that there's more players, CCP HAS to react to that by either adding more space or by limiting the amount of space an alliance can realistically hold. As such they have to push this through, no amount of whining will change that. Ofcourse the industrial/logistics people aren't happy at all, and I can understand that. They all of a sudden start thinking "how am I going to fuel and haul stuff to/from all our POSes", while they SHOULD be thinking "which POS areas should we start to focus on and which should be loosen our control over". Looking at BOB's situation and their move makes a lot of sense in this; they weren't really holding on and with the incoming patch they were quite sure they wouldn't be able to in the future. Now it's up to their adversaries, do THEY want to over extend themselves given the upcoming changes... 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
Fabienne Runestar Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 04:37:00 - [143] CCP Why does everything always have to be more expensive? Inflation is one thing, but if there was true inflation the amount of bounties on rats, and mission rewards would also be going up. I'm not seeing that though, just the latest and greatest way to screw people out of isk, seems to be take away one roll from a class of ships and give it to another class of ships more expensive. You have an isk problem CCP, we all know it, yet you chose to screw the players who are talking up your game, and paying you a monthly fee, rather than go after those who are causing the isk problem to begin with. Go after the macro miners, ratters, and mission runners. Take them out of business, lock away their 'isk' and you will solve a lot of your isk problems. Instead of taking a role away from one class of ships and giving it to a more expensive class. What's next Tech 2 Carrier, Dreads, Motherships and Titans? You and I both know what will happen, you say logistics will be harder after trinity for a few weeks. I say no it wount because anyone with any brains is preparing now, getting months and months worth of fuel near their POSes to keep them online. Sure a Carrier can carry 2 battleships in Trinity, but with only 40 rounds of ammo in my megathon's guns I'm not very useful right out of the launch bay. Well not for long. Shooting a POS down, or in a fleet. If I last more than one engagement my guns will run dry. You can stop ships from being loaded into the Roqual if they aren't an industrial class, can't you stop ships from being loaded with something other than consumables ie Ammo, Caprechargers, crystals etc in their holds? --- Eve has taught me that Evil will always triumph, because Good is mysteriously unable to log in to defend it's assets.
Jenea Gallente The Copernicus Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 04:39:00 - [144] Originally by: Rells Originally by: Kali Ananda Signed. Come on CCP, there are counters to everything already, stop!!!!! Agreed. They need to stop listening to the whine parade that cant use their brain to go further than tank and gank. Off topic, but I like your sig alot.
Jenea Gallente The Copernicus Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 04:50:00 - [145] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan It's good to hear the whys about changes. Now, your thoughts on the Eos and Myrmidon? Check the OMG YOU NUURFED MY DRONE thread. Nice attitude.
missionalt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 04:59:00 - [146] this. this is the best thread.
Jenea Gallente The Copernicus Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 05:14:00 - [147] Originally by: missionalt this. this is the best thread. You seem lost. COAD is that way.
Ed Anger Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.11.08 05:18:00 - [148] Originally by: Jenea Off topic, but I like your sig alot. Nova Z and more here
ArtemisEntreri TALON'S GRIP	Posted - 2007.11.08 05:42:00 - [149] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Originally by: Verone Originally by: Rells From the point of view of the people testing on Sisi, I stopped reading here. The stats on the test server are never final, that's why it's called a TEST server. There's no need to get worked up about changes there... they're being TESTED, and may not go live. Come on Verone, there have been plenty of things that everyone thought was just being 'tested' (like warp to 0km) that ended up on TQ exactly like they were on Sisi, or worse. idk if he'll actually read this, but another argument is that on test server there are things being "tested", sure, but this means that the devs are suggesting this should be in the game, they're thinking about changing these things to something different. This is why people argue things appearing on test server, because CCP are THINKING about doing changes the players don't think they should.
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.08 05:52:00 - [150] Edited by: Greenwing on 08/11/2007 05:53:11 Originally by: CCP Nozh Filling their ship maintenance bay with "maxed out cargospace haulers" transporting fuel, commodities, minerals and items safely was never their intended role. That role on its own might not be a problem, but if you're using the same ship to haul and fight in we obviously have a problem. But what about alternate fits for ships, without the ability to put a new fit and ammo in the hold of the ships logistics is getting a nightmare. Quote: The Jump Freighter will most likely not make logistics as easy because: They'll cost more - I think we're aiming for something around ~2.8bn build cost (not sure, not at work) They'll be harder to make - Being the first T2 capital ship, it won't exactly be a "Betty Crocker" production. This will be a problem in the first few months, after that every alliance/corp will have one and logistics will be just as easy as it is now except you have to make 2 runs for moving ships.1 with a carrier to get the ships to where you want them and 2 the jump freighter run with the fittings/ammo of those ships. I think the carrier hold should be reduced but not as much as it is now. You should be able to also take alternate fittings for the ships you transpor. Quote: Not everyone will want to fly them - Let's face it, a lot of people have carriers cause they're bad ass. This is where CCP is wrong, most people fly them because they are the next step after a BS and they are the only capitals to get for the casual player, not because they are bad ass ships. Quote: They're much more vulnerable Well they can't shoot back, but have you ever tried a carrier without support against a small gang ? Furthermore the jump freighter always has a scout at the place he is going to, so he would be pretty dumb to jump it in hostile space. Quote: They won't be everyones goal after reaching BS level like the carriers currently are. Yup, you are right here, but still every corp will have one next year, 2.8 bil is not exactly out of reach for even a small corp. Quote: Jump Freighters aren't supposed to be used to ferry ships around, that's what carriers are for, and they'll become much better at it after the changes (I haven't heard any praises for that btw). Maybe that's because nobody is waiting for a bigger maintenance bay (especially not if the ability to also take fittings and ammo is taken away) ? You shouldn't expect praises for things people aren't waiting for. (if i take a dollar away from you and give you a dime, would you be happy ? ) Another question, with this change to carriers they are definately no jack of all trades anymore, does this also mean there will be no other changes to carriers (as stated by CCP Zulupark lately) ?
TheDevilsJury GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 05:59:00 - [151] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Rells Another changes I object to are The speed nerfs to the interdictors (they are made of paper and primary target man). The sabre was a bit powerful but the answer was to fix the flycatcher (reduce its weight by 30%) and other interdictors, not nerf them all. As for scripts, I wouldnt care if the script loaded attributes for the modules was the same as the current values. The fact is that even with a script loaded, damps have been hit with a 40% nerf and other script modules havent fared much better. Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. Yes, the speed difference between interdictors is only 10 m/s or so. But what happens is you fill out the lowslots with speed mods and put on a MWD which then takes into account the ship's mass. Flycatcher has both the least lowslots and the highest mass, so when MWDing it goes far slower than a lower-mass Sabre assuming a similar fitting. Of course it makes up for that in being able to fit more tackling/tanking gear in the mids, but interdictors live and die by their speed. If you want to balance out the speeds of all interdictors, look at their speed after MWDs and adjusting the mass will do that. A 25% nerf accross the board will keep the respective differences in speed exactly the same.
Dr Paithos Minmatar Republic Deep Space Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:08:00 - [152] Originally by: TheDevilsJury Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Rells Another changes I object to are The speed nerfs to the interdictors (they are made of paper and primary target man). The sabre was a bit powerful but the answer was to fix the flycatcher (reduce its weight by 30%) and other interdictors, not nerf them all. As for scripts, I wouldnt care if the script loaded attributes for the modules was the same as the current values. The fact is that even with a script loaded, damps have been hit with a 40% nerf and other script modules havent fared much better. Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. Yes, the speed difference between interdictors is only 10 m/s or so. But what happens is you fill out the lowslots with speed mods and put on a MWD which then takes into account the ship's mass. Flycatcher has both the least lowslots and the highest mass, so when MWDing it goes far slower than a lower-mass Sabre assuming a similar fitting. Of course it makes up for that in being able to fit more tackling/tanking gear in the mids, but interdictors live and die by their speed. If you want to balance out the speeds of all interdictors, look at their speed after MWDs and adjusting the mass will do that. A 25% nerf accross the board will keep the respective differences in speed exactly the same. Look at the speed of the Manticore vs the other races Stealth Bombers, too. The others with speedfits do about 2500m/s. The manti struggles to break 1k/sec. Several caldari ships need a mass tweak to be competitive, not just the flycatcher. Shieldtanking is hard enough bleh Originally by: RedFall How dare you try to argue my point with your so called "evidence". I don't need any, I have truthiness on my side.
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:10:00 - [153] To everyone complaining about the interdictor nerfs.... I spent about 4 hours last weekend playing around with all the dictors (besides flycatcher, it's hopeless for speed) to see which ones gave the best results and under what conditions. I'll save you the details. Suprise ending though, Eris was the fastest dictor by about 2-3% AND it had all those mids to mess with people more (compared to the heretic and the sabre). Oh, and btw... I completely hate the dictor nerf. I love my heretic and wouldn't trade it for the world (cause i'm not a min/maxer i guess). I lose them so often though, i wish it had the ability to at least tank an interceptor or an assault frig long enough for the cavalry to arrive. :( good game
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:19:00 - [154] Edited by: Druadan on 08/11/2007 06:20:19 Originally by: Ket Halpak A thought I had was to allow ships inside carriers to carry cargo, but cargo expanders and skills dont take affect, just like when someone isnt piloting a ship. I could get about 17km3 into my mamoth while flying it, but if I were to fully load it in station, swap to a different ship and then open the mamoths cargo hold, it would appear to be overloaded (ie 17km3/5900m3 of cargo space used). If you stopped people from being able to load over expanded ships into a carrier, it would vastly reduce the carriers cargo hauling ability, but still provide some sort of logistics during the gap time. I havent done the maths (im supposed to be working atm :) ), but with the newly expanded cargo holds, you would only be able to haul about 20km3 with a carrier. Oh and being able to fit battleships inside a carrier 4tw! Agreed. Getting rid of the ability of carriers to hold ships with cargo in their holds is a very ham-fisted way of pushing this whole ''carriers != haulers'' thing on us. I agree that jump freighters need to take the bulk of logistics work, but imposing this ridiculous differentiation between charges and regular items is nonsensical and damaging. If you made it so ships in ship maintenance bays are essentially piloted by skill-less pilots, then all modules would be offline, and at most you would have three rigs active, significantly reducing the ability of the carrier to haul. The fact is that when a carrier brings ships to the frontline, those ships should be able to have ammo, other charges, and alternative module fittings in them, to give their pilot-to-be the freedom to refit the ship at the carrier. EVE's freedom and catering for versatility is one of its greatest aspects, and putting limits on reason just to force people out of a shiptype and into another is crazy talk. Especially when the production costs are so prohibitive. A ship in a ship maintenance bay is as it is in space, but unpiloted, so offlining modules (no skills present if it's unpiloted) is both sensible and effective in working towards limiting the carrier's ability to haul. 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? -Dru Screw you, Jacques.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:36:00 - [155] 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.
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.11.08 06:41:00 - [156] 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. Screw you, Jacques.
Baynex Amarr Lasciate Ogne Speranza	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:17:00 - [157] one question...the addition of drone bandwidth will cause many drone boats to switch from heavies or heavy/med/light drone waves to purely medium sized drones. Tech 2 medium drones are already the same or higher price than T2 heavies, and now that we can't rep their shields by bringing them back into our bays we'll loose even more of them. So i ask, do you have any plans to keep me from spending every last iskie in my wallet on medium drones?
Spenz Gallente Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:32:00 - [158] It appears CCP refuses to make anymore comments about drones. They just nerf the drone-boats, lose all focus as to what they actually are (ccp: omgz drone boats are boosted you can now launch more ewar drones whoopee) and are just going to leave it at that. Out of all the drone threads, only one got a response, and it was basically a CCP guy coming in to say "we aren't changing it because we are smarter than you goodbye". I feel as if CCP are treating drones and their users like some invention by Ron Popeil. "Just set it and forget it". If I had an Alt I would probably post with it...
Jenea Gallente The Copernicus Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:39:00 - [159] Originally by: Spenz It appears CCP refuses to make anymore comments about drones. They just nerf the drone-boats, lose all focus as to what they actually are (ccp: omgz drone boats are boosted you can now launch more ewar drones whoopee) and are just going to leave it at that. Out of all the drone threads, only one got a response, and it was basically a CCP guy coming in to say "we aren't changing it because we are smarter than you goodbye". I feel as if CCP are treating drones and their users like some invention by Ron Popeil. "Just set it and forget it". I wasn't particularly impressed with that CCP post either.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 07:49:00 - [160] Originally by: CCP Nozh Freighters aren't supposed to be used to ferry ships around, that's what carriers are for, and they'll become much better at it after the changes (I haven't heard any praises for that btw). Like I said before the carriers ship maintenance bay has doubled in size, battleships have be reduced in volume by 50%, and other ship classes have also been adjusted slightly. Player: "Yay for upped ship maintance bay!" CCP: "Yeah, oh hey by the way, I nerffed your ability to CARRY STUFF IN YOUR CARGO HOLD" Player: "Umh, why the freck?!" CCP: "Jump Freighters, baby, JUMP FREIGHTERS!" does drunken Oveur dance Sure, nerf ability to put haulers there but don't remove ability to have CARGO in other ships. People perhaps wants to carry extra modules to "front lines" (of BoB vs. RFC gloorious and oh-so-beatiful eternal-eve-wrecking-war) and us carrier biatches want to do that in one jump rather than n+1 jumps to get EVERYTHING there. Remember, Corp hangar is ONLY 10k .. yay for that? Oh, BATTLESTAR GALACTICA!! Ahahahahaahha repsroflcopterwhat*****ever It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:18:00 - [161] 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.
Laechyd Eldgorn Caldari Karjala Inc. Onnenpyora	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:34:00 - [162] Originally by: Dr Paithos Originally by: TheDevilsJury Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Rells stuff stuff Look at the speed of the Manticore vs the other races Stealth Bombers, too. The others with speedfits do about 2500m/s. The manti struggles to break 1k/sec. Several caldari ships need a mass tweak to be competitive, not just the flycatcher. Shieldtanking is hard enough bleh I kind of agree here. Reducing speed of all dictors isn't answer. Or all ships. Especially caldari suffer from having least low slots, high mass and inertia plus low capacitor. You can never fit effective caldari ship which goes at decent speed and uses capacitor based weapons. I can't talk about ships of other races really. But reducing all ship speeds just generally makes caldari ones even slower. It's especially bad for ships which can't really tank a ** except by going at high speed, meaning interdictors, cruisers (at some cases) and other small ships. Just to evaluate problems with flycatcher i give an example fit: 1xbubble 3xrails 4xrocket launchers 1xmwd 1xscram 1xweb 1xsensorbooster/damp 1xmed extender 1xoverdrive this kinda thing goes around 3000-4000m/s depending on gang bonuses. It's slower to warp than many cruisers. Many cruisers also go much faster. Some cruisers have almost same signature radius. You can't fit normal missile launchers because there's not enough grid. You can fit like 3-4 normal launchers with mwd and bubble. Even then about everything chews you apart. Because sabre uses projectiles it uses no cap, it's not as heavy so mwd gives better speed bonus. projectiles take less grid so you can probably fit in 2 med extenders... et cetera. I'm fine how my flycatcher works not even though it's in most of cases much worse than sabre (at least I can fit more damps which are gonna get nerfed but hey :p), but if the speed is dropped even more it is even more easy to kill and imo turns into total **.
Constance Noring	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:38:00 - [163] I like how CCP operates: first they give people some cool overpowered pvp pwnboats, let them train all the skills, then bam out of nowhere comes the nerfbat. It's the best kind of griefing.
Bimjo Caldari SKULLDOGS	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:50:00 - [164] Originally by: CCP Nozh But it's 1am soon and I need to get on with my social life.. what ? since when have CCP employees been allowed RL ?
Ozstar Naughty 40 Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.08 08:50:00 - [165] Whats the range on a T2 freighter? ---
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.08 09:37:00 - [166] Originally by: CCP Nozh Filling their ship maintenance bay with "maxed out cargospace haulers" transporting fuel, commodities, minerals and items safely was never their intended role. That role on its own might not be a problem, but if you're using the same ship to haul and fight in we obviously have a problem. This is NO reason for completly nerfing their hauling capabilities. They are at the moment a bit too good (because of industrials), after the nerf they are too bad. I would like to see an increase of the corporate hangar array to 25k m3. The increase of the ship maintenance array is NOT really needed so far. I¦m sure that players find another way of "exploiting" it in a way, which you don¦t expect. Quote: The Jump Freighter will most likely not make logistics as easy because: They'll cost more - I think we're aiming for something around ~2.8bn build cost (not sure, not at work) They'll be harder to make - Being the first T2 capital ship, it won't exactly be a "Betty Crocker" production. I personally will profit from this (invention ftw), but this is a very bad design decision, as much too few jumpfreighters can be built because of copy times. ==> Smaller alliances will have massive problems to acquire them. ==> Big alliances will profit, small alliances will suffer. Are these your ideas of a good balance? Quote: Not everyone will want to fly them - Let's face it, a lot of people have carriers cause they're bad ass. LOL Quote: I do agree the following weeks after the change will be interesting, we've given plenty of thought to it. There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs, but I'm pretty sure the gap won't be too large and a lot of you will probably stock up a bit before the changes hit. THIS is harassment from the side of CCP. Delay the hauling nerf for 3-5 months, and the problem will be greatly reduced. Sure, we will use Cargo-Dreads and Rorquals for moving stuff, but I¦m sure, that dreads are NOT meant to be haulers. Other important stuff: ) Don¦t make it impossible to move cargo in ships within a carrier, but make it impossible to move haulers (in 3-5 months). This would be a much easier and solution and we won¦t see as many bugs or even exploits around the solution. (Anyone can think of moving tons of ammo and refining it later...) ) Make it possible to take rigs off nerfed ships, perhaps during patch-downtime.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 09:53:00 - [167] Originally by: Druadan The fact is that when a carrier brings ships to the frontline, those ships should be able to have ammo, other charges, and alternative module fittings in them, to give their pilot-to-be the freedom to refit the ship at the carrier. -Dru Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they?

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 09:57:00 - [168] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they? Ah yes, silly us. Forgive us o'mighty CCP! I totally FORGOT that one. Let's see, ah yes. Now I can bring with me TOTAL OF 100 ITAMS in carriers cargohold .. remember that you guys nerffed modules m3's also. Nice job CCP, nice job. It's great being Amarr isn't it.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:07:00 - [169] Originally by: Spenz It appears CCP refuses to make anymore comments about drones. They just nerf the drone-boats, lose all focus as to what they actually are (ccp: omgz drone boats are boosted you can now launch more ewar drones whoopee) and are just going to leave it at that. Out of all the drone threads, only one got a response, and it was basically a CCP guy coming in to say "we aren't changing it because we are smarter than you goodbye". I feel as if CCP are treating drones and their users like some invention by Ron Popeil. "Just set it and forget it". The Eos is a Fleet Command ship. If you look at the other Fleet Command ships (Damnation, Vulture and Claymore) you'll see why the Eos is being balanced. As for the other ships, Dominix is not being affected. Ishtar is not being affected. The Ishkur is a frigate sized ship and can still launch 5 light drones. 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.

Lady Beauvoir Slutty Witches	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:09:00 - [170] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Alski Any chance you could elaborate on the ôover the topö part? IÆm not asking in a whiney way, I genuinely donÆt understand. -Do you mean that they were being used too far out of there intended role? -Do you mean they were making 0.0 logistics too easy? If so why? Surely jump-freighters will replace Carrier logistics and so if anything will be just as easy, if not easier? -Do you mean that being able to haul, and tank, and fight all at once was the problem? Filling their ship maintenance bay with "maxed out cargospace haulers" transporting fuel, commodities, minerals and items safely was never their intended role. That role on its own might not be a problem, but if you're using the same ship to haul and fight in we obviously have a problem. The Jump Freighter will most likely not make logistics as easy because: They'll cost more - I think we're aiming for something around ~2.8bn build cost (not sure, not at work) They'll be harder to make - Being the first T2 capital ship, it won't exactly be a "Betty Crocker" production. Not everyone will want to fly them - Let's face it, a lot of people have carriers cause they're bad ass. They're much more vulnerable They won't be everyones goal after reaching BS level like the carriers currently are. I do agree the following weeks after the change will be interesting, we've given plenty of thought to it. There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs, but I'm pretty sure the gap won't be too large and a lot of you will probably stock up a bit before the changes hit. I'm just curious whether you have any solid plans to do something about the rorqual or dreads? As it stands, the cost jump hauling of a single m^3 of stuff is more cost-effective using a rorqual or a dread (especially if you are planning on increasing the cargo space of the rorqual. The jump freighters are going to be scarce for a long while, not to mention very expensive due to invention, while dreads and rorquals are available far more cheaply. Is this intended or is your goal to keep two ships as dedicated jump haulers - the carrier for ships and freighter for modules? If you are planning on changes, what'd you do with the rorqual and the dreads? While I understand and in a way even support the changes to carrier hauling capability, it just seems to reach the half way since the most obvious reaction is to switch to dreads or rorquals to do the same job as before while retaining both fighting and hauling capability at least to some degree. "Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne connaet point." -Blaise Pascal, PensTes, 4, 277

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:12:00 - [171] Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they? Ah yes, silly us. Forgive us o'mighty CCP! I totally FORGOT that one. Let's see, ah yes. Now I can bring with me TOTAL OF 100 ITAMS in carriers cargohold .. remember that you guys nerffed modules m3's also. Nice job CCP, nice job. You can bring quite a lot more than that, large weapons, drones, ammo, etc. Your 100 number is at best pessimistic.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:14:00 - [172] Originally by: Lady Beauvoir I'm just curious whether you have any solid plans to do something about the rorqual or dreads? As it stands, the cost jump hauling of a single m^3 of stuff is more cost-effective using a rorqual or a dread (especially if you are planning on increasing the cargo space of the rorqual. The jump freighters are going to be scarce for a long while, not to mention very expensive due to invention, while dreads and rorquals are available far more cheaply. Is this intended or is your goal to keep two ships as dedicated jump haulers - the carrier for ships and freighter for modules? If you are planning on changes, what'd you do with the rorqual and the dreads? While I understand and in a way even support the changes to carrier hauling capability, it just seems to reach the half way since the most obvious reaction is to switch to dreads or rorquals to do the same job as before while retaining both fighting and hauling capability at least to some degree. As far as I know we haven't put together anything solid for hauler dreads and Rorquals, but we'll have to look into those as well.

Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:15:00 - [173] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they? Ah yes, silly us. Forgive us o'mighty CCP! I totally FORGOT that one. Let's see, ah yes. Now I can bring with me TOTAL OF 100 ITAMS in carriers cargohold .. remember that you guys nerffed modules m3's also. Nice job CCP, nice job. You can bring quite a lot more than that, large weapons, drones, ammo, etc. Your 100 number is at best pessimistic. I can't check right now (at work) but I saw a little while ago that many capital sized modules were increased from 1000 m3 to 4000 m3. Doesn't that mean that i can't even take alternative fittings for my carrier? Max --------------------
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:20:00 - [174] Question 1: Clarification please: the nerf to hauling cargo in carriers with haulers is intended solely as a nerf to carrier versatility and not a nerf to logistics in general? 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? Question 3: Alternatively, have you considered moving the Sovereignty POS away from moons and to planets? Then you could probably do the carrier cargo nerf at the same time as introducing jumpfreighters, and make everyone in 0.0 rejoice as the amount of POS fights to take over systems is reduced to a manageable number instead of the potential fight over 20-25 POS in every system. ------------------------------------------------

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:20:00 - [175] Originally by: Max Teranous I can't check right now (at work) but I saw a little while ago that many capital sized modules were increased from 1000 m3 to 4000 m3. Doesn't that mean that i can't even take alternative fittings for my carrier? Some (many) capital modules have been increased in size a lot, yes, making it harder to carry them around with you into the front lines for quick refitting. My example of modules carried only covered battleship (and smaller) modules as that is what I thought the OP was asking about.

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:20:00 - [176] Originally by: Max Teranous I can't check right now (at work) but I saw a little while ago that many capital sized modules were increased from 1000 m3 to 4000 m3. Doesn't that mean that i can't even take alternative fittings for my carrier? Now now, don't be pessimistic. CCP knows whats fun for you! Don't try to force them! It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:21:00 - [177] 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! It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Ashaz Mindstar Technology Talon Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:23:00 - [178] Originally by: Baleur Lol you say that it "shatters tha balance of the game" What balance? Amarr? We need all the changes we can get. And furious nerfbatting that made even me turn back to gallente gankboats is helping how exactly? All the fun ships are beeing destroyed. just look at SiSi! Everyone is going for pure gank ships after these changes. This makes me a sad panda 2 year old pilot specialized in amarr 6 gallente recons... scrapping that entire concept and training blasters like the rest.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:25:00 - [179] Originally by: Malachon Draco Question 1: Clarification please: the nerf to hauling cargo in carriers with haulers is intended solely as a nerf to carrier versatility and not a nerf to logistics in general? A bit of both. 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% Originally by: Malachon Draco Question 3: Alternatively, have you considered moving the Sovereignty POS away from moons and to planets? Then you could probably do the carrier cargo nerf at the same time as introducing jumpfreighters, and make everyone in 0.0 rejoice as the amount of POS fights to take over systems is reduced to a manageable number instead of the potential fight over 20-25 POS in every system. Starbase warfare, sovereignty and the likes is something we'd like to look at at some point in time. I do not, however, know when that time will be available.

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:25:00 - [180] Originally by: Ashaz 2 year old pilot specialized in amarr 6 gallente recons... scrapping that entire concept and training blasters like the rest. Luckily for me, my 2nd char is pure gallente (as I am pure amarr) but sadly, he got 10mil "wasted sp" out of 45mil to science and other carebear skills . Althou HAC lvl5 is nice for Ishtar It's great being Amarr isn't it.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:27:00 - [181] 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)

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:32:00 - [182] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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) Oh, how wonderful. Funny that you used those modules, not lasers (which are 100m3 and being amarr I carry those..). Another Amarr "oomph" in progress? I will stop trying to speak sense to you guys but having to stop people using ships cargospace is stupid, VERY stupid. It does NOT hurt anyone to have cruiser's cargospace (300m3) filled with FEW items because of it's not like they can carry fuel. Why cannot you do that pos fuel. etc you DON'T want to be carried in carriers are forbidden from cargo holds but MODULES for SHIPS they carry can be there? Is it REALLY that hard? It would make game FUN (which you are trying to reduce now, btw) and actually make me log on and play this goddamnet game! It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:39:00 - [183] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Malachon Draco Question 1: Clarification please: the nerf to hauling cargo in carriers with haulers is intended solely as a nerf to carrier versatility and not a nerf to logistics in general? A bit of both. Could you explain this further please? In the longterm you are not nerfing logistics at all, since people will fly jumpfreighters. So why would you want to introduce a nerf to logistics, which because of your own actions, is only a temporary one? ------------------------------------------------
Dr Aryandi Bloodstone Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:42:00 - [184] I _strongly_ recommend the devs look at the suggestion made above that rather than limiting the type of items stored in cargo holds you limit the amount. If you were not able to put a ship into the cargo hold that was overloaded when not counting pilot skills (and possibly when not counting cargo expanders) then that would change things a lot. Cruisers/BS/etc could still carry ammo, spare fits, whatever else they need - while haulers could be used to carry a small amount of stuff but nothing like the mammoth (no pun intended) amount stored now. That would both make more sense in terms of game 'realism' and also soften the blow from this nerf considerably. Blueprint Research Service Available See thread for details.
Cygnus Zhada Amarr The Wild Hunt	Posted - 2007.11.08 10:52:00 - [185] These are Bartle-esque design changes and it's funny how the community reacts exactly as Mr. B predicts in these situations. Everyone thinks short-term, everyone think about their own personal gain/interest and again; short-term. If people stop the "waah, they nerfing meeeeeeh", actually stand back and actually start thinking about the carrier's intended role, the freighter's role, the size of alliances atm and the ease/non-consequence way of moving things about in said carrier and THEN are able to rule out their own agenda's in this (legitimate agendas, yet just thinking short-term) then you MUST come to the following conclusion; Carriers are used in a non-intended role, way too easy. It enables 1 person (with a bunch of alts) to do what before carriers would take a whole corp. That simply can't stay because 0.0 should be about teamwork and not about soloing. Teleporting (because that's what carriers do, in effect) shortens the distances and thus shrinks the world (which is bad) and it takes away from interaction with others, wether these have good or bad intentions. More interaction = good sizing up the game world = good advocating teamwork = good Short term this means that people will whine about their losses in ships, training, options and income. Long term it means more interaction, more teamwork and more/different entities in 0.0 because of the increased problems with over extending yourself as an alliance, what's not to like? 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
Max Teranous Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:10:00 - [186] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Max Teranous I can't check right now (at work) but I saw a little while ago that many capital sized modules were increased from 1000 m3 to 4000 m3. Doesn't that mean that i can't even take alternative fittings for my carrier? Some (many) capital modules have been increased in size a lot, yes, making it harder to carry them around with you into the front lines for quick refitting. My example of modules carried only covered battleship (and smaller) modules as that is what I thought the OP was asking about. A fair caveat, but i was getting at that once my maintanance bay is mostly filled with like 2 capital modules (several less than i currently carry already), there is precious little space left for alternative modules for any ships that are in my bay. Max --------------------
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:11:00 - [187] Edited by: MotherMoon on 08/11/2007 11:11:51 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) Seem fine to me for an armed ship that can tank like hell and dish out dps. you could arm a lot of ships with that, and if your in a big corp then you could get a good number of runs. and wait... you say it can carry tons of cruiser as well? THANK YOU! finally! it's like a combat logtisics ship, you can take stuff form low sec and jump it deep into 0.0 with everything you need to arm them. I for one like this change. that's so many ship set ups it's scary, and even thought it came across rotten, if the fact is that cruiser lasers take up 100m/s maybe that should be cut down a bit? Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:11:00 - [188] Originally by: Cygnus Zhada These are Bartle-esque design changes and it's funny how the community reacts exactly as Mr. B predicts in these situations. Everyone thinks short-term, everyone think about their own personal gain/interest and again; short-term. If people stop the "waah, they nerfing meeeeeeh", actually stand back and actually start thinking about the carrier's intended role, the freighter's role, the size of alliances atm and the ease/non-consequence way of moving things about in said carrier and THEN are able to rule out their own agenda's in this (legitimate agendas, yet just thinking short-term) then you MUST come to the following conclusion; Carriers are used in a non-intended role, way too easy. It enables 1 person (with a bunch of alts) to do what before carriers would take a whole corp. That simply can't stay because 0.0 should be about teamwork and not about soloing. Teleporting (because that's what carriers do, in effect) shortens the distances and thus shrinks the world (which is bad) and it takes away from interaction with others, wether these have good or bad intentions. More interaction = good sizing up the game world = good advocating teamwork = good Short term this means that people will whine about their losses in ships, training, options and income. Long term it means more interaction, more teamwork and more/different entities in 0.0 because of the increased problems with over extending yourself as an alliance, what's not to like? The main problem is that these nerfs seem pretty random, without any type of vision. Certainly that could be related to the way they have been presented, but it could also be actually true that CCP doesn't know what it's doing. I am pretty sure that if CCP had presented its vision about what they want Eve to look like (for example, promote smaller areas of space being held by alliances and less POS warfare), how they intended to achieve it (by nerfing logistics) and how they were gonna implement it (by nerfing carriers), the response would have been better. Undoubtedly, there would still have been grumbling, and people might have attacked the vision CCP would be basing their changes on, but then the discussion could have gone into the direction of being constructive and with both CCP and players understanding the other's POV. But as long as CCP doesn't share or present their 'grand vision' of where EVE should be heading and how they intend to get there, then I think players screaming bloody murder at changes that they perceive to be random and unfair is to be expected. ------------------------------------------------
Cygnus Zhada Amarr The Wild Hunt	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:34:00 - [189] Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 08/11/2007 11:37:10 Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 08/11/2007 11:34:36 It's not random at all, it's just that they do it all at once. - cruiser/BC class ships shouldn't be able to field a sawrm BS size drones like they do now. - Dampeners needed a nerf a long time ago; WAY too effective and 100% chance of success. - the carrier is not a hauler, as I stated earlier it gives unwanted power to the solo/few. These changes take away options from the bigger alliances and/or solo power players, and give it back to the people; the other players. - edit for content - They simply have to do these hauling/carrier changes, EVE gets more and more people and they want to grow even MORE. Atm there's no room for people to find their own spot because it's all taken up by the (super) alliances. All they can do is succomb and just join one of the already existing parties... It's not random, it's just not very well orchestrated. 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
Unrah Gallente Capital Inc. Capital Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:35:00 - [190] Why didn`t the motherships recieved an increase in the ship maint bay like small version carriers did? They also get heavily affected by all the next patch nerfs, and all the problem with them, especially bumping (a bs close to MS and ms can`t move anymore) haven`t been fixed.
HenkieBoy	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:45:00 - [191] Something I don't understand, if the whole problem is around Carriers being used to fuel posses, why doesn't CCP simply 'forbid' certain items to be carried by some ships? You can even make a little background to it: "Liquids can only be hauled by haulers because of the instability of the liquid. Haulers have a special item buildin that allows them to counter this instability. This item prevents haulers to be carried inside Carriers when they have liquids onboard" Ok, I am new at this game and might say something stupid :P ps. Mr CCP, can u answer me about those skills people need? I am a bit lost there
Ozstar Naughty 40 Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:51:00 - [192] 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? Originally by: CCP Nozh Necrologic I like you. 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. ---
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:52:00 - [193] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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) So where did you store your fuel?
Dezzereth Black Thorne Corporation Elemental Fusion	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:52:00 - [194] I as well see a certain trend. A big problem is, that the more stuff gets added to the game, and the more rebalancing everything is getting more and more challenging and dangerous to handle. As far as I can see the REAL downward spiral started with RMR (though even before that). The so called Mk2 changes proved that CCP had lost .... well.. something. Those changes homogenized the ships of all the races with a big step. Since then we had nerf after nerf. .. erm.. sorry.... "making equipment work as intended". Yes there were some overpowered items, but why not introducing counters for them instead? Why not a "Energy Stabilizer" that reduces Nos strength by a, lets say 50%, plus 5% per skill level? Would still make Nos an interesting weapon, but you would never know if you opponent is counter fitted or not. Also, do you remember the dual MWD/oversized AB ships? I thought those changes (make only one activable at a time) were made to make ships reasonable fast, or? So...... are ships going faster since then, because I see constant whining about fast ships, missiles that don't reach the target (eventhough missile speed was upped since then considerably), etc. What changed since then? It is as if dual (or even triple) speed boosters were never nerfed. Yes, exactly - new modules (and implants, and rigs) came into the game and we are still there where we were. Maybe CCP wanted their effect, maybe not, but in the end what do we get? Well, for example a blunt -25% to interdictors. Wow, creative. I have absolutely no problem with ships going as fast as 100km/s, you just need to give people a tool to be able to deal with ships fast like that. Either a specialized missile (wow that would make Cladari finally overall useful in pvp, instead of that torp "buff") or maybe a "webfield". What the OP may feel, as well as I do is that eventhough we get more and more "toys" I still feel that the game is treading on the same place as 2 years ago, but minus the things that made it all interesting. Players will always come up with ways to use ships in a way "they were never intended". That is the risk of having such a free form environment like in EVE. CCP (in form of their employees) always evade the really interesting questions and give forth the impression that they only run numbers and don't actually try it out under live circumstances. Why ARE fleet mechanics (primary, secondary, etc..) kept that simple by players? Because you can't do anything more complex when your ships are lagged to death (literally). Carriers may be nice haulers and combat ships in one, but where the **** is the problem with that? Carriers are quite vulnerable and even a group of carriers without support is sooo dead - and not to other capitals, but up to battleship size ships. Mathematical calculations are a good basis, but they are usually killed by actual use. Numbers don't say anything in a combat. Your ships can spew out 2000dps or 3000 - if your jammed, or can't hit the enemy for whatever reason you are dead meat. No calculation willl show you that. Carriers are very vulnerable, they are not a "omfgwftsolopwnmobile". I dare to say the the biggest selling point of the upcoming big patch will be the gfx upgrade. That will be a big seller, and people will flock because of that, and not because you made game mechanics any better (save maybe the drone controls). People have demanded a better readable font for ages (I personally gave up), or an indicator of who is scrambling/webbing you. Some employees in CCP may still be passionate about the game, but as I see and feel it too many people start to see it as a job, and less a passion (or they are prevented to show it), and that is what starts to show. It may not be the case, but that is the impression that starts to form in my view.
Ozstar Naughty 40 Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:52:00 - [195] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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) So where did you store your fuel? in his cargo bay? ---
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:53:00 - [196] Originally by: Cygnus Zhada It's not random at all, it's just that they do it all at once. It¦s quite random as these changes doesn¦t adress the real problems: ) POS warfare: This is the most pressing issue. The hauler-nerf won¦t help anthing for this. It will make it only easier for defenders and more difficult for attackers (how do you want to bring strontium etc. in a hostile system?). Defenders should have enough supplies within the system, so they won¦t be hit. ) Nano ships: Here we need another nerf. But instead of nerfing nano ships, you are nerfing methods of catching nano ships. Massive fail. *) Passive shield tanking: Specially BCs have very good abilities for passive tanking, which are IMO overpowered. Why don¦t we see any changes here, specially shield extender could need a malus to shield regeneration rate.
Refugee007	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:55:00 - [197] Originally by: Ralitge boyter On top of this CCP anounced they are, together with some very big names (IBM, Miscrosoft), looking into building a far better cluster that should address the lag issues that we are seeing now. anyone else see a problem here ?
Dezzereth Black Thorne Corporation Elemental Fusion	Posted - 2007.11.08 11:57:00 - [198] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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) Right.... and how do you want to seperate what item belongs to whom? Also "randomly"? If I place stuff in the cargohold of a ship you know that it belongs to that ship. Containers are often inadequate because of their fixed sizes.
Johho Bulon Gallente Freelancer Union Unaffiliated	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:03:00 - [199] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Isn't Bandwith going to limit the usage of Medium Drones in the mix of 5 Drones usable at once, or am I misunderstanding it? The Ishtars bandwidth is 125m^3. Thus it can control 5x heavy drones, with that bandwidth it could launch 25x light drones or 12x medium drones, however it's still being limited by max 5 drones in space. So basically we aren't changing the Ishtar at all. C'mon you can tell me, on your private dev server, you have an Ishtar that can really control 25 drones don't you? And I bet you love waving your 25 hobgoblin II enhanced epeen around :D --------------- Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war. -- Ernest Hemingway
CyberChick The Ghost Riders Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:04:00 - [200] Are we going to see any increase in the bonuses for the new gallente electronic warfare frig and the 2 gallente recons, because with their current stats on scsi dampeners are not going to be effective enough - I tested with a friend my rigged t2 damp arazu and only got a raven with a sensor booster to 20km - thats fine if I am over 20km, but its now suicide to put a pilgrim in a range in a recon gang..
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:06:00 - [201] Edited by: Elmicker on 08/11/2007 12:06:53 Originally by: Ozstar in his cargo bay? At a pinch you'll squeeze 3 jumps @ 4/4 skills into a thanatos' cargo bay. That's not enough. Most logistics routes are 2-3 jumps in each direction. That leaves you enough for the trip there and an emergency jump out, with nothing spare for replacement ozone or emergency stront. You'd need a second ship there to carry your fuel, or you'll need to eat into your corp hangar, which will already have to be filled with your new 4k m3 capital modules and your corpmates' modules. Regardless of the extra time you have to spend sorting modules and doling them out when people pull a ship, you'll likely need a fuel ship alongisde any carrier logistics op. This'll probably end up being a jump freighter, which just about defeats the point. Doubling or tripling the carrier cargohold and you'll get away with it, but then you may as well just use an expanded archon for logistics.
Di Jiensai Gallente Domination. League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:07:00 - [202] Originally by: CyberChick Are we going to see any increase in the bonuses for the new gallente electronic warfare frig and the 2 gallente recons, because with their current stats on scsi dampeners are not going to be effective enough - I tested with a friend my rigged t2 damp arazu and only got a raven with a sensor booster to 20km - thats fine if I am over 20km, but its now suicide to put a pilgrim in a range in a recon gang.. So, with 1 (one!) ship, you can get a BS, which has even a countermeasure fitted, targeting range below the range of unbonused warpdisruptors? You seriously say thats a problem?
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:09:00 - [203] Originally by: CyberChick Are we going to see any increase in the bonuses for the new gallente electronic warfare frig and the 2 gallente recons, because with their current stats on scsi dampeners are not going to be effective enough - I tested with a friend my rigged t2 damp arazu and only got a raven with a sensor booster to 20km - thats fine if I am over 20km, but its now suicide to put a pilgrim in a range in a recon gang.. fit a damp to the pilgrim? Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:14:00 - [204] Lot's of Dev's opinions here, me like. :) First, the teaser of the trailer albeit extremely short, was beautifull. It made me want to fly a Rifter again. Second, about the whole mineral compression issue. When the first screen of new minerals was leaked out of Sisi, everyone exclaimed "woot! mining lots of low-end mins in 0.0! no more dependancy from empire!". We have to admit that mining veldspar in 0.0 is a waste of time, since even ratting and reprocessing the loot give more low-end minerals than mining them with a Hulk. Those new "super veldspar roids" would have stabilised the mineral market, with a decrease of low-end mins price and an increas of high-ends prices, since less people would be mining them. It was seen as an elegant and smart answer to the compression issue, cutting the need of it and making mining more interesting. But, alas, it seems that our excitement for those ores wasn't justified, since they appear to be only worthless stuff used for mining missions. So, do you CCP think about boosting 0.0 mining? If yes, what do you plan? And what about NPC loot tables? If you mess around with loot volumes, it will give a lot of people anger mangement issues. If I remember correctly, you planned to remove completely T1 mods from the loot table. But the release date draw closer, and we haven't seen any change on them. And this is something that would probably require extensive testing... ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Di Jiensai Gallente Domination. League of Abnormal Gentlemen	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:17:00 - [205] capital modules use 4000 cargo space. you have 20k in corp bay i think. that means, you can : - bring 3 weapons, 1 siege module, one captial armor rep withyour dread. + loads of standard items in normal cargo. - bring 5 drone control units in your carrier, or have 2 fitted and 3 + 2 capital reppers in corp bay. which means, you CAN refit your dread with diffrent range and tank setups in the field. and also change your carrier fitting in the field in some bounds.i agree that its probably not as easy as before, but saying that it is impossible is plain wrong.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:24:00 - [206] Originally by: Di Jiensai you have 20k in corp bay i think. 10k, unless its been increased on sisi. Quote: - bring 3 weapons, 1 siege module, one captial armor rep withyour dread. + loads of standard items in normal cargo. Since when do dreadnoughts have corp hangar bays? Quote: - bring 5 drone control units in your carrier, or have 2 fitted and 3 + 2 capital reppers in corp bay. Which leaves you no room for spare modules for the ships in your SMA (effectively making your sma useless), and limits your range in terms of fuel. Quote: i agree that its probably not as easy as before, but saying that it is impossible is plain wrong. It's not impossible, but they're severely limiting one of the carrier's primary roles - long range logistical support, for no good reason.
Tudor Minmatar Revolt	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:33:00 - [207] being a vet in eve, i start to think ccp erf for the nerfing sake, lol... now after 2 years ( almost ) of us having used cariers as haulers you come up with this, even thou the entire eve base ( almost ) dislike it.. you keep nerfing stuff that people have worked hard on to achieve, i would highly recommend that u start listening to the players a bit. the cariers are getting nerfed beyond any use. The amarr isent getting any nerf, so the entire amarr race is still ****. i dotn call what you do a nerf as it isent anything wich is good for the amarr, ive tested it on the test server and to be hounest im fare from impressed.. the amarr is still **** if close range, and are in need of a crystal that will shorten the laser so much as it can hit if people are at 2k away from you or something.... atm amarr cant do anything in a bs if something gets close.. ALL other races are able to... FIx IT plz. maybe a multicrystal with a script or whatever but do something... atm its insane... in general why nerf somethign that works nice.. the player base are happy about the cariers as they are atm. changing them seem ummm not needed ? make the jump freighters so that they can carry TONS more. as in a LOT MORE... and they might be usefull.
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:37:00 - [208] Originally by: Kuolematon Oh, how wonderful. Funny that you used those modules, not lasers (which are 100m3 and being amarr I carry those..). Another Amarr "oomph" in progress? As far as I'm aware only modules that can be built from T1 BPOs got the size increased, T2 and metalevel 1-4 still has the old size. Simple solution, stop using unnamed T1 fittings and it will fit in your carrier.
kurg Amarr Science Production And NuKing Dark Matter Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.08 12:50:00 - [209] It amazes me how most players are so narrow minded and strongly believe that MMO they play is based soley on their needs It also amazes me how 99.9% of these whinning threads are based on Carrier changes Do you guys not realize what the initial purpose of a Carrier/Mothership was for Fleet/Gang support roles? It was never ment to replace other players in a Fleet/Gang. If the current state of Carriers is left alone, the "MASS" players that are as narrow minded as the OP will perceive the Carrier as end game and before a years time you will have entire battles faught by Carriers versus Carriers which to me would make the game very dull. Look at carriers now, they serve way too many roles that IMHO should not be able to serve solo including very good DPS not to mention their ability to mix and match drone deployments in such a way that you essentially become your own Gang. That is NOT what i pay a monthly sub for, i like to see tactics, i like to see people at their best playing with the tools they have been provided to their limit! i like it when on vent people complement others by "hey nice job". I HOPE CCP continues with their changes as they will make the game allot more inline and balanced, Eve-Online should not have an "End Game" characteristics like other MMO do, if i remember right Eve was born with the sole purpose of being different, which the Dev's have done a great job with. I truely hope the dev's DO NOT listen or waste their time on narrow minded posts like this
HenkieBoy	Posted - 2007.11.08 13:04:00 - [210] @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!
Ares Lightfeather Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.08 13:22:00 - [211] Well, if that's the argument you want to raise, first dev blog I found speaking of carriers : Carrier Another BFS, which is planned to use X-Large drones, be in a fleet combat support role and it's special abilities be of the support and drone class. Will also most likely feature Jumpdrive propulsion. http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=229 I don't see anywhere written "all around freighter for small alliance". I still think that t2 freighters should be made a more viable alternative to the current carrier capability though. -- Siggie ! Come back here ! -- Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: MotherMoon well a drone UI is a bit of an artist job Drone AI is obviously done by an artist too. One that is heavily into abstract
Trojanman190 Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.11.08 13:54:00 - [212] A lot of the dudes on this thread seem to be attacking the dev responses with sarcasm and the like, you need to grow up and stop. You should just be happy that the devs are taking the time to respond to our questions. If you treat them like s**t they aren't going to want to answer our questions anymore. If they don't come to the forums to answer our questions then they won't hear any of our input. Not everyone on this thread is being an a-hole but you morons know who you are. Please stop and let the devs do their thing.
Matrixcvd Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 14:12:00 - [213] Originally by: CCP Nozh Filling their ship maintenance bay with "maxed out cargospace haulers" transporting fuel, commodities, minerals and items safely was never their intended role. That role on its own might not be a problem, but if you're using the same ship to haul and fight in we obviously have a problem. Gee Nozh wasn't that obvious when your cohorts initially designed the bloody thing 2 years ago? And here again is a huge disconnect between game reality and dev delusion. NO BODY IN A FULLY LOGISTIC FiT CARRIER IS GONNA FIGHT. Where in collective genius at CCP has it been deceided the probability of a fully kitted carrier filled with POS's, POS fuel, Mins is going to lay the SOLOWTFPWN smack down on a bunch of noob frigate pilots as he makes 3 jumps across 28 lys of 0.0? It doesn't happen. And this nonsense is the reason why people are **ed. You are aguing that the ship CAN fight and run logistics at the same time But vast majority of the intelligent eve community wouldn't think of that or they would be run out of the corp once the km was found on someone else's kb. Originally by:** CCP Nozh I do agree the following weeks after the change will be interesting, we've given plenty of thought to it. There will be a gap, where you'll be forced to fall back to old fashioned freighter runs, but I'm pretty sure the gap won't be too large and a lot of you will probably stock up a bit before the changes hit. Thanks for crashin mod markets in 0.0, thanks for thinkin of the little guy. Originally by: CCP Nozh Jump Freighters aren't supposed to be used to ferry ships around, that's what carriers are for, and they'll become much better at it after the changes (I haven't heard any praises for that btw). Like I said before the carriers ship maintenance bay has doubled in size, battleships have be reduced in volume by 50%, and other ship classes have also been adjusted slightly. Again the disconnect, i mean this is starting to sound like Britney Spears at parent school. SHIPS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN WRECKS WITHOUT MODS. Who cares if you can carry a dozen BS's, if you can't fit them then its useless. And if you are in a huge battle don't expect the carrier to be sitting there dispensing ships to the pod train while its getting hosed to pieces. So your not going to get any love for all your hard work and tough decisions on this one. THE SMB is nearily unusable in large combat anyways. Finally, most people build the ships out in 0.0 its everything else thats needed to get trucked out here. Your arguments and rationale are obtuse at best.
Insidi Us Amarr Suicidal Mercenaries Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.08 14:18:00 - [214] ^ Regardless of your opinion, stating it that way doesn't do a damn thing for you. ------------- RIP Constructive Criticism
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.08 14:23:00 - [215] Originally by: Matrixcvd Again the disconnect, i mean this is starting to sound like Britney Spears at parent school. SHIPS ARE NOTHING MORE THAN WRECKS WITHOUT MODS. Who cares if you can carry a dozen BS's, if you can't fit them then its useless. And if you are in a huge battle don't expect the carrier to be sitting there dispensing ships to the pod train while its getting hosed to pieces. I'm sorry but I think you missed this post when you did your rant. Do you really believe that the ships that can carry all needed ammo inside the SMB will be unfitted?
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.08 14:42:00 - [216] IMO classic idiocy, CCP. I've read your thread of idiot rationalizations kicking your player base square in the cajones because they decide to use something 'their way'. Now you take the bat and go home because the third baseman caught your foul ball. 2.8 bil build cost for a f*ing jump freighter? Jebus, you twits, yank logistics away from every small/medium alliance (and pretty much any corp) at a single go. Just like HACs before widespread invention these damn ships will be 10 bil for a year or more, if not 20 bil or even higher. You can introduce these super-movers and not even touch the haulage capacity of a much less expensive carriers and, in time (if you would allow it!!!) the jump freighters would eventually take over. Forcing them down our gullets with a broken invention system is a big fat 'screw you' to your playerbase. I'd like to see all the hate flames you're going to recieve from all the cancelled subscriptions. And no, you can't have my stuff. It's all going to be trashed (the worthless carrier included). You'll find my main on eBay, for real world money thank you. Not that it can sell after this change, only idiot nuubs will bother with eve after this monumental stroke of game-stalling genius.
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.08 17:00:00 - [217] Originally by: Trojanman190 A lot of the dudes on this thread seem to be attacking the dev responses with sarcasm and the like, you need to grow up and stop. You should just be happy that the devs are taking the time to respond to our questions. If you treat them like s**t they aren't going to want to answer our questions anymore. If they don't come to the forums to answer our questions then they won't hear any of our input. Not everyone on this thread is being an a-hole but you morons know who you are. Please stop and let the devs do their thing. Couldn't agree more. I would like to personally thank the devs for being so involved in the thread. The vast maority of us are able to have a rational discussion. Those that arent should be ingored out of hand and have their posts removed. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Druadan Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn	Posted - 2007.11.08 17:13:00 - [218] Edited by: Druadan on 08/11/2007 17:16:13 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Druadan The fact is that when a carrier brings ships to the frontline, those ships should be able to have ammo, other charges, and alternative module fittings in them, to give their pilot-to-be the freedom to refit the ship at the carrier. -Dru Ships stored in a ship maintenance bay can carry all charges. That includes ammo, cap boosters and scripts. As for carrying extra modules to refit in the field, that's what corp hangar bays are for aren't they? Well, they could be, if it weren't for the amounts of jump fuel we have to cart about, and the fact that a single pilot accessing the corp hangar lags both the player and the carrier, and that it's a CORP hangar array, not an ALLIANCE hangar array, or a GANG hangar array, so the whole thing is bloody limited from the start. The configure ship only lets me open up the ship maintenance bay to gangmates. Having gangmates jumping into fresh ships and then lagging me out because they're all trying to grab modules from my hangar is not fun. Didn't you say you play this game back in the five fighters thread? Seriously. Originally by: Necrologic 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 you threw in at the end for effect was a faulty one. I know that, and I maintained that the analogy did hold up. Assuming carriers aren't hauling ships, which I disagree on, but let's go with that flow for a moment, using them outside of that role should be possible, but inefficient compared to using a dedicated hauling ship. The same with the badger. It is for hauling, but you can strap damps/tracking disruptors to one and use it as a baitship with bite. Of course no one's going to field a badger as a gang EWAR ship, but the point is they do use them as EWAR platforms, when the fact that they're a badger is appropriate for another reason. Extend that to the carrier. If I have a small amount of goods to transport, I can put them in a carrier and they'll have some protection. I'm still full of cap recharge mods and/or expanded caroholds, so I'm not going to be hauling and popping *****es left right and centre, by any means. If I have a large amount of goods to transport, I'd use a more appropriate ship: jump freighter or regular freighter. I do that now, when the carrier has its hauling intact. So the carrier doesn't need a hauling nerf, but, again, lets go with that direction. It makes much more sense, is much more 'EVE', and is much less assholic to simply prevent haulers being put in the ship maintenance bay if they're overloaded, since the cargo expanders would be offline when there is no pod pilot in there. That would make carrier logistics (as in hauling) so inefficient that freighters would be a much more useful ship, and thus jump freighters would actually be an appealing option without being forced down our throats. 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. Screw you, Jacques.
Alexander Knott Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 17:18:00 - [219] Originally by: CCP Nozh Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. When you looked at the interdictor's speeds, did you also look at mass and number of low slots? On SiSi right now, my fleet fit Flycatcher (all T2, no rigs) can't break 2700m/s with max navigation skills. My fleet fit Heretic hits 3630m/s on the same clone. All of this ignores the fact that the Flycatcher can't really fit t2 weapons and a t2 mwd like the Heretic can. Or the Flycatcher's at most situationally useful missile precision bonus. Or the Heretic's ability to fit a shield extender and a cloak without really having to sacrifice anything. In general, while I get wanting to differentiate Interdictors and Interceptors more, I'm not sure why Interdictors are being made less survivable given their already "count on losing your ship every major engagement" nature. Post-patch, the Heretic will probably remain viable for me, but I'm really not sure what I'm going to do with my remaining Flycatcher hulls. I was already phasing them out as inferior to the Heretic and this change really clenches it. ----- "I like to loot, especially going to the can of the battleship, sometimes there is a surprise inside, sometimes there is only carp..."
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2007.11.08 18:43:00 - [220] Is it possible to separate the container types into allowable and non-allowable? Is it possible to seed a new type of cargo container that does NOT compress contents? By this I mean: GSC: Volume - 3,000m3 : Capacity - 3,900m3 Shipping Container - 3,000m3: Capacity - 3,000m3. Make them in 100, 500, 1,000 and 3,000 sizes. Also, please remove "Courier Mission" containers from the limitations of cargo containers. Why? With capitals not being able to carry items in containers, the biggest problem is not the loss of space (although that is somewhat of an issue) The biggest problem is the loss of any organizational capacity by the pilot. It used to be, that if I needed a certain amount of items moved via carrier / dread / jump ship / whatever, i could just make a courier mission, and my items would arrive intact. That is no longer possible. It also used to be that I could use shipping containers in a similar manner, by filling the containers with what I needed, then having the pilot just deliver the named container. With no ships being able to jump containers, that becomes a huge logistical nightmare in terms of tracking what is who's. Make the containers non-anchorable for what I care, i just want something to be able to organize stuff for shipment. ...
thisiswrong	Posted - 2007.11.08 18:58:00 - [221] Originally by: CCP Nozh Our goal is to make EVE ~~better, more balanced and more fun for everyone~~ more attractive to the masses. Quote: We feel scripts will bring more balance Heh yeah the last time CCP said something like that was right before Red Moon Rising witch gimped a race into oblivion. Hitpoint nerf, damage nerf, nos nerf, ecm nerf, and now all these changes PVP used to be fun and exighting, now its a slow&boring lagfest.
thisiswrong	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:02:00 - [222] Originally by: Matrixcvd Gee Nozh wasn't that obvious when your cohorts initially designed the bloody thing 2 years ago? And here again is a huge disconnect between game reality and dev delusion. NO BODY IN A FULLY LOGISTIC FiT CARRIER IS GONNA FIGHT. Where in collective genius at CCP has it been deceided the probability of a fully kitted carrier filled with POS's, POS fuel, Mins is going to lay the SOLOWTFPWN smack down on a bunch of noob frigate pilots as he makes 3 jumps across 28 lys of 0.0? It doesn't happen. And this nonsense is the reason why people are ****ed. You are aguing that the ship CAN fight and run logistics at the same time But vast majority of the intelligent eve community wouldn't think of that or they would be run out of the corp once the km was found on someone else's kb. Seems CCP has been hiring a lot of devs probably coming in from other games where you dont loose your stuff when you get killed. I mean, no DEV can be that incompitent.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:06:00 - [223] Originally by: Alexander Knott Originally by: CCP Nozh Well I started out only looking at the sabre, but realized quickly that the speed difference between the interdictors wasn't that great. A -25% speed reduction to all of them brought them a bit closer together and slowed them down a bit. When you looked at the interdictor's speeds, did you also look at mass and number of low slots? On SiSi right now, my fleet fit Flycatcher (all T2, no rigs) can't break 2700m/s with max navigation skills. My fleet fit Heretic hits 3630m/s on the same clone. All of this ignores the fact that the Flycatcher can't really fit t2 weapons and a t2 mwd like the Heretic can. Or the Flycatcher's at most situationally useful missile precision bonus. Or the Heretic's ability to fit a shield extender and a cloak without really having to sacrifice anything. In general, while I get wanting to differentiate Interdictors and Interceptors more, I'm not sure why Interdictors are being made less survivable given their already "count on losing your ship every major engagement" nature. Post-patch, the Heretic will probably remain viable for me, but I'm really not sure what I'm going to do with my remaining Flycatcher hulls. I was already phasing them out as inferior to the Heretic and this change really clenches it. We did take a look at the slot layouts, and take into account mass. I've been playing around with Interdictors on the dev servers and I do see your point with the Flycatchers fitting issue, I'll take a closer look at it. You've also got to realize we don't want 4 identical ships for all races that would just be boring, I'm sure the Flycatcher can f.ex. be more useful in some situations with the extra mids. 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. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:08:00 - [224] 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.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:09:00 - [225] Originally by: thisiswrong Originally by: Matrixcvd Gee Nozh wasn't that obvious when your cohorts initially designed the bloody thing 2 years ago? And here again is a huge disconnect between game reality and dev delusion. NO BODY IN A FULLY LOGISTIC FiT CARRIER IS GONNA FIGHT. Where in collective genius at CCP has it been deceided the probability of a fully kitted carrier filled with POS's, POS fuel, Mins is going to lay the SOLOWTFPWN smack down on a bunch of noob frigate pilots as he makes 3 jumps across 28 lys of 0.0? It doesn't happen. And this nonsense is the reason why people are **ed. You are aguing that the ship CAN fight and run logistics at the same time But vast majority of the intelligent eve community wouldn't think of that or they would be run out of the corp once the km was found on someone else's kb. Seems CCP has been hiring a lot of devs probably coming in from other games where you dont loose your stuff when you get killed. I mean, no DEV can be that incompitent. Please elaborate, how did you reach this conclusion? Nozh** Game Designer CCP Games

Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:13:00 - [226] 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.
thisiswrong	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:14:00 - [227] Originally by: CCP Nozh Please elaborate, how did you reach this conclusion? A lot of changes and 'balances'seams very little thought through. It took Amarr players 10 minutes to discover that Amarr was gimped after RMR, and it took CCP a year to officially admit it. (that and the thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship) Stuff like that.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:20:00 - [228] 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.
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:23:00 - [229] 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) ?

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:25:00 - [230] Originally by: thisiswrong Originally by: CCP Nozh Please elaborate, how did you reach this conclusion? A lot of changes and 'balances'seams very little thought through. It took Amarr players 10 minutes to discover that Amarr was gimped after RMR, and it took CCP a year to officially admit it. (that and the thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship) Stuff like that. Great argument. Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. 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. "The thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship" If you don't see the benefits of using logistics in battle, remote repairing etc. I'm simply amazed, I know the PVP championship doesn't really portray real PVP, but logistics dominated it. Show me more stuff where we went wrong, I'm really interested. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:29:00 - [231] 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.
Mortol Strike AirHawk Alliance Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:32:00 - [232] Is the carrier class ship recivieng both a ship maintenence bay increase and a corp hangar one also? The fact that I took alot of time to train this ship to help in pvp along with logistics, I guess I feel cheated.
Odewad Gallente Breadmen Make Better Luvers	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:34:00 - [233] 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..
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:35:00 - [234] 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.
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:35:00 - [235] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: thisiswrong Originally by: CCP Nozh Please elaborate, how did you reach this conclusion? A lot of changes and 'balances'seams very little thought through. It took Amarr players 10 minutes to discover that Amarr was gimped after RMR, and it took CCP a year to officially admit it. (that and the thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship) Stuff like that. Great argument. Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. 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. "The thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship" If you don't see the benefits of using logistics in battle, remote repairing etc. I'm simply amazed, I know the PVP championship doesn't really portray real PVP, but logistics dominated it. Show me more stuff where we went wrong, I'm really interested. I think the main reason people think this is because CCP is changing a lot of different things atm. I think most changes CCP are doing are good, i just hope there won't be too much balancing issues because people will find ways of (ab)using the changes you didn't think off
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:35:00 - [236] 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.
Drykor Minmatar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:42:00 - [237] Can you address my points on the 5th page please Nozh? http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=5#126
Jenea Gallente The Copernicus Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:42:00 - [238] 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.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:42:00 - [239] 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). Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:45:00 - [240] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: thisiswrong Originally by: CCP Nozh Please elaborate, how did you reach this conclusion? A lot of changes and 'balances'seams very little thought through. It took Amarr players 10 minutes to discover that Amarr was gimped after RMR, and it took CCP a year to officially admit it. (that and the thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship) Stuff like that. Great argument. Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. 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. "The thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship" If you don't see the benefits of using logistics in battle, remote repairing etc. I'm simply amazed, I know the PVP championship doesn't really portray real PVP, but logistics dominated it. Show me more stuff where we went wrong, I'm really interested. I normally try to avoid this type of thing, but here we go. 1)When you guys added the armor compensation skills, did you realize that those would eventually create to the dreaded omni-tank of doom, and do you still see it as a problem? 2)When you say they are "lacking something" is it possible to elaborate on that? Would it be clear definition of the roles between ships? I ask this because Amarr now have a missile line, a tanking line, a ganking line, and a drone/ew line of boats, so they do not lack in variaty anymore IMO. 3)Do you view the racial resitance bonuses (+10%) as somewhat imbalanced or fine(10% being +25% for minmatar, while being +11% for amarr)? 4)Will CCP try to continue and keep the -10% capacitor use per lvl on amarrian ships? Now to the meat of it. Its no secret that certain amarrian ships are lack-luster. The omen, prophecy, maller, punisher, apocalypse all suffer from a lack of damage coupled with a lack of versatility when compared to other ships within the amarrian line and racial contemporaries. Do you, and by extension, CCP share this point of view? Thanks for any responses. _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:46:00 - [241] 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.
Cyrus Deacon	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:48:00 - [242] *Signed Just wanted to sign this too. Game is balanced as it is. Quit nerfing things. It effects too many people. And like the opener of this thread said. Their are already counters to everything. (Except titans, feel free to nerf them)

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:49:00 - [243] 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. I see where you are coming from, I'm trying, believe me I'm trying :) But if people keep shooting me down with no content, I've got no way of responding. 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. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Odewad Gallente Breadmen Make Better Luvers	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:51:00 - [244] 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.
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:52:00 - [245] 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. get the **** out of this thread
Jenea Gallente The Copernicus Institute	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:53:00 - [246] Originally by: Necrologic 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. I did not ask the game to be compramised to what I consider best, only to be treated with respect. Sorry, but I don't see how being tactful harms the integrity of the game. You are right, however, they don't have to explain anything to us -- as I said, no communication is better than bad communication.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:53:00 - [247] 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.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:53:00 - [248] Originally by: CCP Nozh to encourage freight runs Expanded dreadnoughts. Expanded Rorquals. Titans. All of these will come before even considering running a freighter through 0.0. Quote: and make moving stuff in mass quantities more challenging. ... Why? Logistics should be EASY. People are far more willing to go out and lose ships (you know, play the game), if they know they can have a replacement cooking the second they come back. Adding more work hinders this and will put a damper on 0.0 large-ship gang combat.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:54:00 - [249] 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. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Sebastien LeReparteur Minmatar SpaceTravelers Freelance Corp	Posted - 2007.11.08 19:59:00 - [250] Edited by: Sebastien LeReparteur on 08/11/2007 20:06:07 Originally by: CCP Nozh 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). Is it just me or that is the most boring part if this game and it makes lots of people consider quitting? I am ok with a bit of hauling but what you are now aiming at is for me a game killer... Small corp get shafted through and through again. Fulling that odd POS in 0.0 will be a massacre at the freaking gate camps and major/rich Alliances WILL have a score of those jumping around and refueling very effectively their POS. Now Yes the carrier mod are "nice" we can now bring a built battleship up there instead of 3 unbuilt BUT you can't put general loot in there no more cause you know, they for some XYZ reason have to be taken out when you jump else the thing a magie don't jump no more. MUST be part of the 2 D universal law... The only difference in this to me is MORE AND MORE jumps to do the same thing, MORE time sink, more boredom, more reason to quit. Carrier have to be nerfed I agree, what about giving us the option of sacrificing those 100m3 of drones and ships for cargo? modular hangar anyone? No instead you force the carrier in a niche.
Beowulf Scheafer Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:00:00 - [251] and my questions, aswell on page 5, pls?
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:00:00 - [252] Originally by: CCP Nozh Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. Not to be annoying and what not, but triage module has allways been puzzling to me. it increases cap use greatly and glues you in place for 10mins. The cap use is so excessive you have to fit specifically for it, hurting your own tank, which you need because you can no longer be remote repaired yourself. I liked the idea of the module but those 2 things are making it doubtfull I will train for it currently. To make it more interesting for me would be to halve the cap use on the remotes as well to keep cap use of those the same as before and if possible to make it possible to turn off the triage module at will(like you can with mining lasers atm) at the cost of the strontium you used to activate it(so you activate the module and use up the strontium, you notice it's not going well in the battle you deactivate it and lose the strontium anyway but at least you can move). -- stuff --
ProphetGuru Gallente Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:02:00 - [253] I'd love to hear the developers thoughts on the role of titans/mommas. I for one feel that their role has been nerfed out of the game and will continue to lose usefullness with these new changes. Their seems to be little use in them, considering the costs/risks inherint (sp) in their use. I've heard a lot of people say that ccp doesn't know what to do with these 2 classes of ships... not sure I agree with that, but I don't think anyone can argue they have a distinct lack of role these days.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:04:00 - [254] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: CCP Nozh to encourage freight runs Expanded dreadnoughts. Expanded Rorquals. Titans. All of these will come before even considering running a freighter through 0.0. Quote: and make moving stuff in mass quantities more challenging. ... Why? Logistics should be EASY. People are far more willing to go out and lose ships (you know, play the game), if they know they can have a replacement cooking the second they come back. Adding more work hinders this and will put a damper on 0.0 large-ship gang combat. Yeah, you can still use deadnoughts or expanded rorquals, however you completely sacrifice your fit and you're nowhere close to being as effective. It's our opinion that logistics have become too easy with "hauling carriers", and I'm pretty sure the game would become even more fun and intense if people wouldn't always have that replacement cooking and the stakes where a bit higher(this is just my opinion, not necessarily where we're going). Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:05:00 - [255] Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: CCP Nozh Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. Not to be annoying and what not, but triage module has allways been puzzling to me. it increases cap use greatly and glues you in place for 10mins. The cap use is so excessive you have to fit specifically for it, hurting your own tank, which you need because you can no longer be remote repaired yourself. I liked the idea of the module but those 2 things are making it doubtfull I will train for it currently. To make it more interesting for me would be to halve the cap use on the remotes as well to keep cap use of those the same as before and if possible to make it possible to turn off the triage module at will(like you can with mining lasers atm) at the cost of the strontium you used to activate it(so you activate the module and use up the strontium, you notice it's not going well in the battle you deactivate it and lose the strontium anyway but at least you can move). I agree we need to do something about it. We're looking into it. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Beowulf Scheafer Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:09:00 - [256] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: CCP Nozh to encourage freight runs Expanded dreadnoughts. Expanded Rorquals. Titans. All of these will come before even considering running a freighter through 0.0. Quote: and make moving stuff in mass quantities more challenging. ... Why? Logistics should be EASY. People are far more willing to go out and lose ships (you know, play the game), if they know they can have a replacement cooking the second they come back. Adding more work hinders this and will put a damper on 0.0 large-ship gang combat. my guess is that all this is intended to kill 0.0 LARGE-ship gang combat, if not completely then to a good part...
thisiswrong	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:11:00 - [257] Edited by: thisiswrong on 08/11/2007 20:13:01 Originally by: CCP Nozh Great argument. Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. You mean besides the fact that you wanted less blobbing and changed the game so it increased blobbing...or the fact that you added more alliance blob mechanics while the servers go down the drain? How long has it been since you announced the 'yarrware'? Fact is EVE had less laggy fleet battles during exodus than now. Just check the old eve videos. Quote: 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. They were the amarr flavour of the month. The only decent amarr ships left. Quote: "The thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship" If you don't see the benefits of using logistics in battle, remote repairing etc. I'm simply amazed, I know the PVP championship doesn't really portray real PVP, but logistics dominated it. Yeah. A fight with rules and a fixed amount of players are a great example of EVE pvp. Quote: Show me more stuff where we went wrong, I'm really interested. I have alread mentioned many things witch you cunningly sidestepped. Dont worry though, after trinity you will have more threads like these. It was fun playing EVE for 3 years. My accounts are now cancelled but I drop by the forum everynow and then until the subscription runs out. Peace.
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:13:00 - [258] Edited by: Greenwing on 08/11/2007 20:15:24 Originally by: CCP Nozh Yeah, you can still use deadnoughts or expanded rorquals, however you completely sacrifice your fit and you're nowhere close to being as effective. Actually nobody cares about the fit they have to sacrifice because they want to transport stuff, if they want to fight they just refit (like carriers also do atm) Quote: It's our opinion that logistics have become too easy with "hauling carriers", and I'm pretty sure the game would become even more fun and intense if people wouldn't always have that replacement cooking and the stakes where a bit higher(this is just my opinion, not necessarily where we're going). If i'm in 0.0 and i loose my ship and i don't have a replacement i don't think i will have as much fun as the fun i would have if i did have a replacement ship. My idea of fun is to get into a fight and not to run some boring logistics run Also this idea is pretty much the opposite of what CCP tells us they are trying to do (get more people in 0.0) Can you also please give an answer to the fuel question ? Atm you just cannot use your cargo hold for items and also be able to jump somewhere. And another question about the jump freighters, have you also considered the fact within a year most corps will have one and they will not be rare anymore ?
magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:14:00 - [259] Edited by: magnus amadeus on 08/11/2007 20:15:14 Ok, one more question if you will: Do you view the ability of 0.0 alliances to project force throughout multiple regions as a problem? The way I see it, I do not think it was ever intended for BS gangs to cover 40 jumps in 1 hour, or for entire capital fleets to fight on two completely opposite sides of the map in the space of a few hours. EDIT: optional bonus question: Taking the above one step further, do you view warp to zero as a problem? _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Cpt Fina Mutually Assured Distraction	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:17:00 - [260] Originally by: thisiswrong They were the amarr flavour of the month. The only decent amarr ships left. I disagree and claim the opposite.
Popychacz	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:17:00 - [261] 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. Well, I'm afraid not. A whole lot of people like TomB for example and he was the sole responsible for nerfbat for years. It's not the nerfbat, it's that person who wields it make poor choices. For example one page earlier you slanted one player that logistic ships are used in tournaments and thus in pvp, when he clearly meant logistc ships as "ships you use for POS logistics (ie iteron V, carrier loaded with 5B of fuel etc). Ask yourself what was the point of that? Because for us it seems you either so desperate in need to win discussion you have to blantanly twist others words, or so unwise you failed to understand what that player wrote. (or alternatively - just skipped through post and got that one sentence totally out of context).
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:18:00 - [262] Originally by: CCP Nozh Yeah, you can still use deadnoughts or expanded rorquals, however you completely sacrifice your fit and you're nowhere close to being as effective. So apply the same logic to carriers - allow them to continue their logistics role at the expense of their combat capabilities. Nerfs are simply the neanderthal's way of dealing with a problem. Quote: It's our opinion that logistics have become too easy with "hauling carriers", Out of those who share "our opinion", how many of you have ever dealt with large-scale (or hell, even small-scale) carrier logistics for corps and alliances? Quote: and I'm pretty sure the game would become even more fun and intense if people wouldn't always have that replacement cooking and the stakes where a bit higher(this is just my opinion, not necessarily where we're going). Aside from being more wrong than you can realise, the stakes are exactly the same. The ship still costs the same amount for the pilot. All you're doing is putting more time into the boring, useless bits of the game and directing it away from EVE itself.

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:19:00 - [263] Originally by: Beowulf Scheafer Edited by: Beowulf Scheafer on 08/11/2007 04:02:19 its very good to see somebody clearing the confusion that rages in theese forums for weeks now. i have 2 questions i would like to ask you: 1) drone recharge: can you pls clarify what you intend to do with that change? i use a dominix for missions alot, and sometimes for pvp. in pvp this change means that my main weapon is destroyable now without a real counter, and i don't see remote repping as a real alternative because of the range. as it is i can scoop and relaunch drones, what takes about 3 seconds under optimal circumstances, so loosing ca. 1400dmg in that time. i have alot of them in both my ishtar and my domi, but no endless amount. and i can't kill others peoples mainweapons anyways (if i can't force him to overheat them for a long time somehow ), so i honestly don't see the need for that nerf. 2)black ops: first, can i use the jumpbridge in empire? if so, do i need a faction standing of 10.0 for the actual space to jump in and/or use it, like stated in a blog i don't find anymore unfortunately? second, are the SISIstats on thoose final, or close to final? especially the sin's tII bonuses seem to be very mismatched, 5% agility is not exactly the essence of my wildest dreams... is that one only heavily prenerfed and might become better? and is there a chance they in general get the ability to use covert ops? i must admit i'm not a very rich player, and atm neither the marauders (which are somewhat meant to be pve ships as i understand) nor the black ops attract me alot to spend such an amount of isk for. as i spent a very long time now focusing on bs-related skills and leaving for example command ships alone to have decent (perfect?) skills when tII bs finally hit tranq, i must admit i'm rather disappointed in the sin in its current state. thx alot We decided to change the drone recharge because people were basically "exploiting" it, by like you said scooping them and launching them directly again, in PVP. It was mostly being done by people using "Sentry Drones" but we decided to remove the instant recharge from all drones. The drones will however recharge at a normal rate (like the shields) while in the drone bay. You can use the covert ops jump portal in low-sec, same rules as capital ships basically. You don't need any standings or anything to do so, at least not that I'm aware of. The SISI stats for the T2 BS are pretty much final. The Black-Ops ships are pretty expensive ships, and will probably not be used in close range combat. The agility bonus was to allow the Sin to scoop up sentry drones, and accelerate quickly to warp out. We're probably never going to allow the Black-Ops ships to use Covert Ops cloaks, they do however get bonuses to normal cloaks. (you even go faster while cloaked) Sad to hear that these ships aren't attractive to you, I'm really excited about both of them myself (mostly the black-ops though). Hope this answers your questions. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:31:00 - [264] Originally by: magnus amadeus Ok, one more question if you will: Do you view the ability of 0.0 alliances to project force throughout multiple regions as a problem? It's not a problem if the alliances have the infrastructure and manpower to actually harvest and build up those regions. However when alliances claim space just to claim space, maybe we need to look into something there. Originally by: magnus amadeus The way I see it, I do not think it was ever intended for BS gangs to cover 40 jumps in 1 hour, or for entire capital fleets to fight on two completely opposite sides of the map in the space of a few hours. Travel times have gotten a LOT shorter, yes, but it's not really a horrible thing. A fast moving fleet should be able to cover decent distances relatively fast. A capital fleet should however have a little more problem moving around and take more time and logistical work (than the battleship fleet that is). Originally by: magnus amadeus EDIT: optional bonus question: Taking the above one step further, do you view warp to zero as a problem? Nope. Originally by: magnus amadeus EDIT II: sry if this sounds like a reporter, just questions I think myself and many amarr are interested in (well my first post) and I think 0.0 and low-sec are interested in the question presented in this post. BTW: We don't HATE the nerfbat guys, just sometimes disagree with their decisions and viewpoints. If I really HATED anyone at CCP, I wouldn't be posting here or paying for eve. Fair point :)

magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:34:00 - [265] Originally by: CCP Zulupark answers Cool, thanks for the answers, if you guys aren't falling asleep yet could you answer my previous post at the beginning of the page? I promise that the last of the questions I have. _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Beowulf Scheafer Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:35:00 - [266] yes, it does. thx alot
Reatu Krentor Minmatar Void Spiders Fate Weavers	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:35:00 - [267] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Reatu Krentor Originally by: CCP Nozh Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. Not to be annoying and what not, but triage module has allways been puzzling to me. it increases cap use greatly and glues you in place for 10mins. The cap use is so excessive you have to fit specifically for it, hurting your own tank, which you need because you can no longer be remote repaired yourself. I liked the idea of the module but those 2 things are making it doubtfull I will train for it currently. To make it more interesting for me would be to halve the cap use on the remotes as well to keep cap use of those the same as before and if possible to make it possible to turn off the triage module at will(like you can with mining lasers atm) at the cost of the strontium you used to activate it(so you activate the module and use up the strontium, you notice it's not going well in the battle you deactivate it and lose the strontium anyway but at least you can move). I agree we need to do something about it. We're looking into it. Awesome (though I was saying that already when it was still in testing ) -- stuff --

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:40:00 - [268] Originally by: Popychacz 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. Well, I'm afraid not. A whole lot of people like TomB for example and he was the sole responsible for nerfbat for years. It's not the nerfbat, it's that person who wields it make poor choices. For example one page earlier you slanted one player that logistic ships are used in tournaments and thus in pvp, when he clearly meant logistc ships as "ships you use for POS logistics (ie iteron V, carrier loaded with 5B of fuel etc). Ask yourself what was the point of that? Because for us it seems you either so desperate in need to win discussion you have to blantanly twist others words, or so unwise you failed to understand what that player wrote. (or alternatively - just skipped through post and got that one sentence totally out of context). I actually genuinely believed he was talking about logistics (remote repping etc) in general and if he wasn't I still don't completely understand what he was saying. If he was talking about "ships you use for POS logistics (ie iteron V, carrier loaded with 5B of fuel etc), then no I don't think we ever expected to see Iteron MK V's on the battlefield. We did however expect to see carriers on the battlefield, but we didn't expect that people would actually use them as fuel haulers. It was never their intended role. They were however supposed to be great logistics ships, by bringing spare ships to the front lines and very good at supporting other ships in battle. Hope that clears up that misunderstanding. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:42:00 - [269] Since this is the cool thread to post in and get a reply from the devs. I have concerns about Super caps atm. 1) If a Titan goes to low sec to get more ships for his fleet, and he gets scramed, how does he defend himself (keep in mind that no one has ever really fit guns on these ships). Is the answer always, the support fleet should be able to help him?? 2) To balance the ability of ships to tank the specific damage type of Titans, can we change the fixed damage type that Titans can do? E.g. How about let an Erebus fit a Judgement? This gives them a better chance to survive, as now every Titan pilot is in address book so they know what is coming every time. 3) When is bumping going to be fixed?? A BS bumping a Titan is the equivalance to a 200lb man trying to push a moving 3500lb car off its vector! This is unacceptable and is one of the biggest reasons (besides lag) that these things die. I think those are my questions about Super Caps, thx if you can answer them. Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:42:00 - [270] Originally by: magnus amadeus I normally try to avoid this type of thing, but here we go. 1)When you guys added the armor compensation skills, did you realize that those would eventually create to the dreaded omni-tank of doom, and do you still see it as a problem? Neither me nor Nozh were in the balancing team when these modules were introduced. However I can imagine that when they were designed people realized they would be useful. If I remember correctly they were in game for a while, mostly unused, until they were boosted to their current stats, making them a lot more efficient than they were. Originally by: magnus amadeus 2)When you say they are "lacking something" is it possible to elaborate on that? Would it be clear definition of the roles between ships? I ask this because Amarr now have a missile line, a tanking line, a ganking line, and a drone/ew line of boats, so they do not lack in variaty anymore IMO. I have to be vague here, but my personal opinion is that Amarr lack some "oomph". Originally by: magnus amadeus 3)Do you view the racial resitance bonuses (+10%) as somewhat imbalanced or fine(10% being +25% for minmatar, while being +11% for amarr)? The Minmatar resistances to EM are quite ridiculous in my opinion. Originally by: magnus amadeus 4)Will CCP try to continue and keep the -10% capacitor use per lvl on amarrian ships? We haven't really looked at anything that would take that ability away from them. Originally by: magnus amadeus Now to the meat of it. Its no secret that certain amarrian ships are lack-luster. The omen, prophecy, maller, punisher, apocalypse all suffer from a lack of damage coupled with a lack of versatility when compared to other ships within the amarrian line and racial contemporaries. Do you, and by extension, CCP share this point of view? I think we could do something to make these ships more fun and useful. Do you have any ideas? Note that we have at no point sat down and said "lets tinker with Amarr". I'm just talking theoretically here :)

Christari Zuborov Amarr Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:43:00 - [271] First, I just want to thank you being so responsive atm. I think it would do well if you suggested at CCP they have weekly or monthly chat at the devs day where during a couple hour session people can voice their concerns and understand your feelings and direction. Thank you for addressing questions in this 'shotgun' type manner. 1st - I have a feeling I understand where you are going in wanting people to use logistics in another manner. Frankly, I think jump bridges are great, but they're a double-edged sword. If people are passing 8 systems at a time using them, they're not in space, they're reducing their chances of being intercepted. Something needs to be done that requires individuals to be in space and allow the real risk of being ganked. It's a 2 way street that people need to understand, in order for some people to smile, others need to frown. Everyone should be allowed a day in the, "omg I can't believe we just did that!" or the chemistry is lost. 2nd - I feel you're going the wrong way with interdictors, they are tier 2 destroyers. They should be anti-interceptor ships, and should be close to on par in terms of speed, but have more dps and more tanking ability. Yes, they should be slower than interceptors, but they shouldn't be so slow or too underpowered making it more difficult for an interdictor to assault a t2 frig, than a t2 frig to assault an interdictor. In terms of pecking order, it should always remain: Interdictor > T2 Frig > Destroyer > T1 frig.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:44:00 - [272] Originally by: Jenea Never forget who is the boss, the player; don't speak down to her, she might stop paying your salary. You don't pay his salary. You pay $15 (or 15 Euros) per month. I don't know how much he makes, but I'm sure it's quite a bit more than that. You're not his boss. CCP is. And you are hardly their only subscriber.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:45:00 - [273] Originally by: The Truckdriver I spent 3 months training for large rails when u nerfed them last year, this year i spent 6 months training for caps basicly to see them to be reduced to second line weapons. You know what CCP and devs, keep ur crap. I have already stopped paying for 1 account, this one will be next ones it runs out in a month. There is nothing more worse then smashing a player in the face with delusions for a goal he has attempted to reach for months to see them destroyed on the last moment. I'm sorry if you think that, but railguns are actually quite good weapons. Also, if you've read the second devblog on carriers you would see that there are no finals on that issue. We're still just looking for community feedback and developing ideas.

Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:50:00 - [274] Originally by: CCP Nozh Great argument. Please tell me which "changes and 'balances'" didn't seem well thought through and why. Add some content. 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. "The thought that anyone would fight in a logistic ship" If you don't see the benefits of using logistics in battle, remote repairing etc. I'm simply amazed, I know the PVP championship doesn't really portray real PVP, but logistics dominated it. Show me more stuff where we went wrong, I'm really interested. yes amarr recons were a flavor of fotm, but I think that was more a side effect of the nos power. aka easy to reproduce cookie cutter setups. that and if you can base a race being okay on one ship being good thats a problem. pretty much, but when lacking something gets you killed its the same as gimped in public opinion, but I'm glad someone in ccp admits it. that and its somewhat unfortunate that the established alliances already had the ability to do it and now most likely have their jump bridge networks set up. making a 0.0 barrier entry. although it does prohibit rapid spread.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:50:00 - [275] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Since this is the cool thread to post in and get a reply from the devs. I have concerns about Super caps atm. 1) If a Titan goes to low sec to get more ships for his fleet, and he gets scramed, how does he defend himself (keep in mind that no one has ever really fit guns on these ships). Is the answer always, the support fleet should be able to help him?? My answer will always be "what's a Titan doing in low-sec without a support fleet?". Actually, "What's a Titan doing anywhere without a support fleet?" Originally by: Cosmo Raata 2) To balance the ability of ships to tank the specific damage type of Titans, can we change the fixed damage type that Titans can do? E.g. How about let an Erebus fit a Judgement? This gives them a better chance to survive, as now every Titan pilot is in address book so they know what is coming every time. I'm not convinced we need to do anything about this. For a ship (smaller then BS/Command ship) to survive a doomsday, it will have to tank very specifically towards one damage type. I'm not saying we won't do anything. Just saying.. convince me :) Originally by: Cosmo Raata 3) When is bumping going to be fixed?? A BS bumping a Titan is the equivalance to a 200lb man trying to push a moving 3500lb car off its vector! This is unacceptable and is one of the biggest reasons (besides lag) that these things die. That's a programming issue. It's one of the top things on my wishlist for fixin', but like I said. Programming.

Jita TradeAlt	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:52:00 - [276] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: magnus amadeus Ok, one more question if you will: Do you view the ability of 0.0 alliances to project force throughout multiple regions as a problem? It's not a problem if the alliances have the infrastructure and manpower to actually harvest and build up those regions. However when alliances claim space just to claim space, maybe we need to look into something there. Are you kidding? Grabbing new regions has been ALL about just holding more space since you removed static plexes. Let's just say people aren't fighting over a few more belts of ark after they already own thousands of ark belts, most of which aren't being mined since 1) the zyd/mega prices have crashed thanks to ccp, 2) not worth the risk/effort compared to sitting in empire running farming Level 4 missions for LP in complete safety. I've honestly not heard "let's fight those guys over [resource]" since static plexes, which means for most of us there isn't really anything to fight over. It all feels pretty meaningless. Here's a fun little thing you could get your economist to look at though: how much of the money lost in 0.0 was made in 0.0? My guess is that 70-80% of all the isk lost in 0.0 comes from high-sec missions, cosmos farming and trade/production.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:53:00 - [277] Originally by: Jita TradeAlt Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: magnus amadeus Ok, one more question if you will: Do you view the ability of 0.0 alliances to project force throughout multiple regions as a problem? It's not a problem if the alliances have the infrastructure and manpower to actually harvest and build up those regions. However when alliances claim space just to claim space, maybe we need to look into something there. Are you kidding? Grabbing new regions has been ALL about just holding more space since you removed static plexes. Let's just say people aren't fighting over a few more belts of ark after they already own thousands of ark belts, most of which aren't being mined since 1) the zyd/mega prices have crashed thanks to ccp, 2) not worth the risk/effort compared to sitting in empire running farming Level 4 missions for LP in complete safety. I've honestly not heard "let's fight those guys over [resource]" since static plexes, which means for most of us there isn't really anything to fight over. It all feels pretty meaningless. Here's a fun little thing you could get your economist to look at though: how much of the money lost in 0.0 was made in 0.0? My guess is that 70-80% of all the isk lost in 0.0 comes from high-sec missions, cosmos farming and trade/production. In your opinion; is that something we need to fix?

Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:53:00 - [278] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I think we could do something to make these ships more fun and useful. Do you have any ideas? Note that we have at no point sat down and said "lets tinker with Amarr". I'm just talking theoretically here :) You've not read the 2 billion posts on Amarr??? Here are just a few of the millions of ideas people have come up with. - Reduce cap usage on Lasers by 50% & replace all ships cap bonuses with something else (e.g. 5% cap per level). Oh, and dont use the excuse we dont want other races using lasers bull....Every race can use everyone elses weapons & does atm so that argument is invalid. - Change EM/Thermal Damage balance. More Thermal, Less EM or just reduce EM resistances across the board. - Give the Apoc a role, drone ship, Neut ship, Missle Boat. Something else, its a useless ship atm. - Fix the Curse/Pilgrim/Bhaalgorn/etc., you broke them with the stupid Nos nerf and have yet to fix these - Reduce PG requirements on Cruiser & BS sized beams, you fixed the frig sized ones & stopped there for some insane reason. - Give Retribution a med, take away the utility high. - Give the Zealot a 5th turret point - Increase PG significantly on the Omen - Maller is an Apoc clone, give it a role similar to what has been mentioned for the apoc (minus the drone boat, as we have one of those already) I think i've made my point, there are literally thousands of ideas and we've never gotten feedback on them. Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!
Darpz Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:54:00 - [279] not sure if the question has been asked, and might have overlooked it but several questions on the jump freighters and logsitics changes in general. on the invention of T2 freighters, are you looking into the copy times of the Freighter BPO? from the calculations i've seen it would take about a month to get a copy. with the chance of success around 30% (could be wrong here) that means its about an average of 3months copy time the way things currently are. then add in component production and invention time and your looking at nearly 4 months on average to produce one of these ships. Ever thought of allowing invention directly from a BPO and count it as a 1 run BPC, then you would get the BPO back at the end of the invention process. Also on the roquel buff. is the capacity increase a bone your throwing us for the carrier nerf? would it be an inteded roll to expand out the roqual to be used as a step below jump freighters? or is this something that is unintented and going to be looked at in the future, because I would hate to skill for and by another ship that would just be made useless for the roll intended for the person training it again. (I don't mine I just need a deep space jump ship to move stuff and jump freighters are a long way out from becoming readily avail). also don't see it listed but will jump freighters be able to use regular stargates or are they jump drive only

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 20:58:00 - [280] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Originally by: CCP Zulupark I think we could do something to make these ships more fun and useful. Do you have any ideas? Note that we have at no point sat down and said "lets tinker with Amarr". I'm just talking theoretically here :) You've not read the 2 billion posts on Amarr??? Here are just a few of the millions of ideas people have come up with. - Reduce cap usage on Lasers by 50% & replace all ships cap bonuses with something else (e.g. 5% cap per level). Oh, and dont use the excuse we dont want other races using lasers bull....Every race can use everyone elses weapons & does atm so that argument is invalid. - Change EM/Thermal Damage balance. More Thermal, Less EM or just reduce EM resistances across the board. - Give the Apoc a role, drone ship, Neut ship, Missle Boat. Something else, its a useless ship atm. - Fix the Curse/Pilgrim/Bhaalgorn/etc., you broke them with the stupid Nos nerf and have yet to fix these - Reduce PG requirements on Cruiser & BS sized beams, you fixed the frig sized ones & stopped there for some insane reason. - Give Retribution a med, take away the utility high. - Give the Zealot a 5th turret point - Increase PG significantly on the Omen - Maller is an Apoc clone, give it a role similar to what has been mentioned for the apoc (minus the drone boat, as we have one of those already) I think i've made my point, there are literally thousands of ideas and we've never gotten feedback on them. Some of this I've seen before. Some of this I've thought of (all by myself!). Personally I have a wish list for what I'd like to do with a few Amarr ships, but that's a whole other discussion at a later date.

Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:01:00 - [281] Edited by: Cosmo Raata on 08/11/2007 21:06:13 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cosmo Raata 2) To balance the ability of ships to tank the specific damage type of Titans, can we change the fixed damage type that Titans can do? E.g. How about let an Erebus fit a Judgement? This gives them a better chance to survive, as now every Titan pilot is in address book so they know what is coming every time. I'm not convinced we need to do anything about this. For a ship (smaller then BS/Command ship) to survive a doomsday, it will have to tank very specifically towards one damage type. I'm not saying we won't do anything. Just saying.. convince me :) Well, its not as hard to tank a DDD as you might think, and now we're going to have heavy interdictors introduced, These can technically survive 2 DDD blasts of the same damage type with proper gear!!! Allowing Titans to use other DDD's doesnt overpower them, a good fleet should have them ready in their carriers/ms/titans their DDD tanking dictors/Hactors. Titans just aren't that great atm and are in need of some boosting and this is a very easy thing to do, probably 1 line of code even. Just look at killboards and you'll find that Titan pilots just aren't Doomsdaying much anymore. They are flown for bonuses and jumping fleets around (which is less with Jump Arrays now). Its a 50 billion isk ship that has to fit expense mods to save themselves and they are limited to 1 damage type (even Amarr BS's can do 2 types). I'm shooting in the dark a little trying to convince you, perhaps if you tell me what your concern would be if you allowed it? I really dont see this being overpowering in the slightlest, so share your thoughts and i'll press forward with a rebuttle. Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:02:00 - [282] 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. 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? good game
Ithur'Iul GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:02:00 - [283] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Jita TradeAlt Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: magnus amadeus Ok, one more question if you will: Do you view the ability of 0.0 alliances to project force throughout multiple regions as a problem? It's not a problem if the alliances have the infrastructure and manpower to actually harvest and build up those regions. However when alliances claim space just to claim space, maybe we need to look into something there. Are you kidding? Grabbing new regions has been ALL about just holding more space since you removed static plexes. Let's just say people aren't fighting over a few more belts of ark after they already own thousands of ark belts, most of which aren't being mined since 1) the zyd/mega prices have crashed thanks to ccp, 2) not worth the risk/effort compared to sitting in empire running farming Level 4 missions for LP in complete safety. I've honestly not heard "let's fight those guys over [resource]" since static plexes, which means for most of us there isn't really anything to fight over. It all feels pretty meaningless. Here's a fun little thing you could get your economist to look at though: how much of the money lost in 0.0 was made in 0.0? My guess is that 70-80% of all the isk lost in 0.0 comes from high-sec missions, cosmos farming and trade/production. In your opinion; is that something we need to fix? Yes JitaTradeAlt sure has strong opinions on these matters. I'd say yes, it's something worth fixing. As of now, the only reason to take regions is to **** in other people's cheerios.
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:03:00 - [284] Edited by: Cosmo Raata on 08/11/2007 21:07:38 BTW CCP Zulupark & CCP Nozh, You guys are a Studs for chatting with the community, I'm supposed to be studying for an exam atm, but this is way too exciting for me to pass up. Hell, if a Rock Star knocked on my door atm, i'd have to tell him to come back later because i'm busy. Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:06:00 - [285] Originally by: Christari Zuborov First, I just want to thank you being so responsive atm. I think it would do well if you suggested at CCP they have weekly or monthly chat at the devs day where during a couple hour session people can voice their concerns and understand your feelings and direction. Thank you for addressing questions in this 'shotgun' type manner. 1st - I have a feeling I understand where you are going in wanting people to use logistics in another manner. Frankly, I think jump bridges are great, but they're a double-edged sword. If people are passing 8 systems at a time using them, they're not in space, they're reducing their chances of being intercepted. Something needs to be done that requires individuals to be in space and allow the real risk of being ganked. It's a 2 way street that people need to understand, in order for some people to smile, others need to frown. Everyone should be allowed a day in the, "omg I can't believe we just did that!" or the chemistry is lost. Yes, we've discussed this a lot. We definitely need more ways to counter jumping ships. What I personally like about the jump bridge system is the importance of the starbases that have them. They should be considered tactical strike points to cut off supply lines. Originally by: Christari Zuborov 2nd - I feel you're going the wrong way with interdictors, they are tier 2 destroyers. They should be anti-interceptor ships, and should be close to on par in terms of speed, but have more dps and more tanking ability. Yes, they should be slower than interceptors, but they shouldn't be so slow or too underpowered making it more difficult for an interdictor to assault a t2 frig, than a t2 frig to assault an interdictor. In terms of pecking order, it should always remain: Interdictor > T2 Frig > Destroyer > T1 frig. Well, we felt they were removing the tackling role almost completely from the interceptors. I think you understand why we did it, but I guess we have to agree to disagree this time. I'm also not sure about that pecking order, many of the interceptors are f.ex. inferior to even T1 frigates in combat. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:19:00 - [286] we get dev response tonight!!! to add to the moonmining thing fueling pos in 0.0 is ARghihkjh. sov holding poses, jumpbrdige poses, deathstars, moon minng poses etc in empire you just find all the fuel just there, just got to pick up and get what. a transport? so in addition to be less profitable, "uber moons" are far more difficult to fill i think i found a dozen "uber moons" with offlined towers since i play eve, that says it all. but go in Tama, you'll see the number of reaction poses :P ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:19:00 - [287] Originally by: Darpz any word on whats happening with AFs? pretty much the whole eve community agrees they lack a roll We need to look at Assault Frigates. It's not happening for Trinity, but we'll do it soon there after I hope.

Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:22:00 - [288] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Darpz any word on whats happening with AFs? pretty much the whole eve community agrees they lack a roll We need to look at Assault Frigates. It's not happening for Trinity, but we'll do it soon there after I hope. pssssst... speed tanks? I made a constructive post (well... it had clearly constructive, and some not so much parts) on the last page. good game
Maltitol Gallente Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:23:00 - [289] Before i start, i want to thank you Nozh & Zulupark for responding to many of the questions in here, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. on a serious note, it raises the bar IMO that your taking time out of your day to actually do this, i really do appreciate it.. quick question though... Any plans for changes to scenery/static spacial objects? i mentioned a few things in a few other threads like broken moons, binary star systems, ravaged worlds (as if they got nuked to hell and back), black holes (just for looks, it would suck to see your ship slowly trailing off to get blown up), and maybe suns that actually go boom on a random interval of say anywhere between 2 - 3months? (as in go nova, but not damage anything inthe system, but make the visual effects pretty neat to see every once in awhile) ive allways loved eve, but i'd like some more of it.. internet spaceships is my thing thanks Originally by: CCP Wrangler Well boohoo.
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:23:00 - [290] Zulu, did you miss my DDD reponse? Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!
Pacala Gallente AirHawk Alliance Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:24:00 - [291] Can I please get a comment on my reply on Page 3? http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=3#72 Thank you. __________________________________________________ I haven't needed a signature for 4 years. ccp = cccp? discuss

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:25:00 - [292] 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.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:26:00 - [293] Originally by: Maltitol Before i start, i want to thank you Nozh & Zulupark for responding to many of the questions in here, it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. on a serious note, it raises the bar IMO that your taking time out of your day to actually do this, i really do appreciate it.. quick question though... Any plans for changes to scenery/static spacial objects? i mentioned a few things in a few other threads like broken moons, binary star systems, ravaged worlds (as if they got nuked to hell and back), black holes (just for looks, it would suck to see your ship slowly trailing off to get blown up), and maybe suns that actually go boom on a random interval of say anywhere between 2 - 3months? (as in go nova, but not damage anything inthe system, but make the visual effects pretty neat to see every once in awhile) ive allways loved eve, but i'd like some more of it.. internet spaceships is my thing thanks I'd love something like that, but that's for the art guys, not us game designers :)


CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:26:00 - [294] Originally by: Christari Zuborov Originally by: CCP Nozh Well, we felt they were removing the tackling role almost completely from the interceptors. I think you understand why we did it, but I guess we have to agree to disagree this time. I'm also not sure about that pecking order, many of the interceptors are f.ex. inferior to even T1 frigates in combat. I always believed the cost difference is what separated them in terms of roles, Inty's are very cheap, and can do the job. You want something better and have the money to do that? That's when you use a Dictor. I do very much like the new bonuses to Inty's, that should help things out a bit. Thanks for the prior response. We generally try to make ships unique and not overlap the abilities of others. Paying more for the "same ship" just slightly better would get boring quick. I know it has been done before, ship classes have become redundant, thats something we want to steer away from. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:27:00 - [295] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Zulu, did you miss my DDD reponse? Nope, I'm just digesting it. I've bookmarked it for future reference. I probably won't reply to it here though. Good answer though and we're taking it into consideration.

Splagada Minmatar Tides of Silence Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:27:00 - [296] Edited by: Splagada on 08/11/2007 21:27:34 When will we see casinos and bordellos! its supposed to be a pixelthug game ------ Proud Janitor of Tides of Silence
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:30:00 - [297] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cosmo Raata Zulu, did you miss my DDD reponse? Nope, I'm just digesting it. I've bookmarked it for future reference. I probably won't reply to it here though. Good answer though and we're taking it into consideration. Sweet!! Man, you guys are awesome. I'm even going to let me Amarr thread die because of all the things you guys have said today. My hope in CCP has been restored all because of a simple thing called communication. Keep up the good work. Oveur, give these guys raises, now!!! Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:30:00 - [298] 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 ;)

Gungankllr Caldari STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:31:00 - [299] 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? Is there any changes in the pipeline for POS warfare and Soveringnity?
Ithur'Iul GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:32:00 - [300] 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 They're in deadspace missions sometimes.
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.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 21:59:00 - [331] Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets.

Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:02:00 - [332] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. Woot!! A reply!!! Thx dude you rawk! (not sure I entirely agree with you - but THANKYOU for replying!!) 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 - 2007.11.08 22:02:00 - [333] For the record, i have no affiliation or association with that guy or his claim, I am just incredulous as to how anybody could not see how people can come to the conclusion that "the devs are out of touch with their game" The players cry "lasers and laser ships suck" and they reply "Amarr missile ships are O.K. and drone ships used to be great!"

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:05:00 - [334] Originally by: Goumindong For the record, i have no affiliation or association with that guy or his claim, I am just incredulous as to how anybody could not see how people can come to the conclusion that "the devs are out of touch with their game" The players cry "lasers and laser ships suck" and they reply "Amarr missile ships are O.K. and drone ships used to be great!" There are a few replies in this thread both from Nozh and myself where we state that we want to look into giving Amarr more oomph.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:06:00 - [335] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. Actually, since they get to use their high slots they are typicially running about the same DPS. Now enforced with the bandwidth changes. The curse and Pilgrim do get spares though, but they arent really out-damaging the competition. Change the pilgrims damage bonus to a nos/neut range bonus
KaptnSparrow Caldari R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:07:00 - [336] give the pilgrim one more mid slot and its wounderfull. no increase in pg or cpu needed. (ok maybe a little cpu) But otherwise I just love it as it is. Just wish for this one tiny mid more to make it perfect... btw are you doing anything about the lock bug? with lock bug I mean I target something, lock bar fills up and fails, and I need to keep locking. It makes the live of a pirate so much harder to browse lowsec, sneak up on this ratting/mining ship and than start locking and it keeps failing. I mean an apoc warped out on me before I finally got a lock on him and he told me he had no fancy modules or counter measures and was not aligned. (specially as dedicated ceptor and recon pilot in gangs it give me really grief if all my gang mates are making fun about my inability to lock...) --- we are open for applications convo me ---

CCP Nozh	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:07:00 - [337] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. Actually, since they get to use their high slots they are typicially running about the same DPS. Now enforced with the bandwidth changes. The curse and Pilgrim do get spares though, but they arent really out-damaging the competition. Change the pilgrims damage bonus to a nos/neut range bonus Then we'd just end up with a cloaking curse, I'm sure we can do better than that. Like Zulu said earlier we understand the problem, we've encountered it ourselves, it will get looked into. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

Tarminic Forsaken Resistance	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:08:00 - [338] Originally by: KaptnSparrow btw are you doing anything about the lock bug? They work on game balance, I don't think they can answer questions on bug fixing... ---------------- Tarminic - 29 Million SP in pink Forum Warfare
KaptnSparrow Caldari R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:13:00 - [339] so does this mean I'm not the only one with this problem? I swear its not related to the amount of alcohol in your blood. Could be a synchronisation issue. but i had to try --- we are open for applications convo me ---
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:14:00 - [340] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Goumindong For the record, i have no affiliation or association with that guy or his claim, I am just incredulous as to how anybody could not see how people can come to the conclusion that "the devs are out of touch with their game" The players cry "lasers and laser ships suck" and they reply "Amarr missile ships are O.K. and drone ships used to be great!" There are a few replies in this thread both from Nozh and myself where we state that we want to look into giving Amarr more oomph. Yes, i read them, but its so non-specific it doesnt mean anything. As well, you[in the general sense] keep making changes and making statements that simply do not jive with the way the game is going and how balance works. You even have a lot of good ideas floating around in your heads and on the boards for how to look at the problem and what the problem is, but still you make changes and statements that make no sense. I mean, the Geddon, Abaddon, and Harbinger could use some "oomph" if "oomph" is something to be a small tweak that gives them an interesting role in addition to dealing dps. The Prophecy, Punisher, Zealot, Absolution, Maller, Omen, Devoter, Sentinel[i know its not a laser ship], Executioner, and Apoc could use oomph as in "a complete redesign or changes so radical they arent anywhere near the same ship anymore, holy lord these ships need more work than Oprah has makeup." And its clear why the changes are needed to. And if the Torp changes go in, then the Geddon, and Abaddon, are going to need the same work[seriously how could you make those changes, ridiculous!], as well as pretty much any small gang damage dealing battleship.
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:16:00 - [341] Zulupark and Nozh, many thanks for coming back to the forums - I think alot of us were wondering if the dev team had given up on us! With regard tot he pilgrim there's a great thread (pretty much flame free) here. If you get a chance please drop by and say hi While I'll admit the curse isnt exactly awful (oh ok its quite good really, im just whinging) the pilgrim is having a hard time in the current environment. Stuck in at close range it just can't tank for long, and its dps isnt that great (unlike the curse that can fit extra launchers and neuts). So, you either fit nos to run your tank (and therefore no neuts, mitigating against your potential dps) - or - you fit neuts and run out of cap (thus no tank). With no option to make a run for it (like the other force recons) youre really up against it. A bonus to neut/nos range might go some way to helping this ship out - especially when you consider that the other force recons can all use their abilities (ecm jamming, web, scramble) at quite long ranges. Thanks again. 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 22:17:00 - [342] Originally by: Maltitol 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? Well, I'd really like to see smuggling as a viable profession. I remember we had some discussions about it a while back and we came up with some pretty interesting ideas, but nothing has been decided. As for dna and corpses, nope we've got nothing planned as far as I know. My last post also, still at work and it's 22:15. Nozh Game Designer CCP Games

CyberChick The Ghost Riders Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:21:00 - [343] Originally by: CCP Nozh Edited by: CCP Nozh on 08/11/2007 21:22:14 I think Chronotis did some magic to the BPO's to increase the success rate up to almost 100% as with the invention success rate, I'm not entirely sure about it, I'll ask him tomorrow (everyone has gone home) and get the info to you. The BPO idea sounds swell, I'll also run that by the industry guys. (They'll probably just shoot it down though) Any chance the copy time can be reduced on the t1 freighter bpo's to 1 or 2 weeks tops? I am I getting what you said right - that the success rate of these invention jobs should be around 80 to 100% when trinity hits tq?
magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:23:00 - [344] Originally by: Cailais Hmm.. Im not sure you would get just another cloaking curse. The curse has enough mids to run multiple damps and shield tank a bit. The pilgrim doesnt: so it would have to fit an armor tank: thus be much much slower. Also isnt the arazu a cloaking lachesis? Couldnt we say the same about the other recons? C. Isn't this part of the problem though? You just mentioned using the mids in a curse for more damps... _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:23:00 - [345] 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. Wrong. We do not hate the person with the nerfstick, as long as we have some forwarning of the upcoming nerf. Not an out-of-left-field change that is only brought to us by the players using the test server. The patch notes 'in testing' page has not been updated in months, but unexpected changes are in testing. 'Nerfs' (or more rarely so 'buffs') should come in response to a percieved and arguably blatant fault with a game feature, such as the uproar that caused the wardec changes, the highway changes (removal of empire lowsec border regions), the introduction of CONCORD and sentry guns. Not, under any circumstance, should a 'nerf' be laid down that has no basis. No one said the Sabre was 'too fast', which it is not compared to the ships it's intended to overtake (nanointies). It's only protection (as well the slightly slower interdictor models) was that speed. No one had a huge hue and cry about carrier logistics... it was a stepping stone that many players looked to make use of when they couldn't fly freighters. This one feature alone allowed small & medium alliances/corps to bypass the jackass lowsec gatecamps with smartbombing moms (I see you haven't done anything about that glaring exploit) and fuel their lowsec POS or move from region to region around the chokepoints. These unannounced and unwarranted changes are why we want your head on a silver platter, preferrably well boiled in advance. No forwarning, no announcments, and no options requested concerning alternative approaches to limitations. As I said before, nerfing logistics capability of freighers was completely unnecessary. Once jump-freighers are introduced they will eventually take over the workload of logistics for the megalliances that can afford them. The small/medium corps are suddenly stuck with trying to get haulers/freighters through idiot gatecamps. That's what has people peeved off.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:24:00 - [346] Originally by: CCP Nozh Because we've never considered the hauling capability of carriers an intended role So why has it survived dozens of patches, major expansions and alterations only to be removed entirely for no reason other than "We think it makes logistics too easy" and "we never liked it anyway". Why not 2 years ago when all the bugs with the infinite hauling tricks were fixed? Why not 6 months ago when sovereignty was overhauled? Why suddenly now with no alternatives and in total opposition to your stated direction of selectable flexibility? Why force it. It's been stated with reference to another matter in this thread that you don't want to force players into anything. Just give haulers a big volume increase. That way, if i want to use my carrier as a ridiculously innefficient hauler over the intended jump freighter, i can - just like there's nothing stopping me using an expanded BS over an iteron 5. Quote: 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. Well, the cargo nerf isnt going to help much there, is it? Combined with the capital mod size increase, your corp hangar will now be perpetually full of fuel and alternate fits (now a requisite). Without the ability to carry mods inside the ships, you simply will not be able to bring alternate fits to a fight. Your SMA becomes pretty much useless. And as for remote repping? Well. The sensor booster nerf, no, wait, sorry, it's not a nerf. The introduction of scripts to sensor boosters should really help with remote repping .
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:28:00 - [347] Originally by: magnus amadeus Originally by: Goumindong you used the 4000 character limit!!! Goum, as much as your points are valid, please don't badger then devs. I am pretty sure they are answering these question on their own time (if they are in Iceland its like 10:00p.m.). I think a more effective use of your time and words would be to link your ideas on the matter. Maybe try to bump them back to the top to re-initiate discussion on them too. Ask the devs to look at them. You get more with sugar than you do with salt right? From my edit: Magnus, the devs have looked at my ideas, they do read the forums, they just dont always comment for obvious reason. If they comment on a specific idea in the negative it means that people will think they wont do it and get mad. If they comment on an idea in the positive it means people will think they will do it and if it doesnt happen they will get mad. In short, commenting on player Ideas is a no-win situation that only happens very rarely, ive pointed these fine folks in the direction of my ideas before, no need to dredge them up again, especially as new changes to the game always make old balancing ideas slightly out of date. For instance if i were to run down an Amarr linup again, i would run in the sansha model. Then modulate the specific bonus to however many base turrets i was shooting for. For instance, a Harbinger could either be 4 turrets with a 75% damage bonus built in, or 3 turrets with a 133% damage bonus built in. Each way you hit 7 turrets before the damage bonus and can run with as many or as few utility slots as you want to give the ship. This also opens up new and interesting avenues for the tanking ships since you can give them more useable missile high slots[essentially doing the phoon thing, which i can explain why and how it works if anyone wants]. It also brings into issue difficulties in tank balance, and heat balance[free high slots==heat dispersion] which i havent looked into enough to really make determinations on. But its what i would be looking at right now.
Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:29:00 - [348] Originally by: magnus amadeus Originally by: Cailais Hmm.. Im not sure you would get just another cloaking curse. The curse has enough mids to run multiple damps and shield tank a bit. The pilgrim doesnt: so it would have to fit an armor tank: thus be much much slower. Also isnt the arazu a cloaking lachesis? Couldnt we say the same about the other recons? C. Isn't this part of the problem though? You just mentioned using the mids in a curse for more damps... No, not realy. A pilgrim has just 5 mids: lets say you want to fit a 'nano damp' set up like a curse: 1MWD 1 Warp Disruptor 1 Cap Inj 1 Shield Booster (or extender) 1 Damp 1 Damp isn't going to drop pretty much anything below its targeting range. Plus the Curse has 1238 base shield hp, to the pilgrims 788. So in order to fit enough damps, you'll have to fit more armour, hence less 'speed' modules like an overdrive or nano. So the Pilgrim would be much much slower: more of a heavy armor curse. C. Originally by: Jenny Spitfire Dehumanisation - griefers are cool and if you are not a griefer, you do not belong here.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:35:00 - [349] Originally by: Moraguth 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... So, you would like to see nanoships nerfed under the principle that they can tank better than you do, regardless of their pathetic DPS. However, you never talk about lowering your own DPS in exchange. That's your definition of balance ?
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:38:00 - [350] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Christari Zuborov Interdictor > T2 Frig > Destroyer > T1 frig. Well, we felt they were removing the tackling role almost completely from the interceptors. I think you understand why we did it, but I guess we have to agree to disagree this time. I'm also not sure about that pecking order, many of the interceptors are f.ex. inferior to even T1 frigates in combat. WTF are you thinking? Interceptors inferior to a T1 frig in combat? What on this planet have you been smoking? I'd like to see a Condor try to take on a Crow, or an Executioner take on a Crusader and have even a ghost's chance of getting out alive before the inty's even through shield. A Claw is so vastly superior to a Slasher there's just no comparison whatsoever, regardless of the combat situation both find themselves in. And let's not say anything about the Taranis... You're off your bloody rocker. Interdictors should never have had their speed reduced, it's the modules that make them (and for that matter Interceptors) so OMGZOOM fast. Nerf those just like you did to bring BS back down into the realm of reality in terms of speed. And for two of the interdictors loading it with any sort of decently ranged ammo means it's pretty much a sitting duck, or can't even run any EW/Tackle it might have fitted (Heretic/Flycatcher). The Eris is just plain broken, period. This leaves the Sabre as the only viable Interdictor to do anything more than drop a bubble and die. Get off the drugs and rethink your nerfs, or put down the bat and go home. You're supposted to swing at the ball, not the umpire.
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:40:00 - [351] Originally by: I SoStoned You're off your bloody rocker. And you're being needlessly obtuse. Take a rifter versus a craptor or an ares. The rifter would probably win either fight without breaking a sweat. Admittedly that's the worst interceptors against the best frigate, but the point still stands. the crap ceptors needed a boost, and the dictors needed to be edged away from their role as oversized interceptors.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:44:00 - [352] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. That's what a few other players and myself have attempted to explain repeatedly and extensively on these forums in multiple threads. Btw, it's very refreshing to finally see devs interacting with the community. You guys should create a forum section specifically dedicated to these discussions, because when this thread will hit 30 pages with questions ranging from the color of jovian pants to the date of introduction of explosive crystals for lasers, all this will become unmanageable.
missionalt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:45:00 - [353] Edited by: missionalt on 08/11/2007 22:45:10 Edited by: missionalt on 08/11/2007 22:44:57 ok since this is now ask the devs: what gameplay change are you guys (personally) most waiting on?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:46:00 - [354] Originally by: Goumindong 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] Totally forgot to mention this, not that I had space left. After you changed the Malediction to be good, you completly redesigned the roles of the tier 2 interceptors to be dedicated tacklers, which entirely took away the benefit of the Malediction by removing its second damage bonus and turning it into a weak version of the crow and making it obsolete for tackling things[stilletto/ares ==better in all ways as a tackler]
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:47:00 - [355] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: I SoStoned You're off your bloody rocker. And you're being needlessly obtuse. Take a rifter versus a craptor or an ares. The rifter would probably win either fight without breaking a sweat. Admittedly that's the worst interceptors against the best frigate, but the point still stands. the crap ceptors needed a boost, and the dictors needed to be edged away from their role as oversized interceptors. The ares is fantastic now
missionalt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:47:00 - [356] ps i hope you're getting kieron's pay for the next month
missionalt GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:48:00 - [357] 'cause y'know this is what CSRs should be doing
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:50:00 - [358] Originally by: Goumindong The ares is fantastic now That's why i said they "needed" a boost . My acceleration control 5 and zor's hyperlink are drooling.
Jakus Cemendur Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.08 22:59:00 - [359] Originally by: missionalt 'cause y'know this is what CSRs should be doing It'd be pretty difficult for Kieron to talk about design changes as well as the actual designers can, or as quickly respond to questions.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.08 23:04:00 - [360] I'd just like to thank you Zulu and Nozh for clearing up a lot of these questions (either completely or to a degree). The community seems to be pretty worried by all this oncoming change so any positive interaction with the Devs is going to help cool things down a little.
Torco	Posted - 2007.11.08 23:33:00 - [361] Originally by: Cosmo Raata Originally by: CCP Zulupark I think we could do something to make these ships more fun and useful. Do you have any ideas? Note that we have at no point sat down and said "lets tinker with Amarr". I'm just talking theoretically here :) You've not read the 2 billion posts on Amarr??? Here are just a few of the millions of ideas people have come up with. - Reduce cap usage on Lasers by 50% & replace all ships cap bonuses with something else (e.g. 5% cap per level). Oh, and dont use the excuse we dont want other races using lasers bull....Every race can use everyone elses weapons & does atm so that argument is invalid. - Change EM/Thermal Damage balance. More Thermal, Less EM or just reduce EM resistances across the board. - Give the Apoc a role, drone ship, Neut ship, Missle Boat. Something else, its a useless ship atm. - Fix the Curse/Pilgrim/Bhaalgorn/etc., you broke them with the stupid Nos nerf and have yet to fix these - Reduce PG requirements on Cruiser & BS sized beams, you fixed the frig sized ones & stopped there for some insane reason. - Give Retribution a med, take away the utility high. - Give the Zealot a 5th turret point - Increase PG significantly on the Omen - Maller is an Apoc clone, give it a role similar to what has been mentioned for the apoc (minus the drone boat, as we have one of those already) I think i've made my point, there are literally thousands of ideas and we've never gotten feedback on them. Hi there DEVS- For the AMARR Problems this thread is full of solutions and thoughts. You should read it!!! :-) AMARR-Thread-CLICKY
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.08 23:34:00 - [362] Originally by: Semkhet So, you would like to see nanoships nerfed under the principle that they can tank better than you do, regardless of their pathetic DPS. However, you never talk about lowering your own DPS in exchange. That's your definition of balance ? I'm saying that if you setup my apoc (my favorite armor tank) or even those rediculous armor tankers, there is a finite amount of damage they can take before they go boom. If you setup any of those nano ships for speed, they can tank an infinite amount of damage. Something is obviously broken with that. a small fleet of nano ships versus a small fleet of armor tankers one of two outcomes are possible. 1: the nano ships kill the armor tankers 2: the nano ships run away where's the third option of 3: the armor tankers kill the nano ships? It doesn't happen. That makes it a ballance issue. Nerf them, boost us.... give us more options to even the odds. Just change it. good game
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.08 23:57:00 - [363] 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.
Kurann Amarr	Posted - 2007.11.09 00:03:00 - [364] Edited by: Kurann on 09/11/2007 00:04:26 in regards to an amarr "oomph" please point yourselves to the following threads that are very well laid out with minimal whining in the Ships 'n Modules section (in case you haven't noticed them) @CCP: Amarr Recon - The Broken Ships esp. Page 9 has some very good ideas imo Questions for Amarr Pilots has an excellent format that many of the amarr pilots have been contributing to. albeit some unbalanced options for fixes in some posts, it is what the pilots think is wrong with their ships (including myself) and causing most to train other races Edit: I was going to call it S 'n M, but i thought that wouldn't be appropriate and vague
Kaylana Syi Stimulus	Posted - 2007.11.09 00:18:00 - [365] Edited by: Kaylana Syi on 09/11/2007 00:22:23 I'd first like to say you guys are doing a great job overall with balancing EVE. I really like the drone balance as well as the anti-industry-logistical nerfbomb to carriers. Being I have 2 carrier pilots and have flown them for years I agree with you, they just didn't make sense. I have a few questions for you, I hope I didn't miss my opportunity to speak and get a response : 1) Triage module, as has been said, is a total goofball. It's greatest power is in its self tanking ability. The other roles for it are lackluster and have harsh cap and logistical penalties that are definitely not reasonable for mainstream adoption. Please get on them asap. That is a LOT of wasted SP hanging over my head. 2) The Vargur is not a good ship. It lacks powergrid. Please fix that ASAP. If you cannot fit a full rack of 1200 IIs on this ship without 2 fitting modules there is serious question as to why I would use this ship over a Maelstrom. The Marauder class characteristics do not make up for the lack of difference in this ship vs the Maelstrom. 3) The Nidhoggur. The SISI changes do not solve any problems for this ship. Infact, it creates problems. For example, if you compare the carriers with a similar fitting Nidhoggur with Armor Nidhoggur with Shield Thanatos Chimera Archon You will see that the Nidhoggur runs the weakest tank no matter what tank profile you use. Its biggest quality is to have a greater cap recharge which will help the 2nd bonus. However, going to a 5/6 mid/low setup will not improve the tank much. It will be more similar to the Thanatos but will be far more cap intensive for its bonus. I petition you to leave the slotting as is and implement a Shield Boost bonus so that the shield tank can improve while the option to armor tank for better cap recharge to run remote repping will still be available. At the same time you 'could' disolve the Thanatos drone damage bonus and implement a Armor repair bonus. This will give them 'repair' based tanking that could perform more or less like the other two while still being different and allowing the stats like number of fighters carried etc to differentiate the lineup. -Black Ops Jump Distance. Can you please look into raising the base to 2.5 light years? 2 might be a tad short if you need carriers to support fast moving ship combat-logistics as well as Black-Op guerrilla deployment. -Assault Frigates. Please do a eve-search on Weirda's ideas and please read them. -Scripted Modules. Please keep balancing these to make sure they are all useful. Please don't deploythem on TQ without making sure they are actually useful. edit : changed bad link for archon Team Minmatar
Bein Glorious GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 00:31:00 - [366] There's one thing that I've noticed with a lot of upcoming changes that's sort of settling in light of harder logistics. It seems to me that CCP's balance team is finally putting a kind of a stop to the "bigger is better" mentality to ships in EVE. They have made and will make changes to capitals that should decrease their use (even if some ideas get shot down that kinda sorta could have worked ), and the scripts for sensor boosters and tracking computers should make sniping battleships less of the focus in major fleet battles. The changes could give way for smaller ship combat, meaning that, if people are essentially forced to mine their own lowends and ices in deep 0.0, the lower quantities of minerals needed could end up making it somewhat easier to deal with at the same time. Hopefully that's how it could turn out, anyway... But still, any chance of deep 0.0 super yield ice asteroids or super-veld? Or anything else that might be more effective at mining lowend minerals in 0.0?
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.09 00:54:00 - [367] Originally by: Kaylana Syi Nidhoggur with Armor Nidhoggur with Shield Thanatos Chimera Archon The Than and the Nid can both field: Smartie, 2x HNeut, 2x Cap Remote Rep 1x SB, 4x cap recharger 2x Capital Rep, Exp, Kinm, Therm, EANM 3x CCC For a 3176 tank (EFT Normalised rep/s) . So I don't see any great issue there. The problem however are the Chimera and Archon who can repair far, far more than these ships. The Chimera's 25% bonus for example gives it a normalized rep/s of 5186. Thats 2010 more, a 61% increase. While the Than gets an extra 250 DPS (before resistances ) and the Nidd gets a little extra remote rep. Carriers are, as far as I can tell, the worst balanced ships in EVE in comparison to each other.
Zarch AlDain The Establishment Establishment	Posted - 2007.11.09 01:05:00 - [368] Originally by: I SoStoned This one feature alone allowed small & medium alliances/corps to bypass the jackass lowsec gatecamps with smartbombing moms (I see you haven't done anything about that glaring exploit) and fuel their lowsec POS or move from region to region around the chokepoints. Did you even notice hactors with their ability to tackle low sec motherships or were you too busy ranting? I'd say that's something about lowsec moms. The only thing I agree with you on is I would _really_ like to see some sort of list of changes/proposed changes somewhere as there is a huge number. Everything from module sizes to freighter mass to new ships to sensor dampners to scripts, etc, etc, etc. I didn't even know about the dictor nerf until I saw it mentioned in this thread - and that would normally be a pretty major news item! Zarch AlDain
Mika Meisk Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.09 01:16:00 - [369] Just as a complimentary suggestion, its about amarr . Are you looking into the different roles as they are beeing used in actual pvp? IE when does a gang benefit obviously more if bringing amarr ships than other-racial substitutes. This question has nothing to do with if one ever can use an amarr ship (you can ofc :p) but in which general case are they preferable, cause in the bs case I really cant find a situation where ppl go " Oh your maxxed skilled in all races bring amarr", it would most likely bring another racial bs. When it comes to recons/hac, same thing sure the amarr ones arent useless (even after the nosnerf) but why (not considering the new scripts even though you didnt think it prominent to buff tracking disruptors) would one choose amarr over the other races? The answer should be that cause amarr are poor in solo combat (as caldari) they should outshine the gallente and minmatar counterparts in gang combat? Well ive never heard anyone ask for an amarr hac instead of a min or gal in a speed gang nor have I heard screams for the amarr recons, after the nerf, compared to the other recons? Yet this is but a small ripple in the amarrian pond... Lasers are broken. Ofc there are ships that are good, hence the ships doesnt appear as lackluster as one mkight think, but when the best amarr ships are mere substitutes for a char not skilled int the appropriate races I feel something is wrong. Decide on a design phlosofy and make amarr shine in its respective areas such as: Inflicting more damage than the counterpart when weps are fired from the start during a battle. Making the famous HP buffer (res bonii and plates) of amarr count Make capboosters either be amarr cap or make them less of a factor, cause atm amarr looses out as just breaking ammo cache for both weps and armour quicker than the rest. Tachs are oversized make em truly be it. We use the bigget range wep IG let the stats reflect it (including bonuses and resistance its useless compared to fitting reqs) *Most important look over the amarr t1 cruiser line As a sidenote search up that idea about afterbutners vs mwd and the balancing revised from there cause if mwd is mandatory amarr will allways be gimped. //Mika
Cygnus Zhada Amarr The Wild Hunt	Posted - 2007.11.09 01:27:00 - [370] Edited by: Cygnus Zhada on 09/11/2007 01:38:31 As one of the Devs asked for ideas on Amarr, here's some; Main Amarr problems (imo) are damage type, slotting, cap problem. - Damage type could simply be solved by changing the EM/thermal balance towards thermal a tad more. Make it so that multifreq. does 2/3 thermal 1/3 EM and Radio 1/3 therm, 2/3 EM. That in itself is more than enough to buff the damage. - slotting; Some ships like the Maller, Proph, Retribution, Geddon simply NEED an extra midslot. Amarr doesn't have insane tracking so it needs a webber, and ofcourse you need a MWD and scram. Adding a 4th would enable it to actually use their ECM or fit a cap injector. Cap problem; It's partially covered by the slotting point but lowering the cap use on amarr guns would help a tad 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. Damage type, slotting for either ECM or cap injector for ships with 3 midslots (or in case of the Retri, just 1) and a cap boost, but with a twist. 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
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.09 02:11:00 - [371] naturally I go to class, come home and +3 pages and the devs ran away About the omnitank of doom, are we talking several EANM + dc, or Eanm + 3 hardeners. the first has a uber em resist and decent other resists, where the second has good all around resists? 6 months you said you were giving amarr some oomph and now your saying you will take a look at it soon for instance taking my zealot against a deimos, zealot gets about 86 dps per gun heavy pulse II with conflag all skills 5, times 4 guns for 345 dps total (and a heatsinkII) deimos gets 77 dps per neutron blaster II with void times 5, + 5 hammerhead IIs for 543 dps (no damage mods and all skills 5) it should be noted the deimos will be fighting at about 5km, and the zealot from 10-14km, the zealot has slightly higher base speed then the deimos (by 13m/s), but with microwarp drives the deimos has about 127m/s better speed. against a vaga i think its right click self destruct. or hope you have a huggin nearby. and eagle well someone will warp off. or if its blaster fit the zealot should win just based on em resists. and that is just some amarr problems in one ship set. what is that titan doing in lowsec without support is a very vaild question. maybe if its jump bridging at a pos, can you activate a jump bridge from inside a pos shield? 100km snipers sound like one of the best dd tanked dictor solutions to me. hey look its a dictor.... POP! (or maybe a few assault frigs ) battleships bumping titans/moms/carriers/dreads yes that is something that needs to be looked at... although you will feel hitting a man with a car. (although titans/moms are supposed to affect the tides on a planet so a battleship bumbing that is more like a squirrel stopping a tank) I do think Jitatrade Alt has a very vaild point. 0.0 really should be worth fighting over for more than 100-200mil moons and belts to rat in (hello empire missions? and no for the love of god dont nerf missions more then you already have) or is 0.0 supposed to be a playground where people just shoot each other for no reason? YES basicly any of these things would help a lot, althogough too much oomph and amarr becomes fotm, not enough and everyone will keep whining. 3 month copy time plus a -4 to -9 pe level = yuck taste in the mouth. DDD tanks give it what kind of survival against other stuff, again with 10+ bs shooting at it how long will it live? zulu you are saying the same things i say about speed fits. the main counter argument is that when they are webbed they have enough speed going that they get out of web range before slowing down enough to get stopped by another ship. although i suppose that is the definition of hit and run. hit and if it doesn't work run, if it does work run. I did mention something to someone about getting them to run away isn't the worst outcome that can come in a fight and they still argued that it wasn't a way to stop speed setups. I believe i replied with well they ran away whats wrong with that? and yes, the objects are a little to static for my liking, that and there is way too much ambient light for outer space(imho) Nozh this makes me giggle, look at the amarr design please for the love of god, you will see far too much overlap (at least i do) especially with the paladin. oh yes and the golem being worse off then a cnr.... (guess what cnr is cheaper and easier to get) I personally would put all of the t2 worse then t1 named on the to look at list zulu you can at least name what you killed cant you? nothing wrong with a cloaky curse if you want to have an amarr discussion feel free to jump in on one, or start one up (maybe not uber spam?!) or i can do1
Ramirez Dora The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.09 02:40:00 - [372] Edited by: Ramirez Dora on 09/11/2007 02:41:05 Since more general questions seem to get considered, I have one small, yet very important one that most other Caldari players will have on their mind. Does the development team believe at this point that some (or all) caldari ships have too high mass/agility? Do you consider this a major issue for caldari players? I don't expect that you have a detailed plan layout (or that you've even had a meeting about it). But I would very much like to know if this perceived problem, as far as us caldari players go, has been brought to your immediate attention. Is there any plan to review this matter? Basically no caldari ship (except the inties maybe) is able to play the 'speed game' with the other races. Even if that was the intent, base speeds and aligning are serious problems for Caldari players. Speed mods imho, are basically ineffective for a caldari. This due to the fact that any speed gain we can get can easily be nullified by the other races' speed ships (which are aplenty). Combine this with the fact that speed is a all or nothing scenario, either you are fast enough or you are not, we have no way to compete whatsoever. Whilst many say Caldari is better at pve (that may be true) I hope that this has never been the intent, all races should have approximately equal ability in pve AND pvp, just through different mechanics. I understand this issue goes far above and beyond the speed of the ships (missiles is a big one too) but this would be a start. Currently a lot of people still think the mass/agility of caldari ships is a legacy of the dual MWD era.
bsspewer Caldari Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.09 02:51:00 - [373] Originally by: 'CCP Nozh' "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." Originally by: 'CCP Nozh' "We generally try to make ships unique and not overlap the abilities of others. Paying more for the "same ship" just slightly better would get boring quick. I know it has been done before, ship classes have become redundant, thats something we want to steer away from." So you don't want to make ship classes that are redundant, yet you want the carrier to fill the role of a logistics ship? If you don't want them to just be more expensive logistic ships (I'm speaking of logistical cruisers so you're not confused again) but wish for them to fill a better role of a mobile base; then the problem with this is they become POS huggers that are ineffective because you can't refit a ship with intense lag from the fight in system. And if this is the role they end up filling, what's the point? Because in the POS they're hugging, you can already anchor a hanger and refitting array. If carriers are also not meant to deal out the amount of damage they do, but instead repair, then the last viable ship left for them to repair can't even be repaired when deployed (Dreads). With the nerf to sensor boosters, a carrier can't lock a battleship in enough time to save him. This is herein where the problem lies. There becomes no role for the carrier to fill anymore based on what you keep saying carriers are supposed to be and what they're not supposed to be. You want ideas from us on what to do with this, and what to do with that; so we develop these ideas and use them ingame, only to have CCP decide they didn't intend for that. So then why do you want us to come up with any ideas if you already had one before? ____________________
Susitna Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.09 03:20:00 - [374] Edited by: Susitna on 09/11/2007 03:20:51 Thanks for the updates and discussion. Regarding interdictors. Yes people in 00 use the sabre to tackle and bubble. The sabre has a complete package it can fit pretty decent tank, fit T-2 guns, and has two lows and a low mass for good speed. With rigs it is an interceptor on steroids. It has a bubble launcher and normal web and scram. Who would not choose to fly it over a interceptor? However, I think you are nerfing a ship class when the problem is really riggs and implants. A rigged sabre is about as fast as an unrigged stiletto. It is the rigs that overpower the sabre and make it more attractive than the stiletto for general tackling. Poly carbs are overpowered not just on dictors. Nerf them please and leave the dictors alone I also find it odd that you are going after the Interdictor speed but leaving the other nano ships untouched. A sabre is a good tool to combat nano gangs. The flycatcher is horrid now. If this ship is nerfed no ship is safe from the nerf bat.
Phantom Slave Amarr Mozzaki United	Posted - 2007.11.09 03:27:00 - [375] Hello CCP Zulupark and CCP Nozh. I'm not sure if you are going to return to this thread or not, but if you do I'd like to point you to another thread. Ultimate Amarr Whine Thread Bad choice in a name, but I didn't start it. Zulupark, I believe you asked for examples of what kind of Amarr ideas to get some 'Oomph'. I'll leave you with that. I hope you take a moment to read through the thread. ____________________ Changes on Sisi are NOT the end of the world. Wait until Rev III/Trinity is released before drawing conclusions.
Riato Hargoumi byeee Corp Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 03:46:00 - [376] Edited by: Riato Hargoumi on 09/11/2007 03:53:06 Arrggg, EVE-O forums logged me out and wiped my responce. Agreeing with nerfing nanoships. At the moment they are pretty much the 'godmode cheat' of eve. Make overdrives reduce tracking speed, drone damage and the precision of missiles. Doing this would cause the nanoships to have as much of a threat at 7km/s at 11km out as the target is a threat to them. Alternatively, overdrives drastically decrease agility when MWD is active. Nanoship can go at 7km/s in an almost strieght line.
Una D Ex Coelis Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 03:47:00 - [377] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. 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). Any chance what so ever of looking at the cloaks? After all if you can nerf nuke most of the other things in the game why not look at that? ATM cloak and some patience is the I win button. We can not do anything to a large cloaker gang. There is no way to force engagement and if they are patient they will get kills sooner or later since this is game and you can't expect people to stay in combat readiness 24/7. Make it at least coupled to soverginity so that you can at least kick them out of your own space. I like (well I hate the logistic nuke but I figure that you are going to ignore everyone on that one so no point in whining about it) the change to the carrier (being able to move 2 BSs is a bit low but still not bad) but could we please get a bit large corp array. Carrier is supposed to be mobile platform and in real life (well real eve) carriers do need to refit and with the sizes of capital modules there is no way to even bring remote reppers if you fit for more drones for example.
Sylper Illysten	Posted - 2007.11.09 04:14:00 - [378] So some Devs have touched on the carrier chanegs, module issues and a whole host of other topics. How about some replies to the concerns about the Marauder class of ships? The deathly silence from any Dev is getting a tad old.
Becka Call	Posted - 2007.11.09 04:22:00 - [379] Just a couple questions: When were the changes to the hauling abilities of carriers first discussed internally? When was a implementation timetable internally discussed for these changes? Did anyone internally think it was a Bad Idea(tm) to introduce a T2 version of a battleship that a developer stated(in a dev blog) would be getting a role change without implementing that change to base the T2 ship on?
ShadowAgony Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 05:21:00 - [380] Edited by: ShadowAgony on 09/11/2007 05:24:22 Edited by: ShadowAgony on 09/11/2007 05:23:29 My version on amarr "Oomph" -Lasers should go TROUGH shileds -Like totaly ignore shields doing dmg directly into armour <smiles> Edit : -can work backwards also : -totaly remove shields from amarr and add the numbers to armor ammount
Maglorre	Posted - 2007.11.09 05:30:00 - [381] Pardon me if this has been mentioned before but it's hard to read all of the posts regarding this. One thing that has bubbled to the top of my mind every time I read about the hauling nerf is this. Why not make an "overloaded" ship unable to be placed in a carrier? An Iteron with no pilot can only hold 6000 m3, period, that is all you can put in it if it is not actively piloted. If it was possible to modify the code so that it is not possible to move an overloaded ship from one place to another this would possibly solve the whole issue of massive amounts of cargo in a hauler inside a carrier and still allow other ships to have anything they wanted in their holds (spare mods for changing setups etc.) Cheers
Jurgen Cartis Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2007.11.09 05:50:00 - [382] Will we ever see the missing 6th Amarr Frigate? Are specialized damp and TD ships going to have their bonuses increased somewhat, as ECM strength bonuses were improved/added when ECM got nerfed? Also, is the Mackinaw ever going to be brought in line with the other two barges so it can fit T1 upgrades and tank, or T2 upgrades without needing implants? At present it is severely lacking in CPU. -------------------- ICE Blueprint Sales FIRST!! -Yipsilanti Pfft. Never such a thing as a "last chance". ;) -Rauth
Greenwing SuX ltd. Rare Faction	Posted - 2007.11.09 06:00:00 - [383] Originally by: CCP Nozh Edited by: CCP Nozh on 08/11/2007 21:57:00 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. Can you please explain how you can take both your own fuel and modules with you at the same time with the limited cargo space of a carrier ? Taking fuel for only 2 jumps already halves your cargo space. If you want it to bring ships and modules for the fleet there must be some kind of solution for the logistics (be able to sort items a nice way, containers don't work too well and take too much space if not filled completely) and for the space itself (both fuel/modules don't fit) BTW very nice thread and thnx for the answers ! Please get more of those.
Celedris Stimulus	Posted - 2007.11.09 06:08:00 - [384] Originally by: Jurgen Cartis Are specialized damp and TD ships going to have their bonuses increased somewhat, as ECM strength bonuses were improved/added when ECM got nerfed? I would also like to know this. Are the devs happy with the current power level of the Celestis/Arazu/Lachesis specialized ships with the current damp changes on the test server? I fly both Gallente and Caldari recons myself, and I have trouble envisioning a good reason why I would fly a Lachesis or Arazu (or Rook) instead of a Falcon with the current numbers. The very light damage these ships do is almost a non-factor in their gang-support role; Their ability to effectively disable a few enemy ships is the primary reason they are used. On a per-module basis, 14 point jammers on a Falcon seem a whole lot stronger than the new scripted damps on Celestis hulls.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 06:47:00 - [385] 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. Wait, what happened to previous owner? Did he simply get vanished? Anyway, your tone and replies here says that "Oh looky, I'm a Dev, I know what I'm talking so STFU!" and you wonder why people go awol against you? How about you say something NICE and perhaps that your looking to carrier problems (Like allowing CERTAIN items in cargo holds, adding separate FUEL storage, fixing amarr ships that aren't inline with other races ships etc.) It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Edmund Khan Destructive Influence Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.09 07:11:00 - [386] Edited by: Edmund Khan on 09/11/2007 07:11:26 First of all, i find lot of changes stupid, but they are coming in. I'll have to adopt or quit. I'll try to adopt first. But let me get to the point of why I'm posting. I don't get the carrier changes. I mean the ones where ships can't carry stuff in their cargo holds while stored in the carrier. This is just plain stupid. You remember how much pain it was having to unload the ammo from guns before storing the ships? This will be the same sh**. And now you even have to open the corp hangar, which opens after 5 minutes if you're lucky, specially on a mothership. Then you drop your stuff into corp hangar, which everybody has access to - with 4k people in alliance you can't count on everybody to just take theirs, so you end up without your stuff, maybe 40j away from empire in hostile space.... As of this very moment i have at least one mod in every ship i own iirc and they come in very handy in hostile space, many of them are in carriers. Instead of just banning haulers from carriers you do this stupid move. It's the same thing as with freighters. I figured they probably can't have rigs because with 3 cargo rigs they could carry around dreads and potentially to high sec systems. And then you ban all rigs from them instead of just making dreads repackaged size a bit larger and prevent that. I mean, who will use carrier for hauling if you can get a tech2 freighter easily and move more stuff without haulers. Sometimes i just don't get it.
Jason Edwards	Posted - 2007.11.09 07:59:00 - [387] 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.
F90OEX	Posted - 2007.11.09 08:09:00 - [388] Nozh, just one question for you. Are the Torp changes on SISI Final or will they be adjusted again. Thanks ..
Malachon Draco eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.09 08:53:00 - [389] 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. Carrier transporting does not depend on their cargobay. Dreads/Rorqual need the expanders to carry cargo. All a carrier has to do is get an iteron V, lowslots with expander IIs, cargo expander rigs, and it has about 38k cargo capacity. Fill it to capacity, put in ship maintenance bay and you are carrying 38k while still having all your slots for tank/combat. Then do the same with a viator (still room for that in the ship bay) and add 10k more. So 48k m3 cargo without using a single moduleslot for a carrier. ------------------------------------------------

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:18:00 - [390] Originally by: Necrologic 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. This is something we'd love to do, there are some ideas floating around, but at the moment they would fall more into the pipe-dream category more then being actual designs. 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? :)

Dracorimus Caldari 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:23:00 - [391] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Isn't Bandwith going to limit the usage of Medium Drones in the mix of 5 Drones usable at once, or am I misunderstanding it? The Ishtars bandwidth is 125m^3. Thus it can control 5x heavy drones, with that bandwidth it could launch 25x light drones or 12x medium drones, however it's still being limited by max 5 drones in space. So basically we aren't changing the Ishtar at all. So as an Amarr specialist, can I ask why a HAC has such a large drone bay, compared to for instance my Absolution Command Ship, I only have Guns to protect myself really, (read stick a Tracking Disruptor on it, GAME OVER Absolution) as it can only field 5 'light' drones, which an interceptor can kill off EASY..and then keep me stuck whilst it calls in the Cavalry.......My argument therefore is shouldn't an Amarr Command Ship, being bigger than aforementioned HAC, and much longer to train for/max out, be able to field at least 5 Medium drones to? I think that would be fair, I trained up Gallente Commands on SISI and I gotta say it's so much easier to 1v1 or 1vX in a Gallente Command or HAC than it is in my Amarr or Caldari Command/HAC. -
RustyPwnStar	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:24:00 - [392] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Jason Edwards Posting abridged alot... Carrier transporting does not depend on their cargobay. Dreads/Rorqual need the expanders to carry cargo. All a carrier has to do is get an iteron V, lowslots with expander IIs, cargo expander rigs, and it has about 38k cargo capacity. Fill it to capacity, put in ship maintenance bay and you are carrying 38k while still having all your slots for tank/combat. Then do the same with a viator (still room for that in the ship bay) and add 10k more. So 48k m3 cargo without using a single moduleslot for a carrier. But every carrier that I've seen used for moving stuff, puts modules on to gain faster cap recharging, for faster jumping times. Logistics is dire enough, without waiting 5 to 10 minutes waiting for the next jump. This is one of the reasons, the ideas behind this change are so wide of the mark. I loved this game, just for the imaginative ways people used various ships and the diversity. But it seems to be going. They should have waited, at least until T2 jump freighters were a realistic option. I'm not sure CCP really understand the absolute time sink logistics is. I stopped it, due to the wife not being too please, as I spent most time on this game sorting it out. Logistics is not fun and this is a game after all.
Rusty PwnStar Rampage Eternal Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:25:00 - [393] My alt. ^^ Regards Rusty signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected])

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:31:00 - [394] Originally by: Kaylana Syi I'd first like to say you guys are doing a great job overall with balancing EVE. I really like the drone balance as well as the anti-industry-logistical nerfbomb to carriers. Being I have 2 carrier pilots and have flown them for years I agree with you, they just didn't make sense. I have a few questions for you, I hope I didn't miss my opportunity to speak and get a response : 1) Triage module, as has been said, is a total goofball. It's greatest power is in its self tanking ability. The other roles for it are lackluster and have harsh cap and logistical penalties that are definitely not reasonable for mainstream adoption. Please get on them asap. That is a LOT of wasted SP hanging over my head. We've said, in this thread and others, that we'll look into the triage module and we want to change it, beef it. Originally by: Kaylana Syi 2) The Vargur is not a good ship. It lacks powergrid. Please fix that ASAP. If you cannot fit a full rack of 1200 IIs on this ship without 2 fitting modules there is serious question as to why I would use this ship over a Maelstrom. The Marauder class characteristics do not make up for the lack of difference in this ship vs the Maelstrom. Fitting autocannons is very effective due to the falloff bonus. I suggest you try it out. Originally by: Kaylana Syi 3) The Nidhoggur. The SISI changes do not solve any problems for this ship. Infact, it creates problems. For example, if you compare the carriers with a similar fitting Nidhoggur with Armor Nidhoggur with Shield Thanatos Chimera Archon You will see that the Nidhoggur runs the weakest tank no matter what tank profile you use. Its biggest quality is to have a greater cap recharge which will help the 2nd bonus. However, going to a 5/6 mid/low setup will not improve the tank much. It will be more similar to the Thanatos but will be far more cap intensive for its bonus. I petition you to leave the slotting as is and implement a Shield Boost bonus so that the shield tank can improve while the option to armor tank for better cap recharge to run remote repping will still be available. At the same time you 'could' disolve the Thanatos drone damage bonus and implement a Armor repair bonus. This will give them 'repair' based tanking that could perform more or less like the other two while still being different and allowing the stats like number of fighters carried etc to differentiate the lineup. Fendahl did some math on this, and I'll let him answer this question. I've sent him the link to this post. Originally by: Kaylana Syi -Black Ops Jump Distance. Can you please look into raising the base to 2.5 light years? 2 might be a tad short if you need carriers to support fast moving ship combat-logistics as well as Black-Op guerrilla deployment. We looked at this when we were creating them, and we thought 2 was fine. If, when the ships hit TQ, it becomes apparent the distance is too short (which I doubt), we will look into it again. Originally by: Kaylana Syi -Assault Frigates. Please do a eve-search on Weirda's ideas and please read them. We've already said we want to look at Assault Frigates Originally by: Kaylana Syi -Scripted Modules. Please keep balancing these to make sure they are all useful. Please don't deploythem on TQ without making sure they are actually useful. We think the modules with scripts are now balanced.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:37:00 - [395] Originally by: Ramirez Dora Since more general questions seem to get considered, I have one small, yet very important one that most other Caldari players will have on their mind. Does the development team believe at this point that some (or all) caldari ships have too high mass/agility? Do you consider this a major issue for caldari players? I don't expect that you have a detailed plan layout (or that you've even had a meeting about it). But I would very much like to know if this perceived problem, as far as us caldari players go, has been brought to your immediate attention. Is there any plan to review this matter? Basically no caldari ship (except the inties maybe) is able to play the 'speed game' with the other races. Even if that was the intent, base speeds and aligning are serious problems for Caldari players. Speed mods imho, are basically ineffective for a caldari. This due to the fact that any speed gain we can get can easily be nullified by the other races' speed ships (which are aplenty). Combine this with the fact that speed is a all or nothing scenario, either you are fast enough or you are not, we have no way to compete whatsoever. Whilst many say Caldari is better at pve (that may be true) I hope that this has never been the intent, all races should have approximately equal ability in pve AND pvp, just through different mechanics. I understand this issue goes far above and beyond the speed of the ships (missiles is a big one too) but this would be a start. Currently a lot of people still think the mass/agility of caldari ships is a legacy of the dual MWD era. Caldari agility is just.. well.. non-existent tbh. We don't like it and it will be looked at (if it hasn't already).


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:39:00 - [396] Originally by: Phantom Slave Hello CCP Zulupark and CCP Nozh. I'm not sure if you are going to return to this thread or not, but if you do I'd like to point you to another thread. Ultimate Amarr Whine Thread Bad choice in a name, but I didn't start it. Zulupark, I believe you asked for examples of what kind of Amarr ideas to get some 'Oomph'. I'll leave you with that. I hope you take a moment to read through the thread. We're aware of that thread, as well as all the comments on Amarr in this thread and will take it into consideration.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:40:00 - [397] Originally by: Susitna Edited by: Susitna on 09/11/2007 03:20:51 Thanks for the updates and discussion. Regarding interdictors. Yes people in 00 use the sabre to tackle and bubble. The sabre has a complete package it can fit pretty decent tank, fit T-2 guns, and has two lows and a low mass for good speed. With rigs it is an interceptor on steroids. It has a bubble launcher and normal web and scram. Who would not choose to fly it over a interceptor? However, I think you are nerfing a ship class when the problem is really riggs and implants. A rigged sabre is about as fast as an unrigged stiletto. It is the rigs that overpower the sabre and make it more attractive than the stiletto for general tackling. Poly carbs are overpowered not just on dictors. Nerf them please and leave the dictors alone I also find it odd that you are going after the Interdictor speed but leaving the other nano ships untouched. A sabre is a good tool to combat nano gangs. The flycatcher is horrid now. If this ship is nerfed no ship is safe from the nerf bat. Being able to bubble up a 20km radius with a very very small ship should have some drawbacks don't you think? It shouldn't be a no-brainer to do in my opinion.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:45:00 - [398] 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. Originally by: Una D Any chance what so ever of looking at the cloaks? After all if you can nerf nuke most of the other things in the game why not look at that? ATM cloak and some patience is the I win button. We can not do anything to a large cloaker gang. There is no way to force engagement and if they are patient they will get kills sooner or later since this is game and you can't expect people to stay in combat readiness 24/7. Make it at least coupled to soverginity so that you can at least kick them out of your own space. Cloaks are something we'd like to look into, yes. Originally by: Una D I like (well I hate the logistic nuke but I figure that you are going to ignore everyone on that one so no point in whining about it) the change to the carrier (being able to move 2 BSs is a bit low but still not bad) but could we please get a bit large corp array. Carrier is supposed to be mobile platform and in real life (well real eve) carriers do need to refit and with the sizes of capital modules there is no way to even bring remote reppers if you fit for more drones for example. This will all be looked into.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:52:00 - [399] Originally by: Sylper Illysten So some Devs have touched on the carrier chanegs, module issues and a whole host of other topics. How about some replies to the concerns about the Marauder class of ships? The deathly silence from any Dev is getting a tad old. I'll point Fendahl in your direction.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:54:00 - [400] Originally by: Becka Call Just a couple questions: When were the changes to the hauling abilities of carriers first discussed internally? When was a implementation timetable internally discussed for these changes? They have been discussed numerous times. The implementation timetable I'm not sure on, I'll check with Nozh. Originally by: Becka Call Did anyone internally think it was a Bad Idea(tm) to introduce a T2 version of a battleship that a developer stated(in a dev blog) would be getting a role change without implementing that change to base the T2 ship on? I'm not sure what role change or devblog you're talking about. Could you link it for me?

Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:55:00 - [401] First off, awesome thread, very nice answers from the dev guys. You rock. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the changes (yes, including the nerfs). Overall, I'd say "good job". However, I have a few issues (doesn't everyone). These have been discussed in other threads, but I'm not sure if the devs have had time to note those -- I'll try to condense the issues here. a) the EW nerf and scripts: the jury is still out on this one. While I agree that damps needed a nerf, I'm concerned that they may end up so weak that even ships getting a bonus to their use (mainly thinking Arazu/Lachesis/Curse/Pilgrim) here won't be able to use them effectively. Tracking disruptors are specially problematic, since they were (imho) a bit underpowered before due to only working on turret ships. No dev response requested here, just voicing a concern. I'll wait and see. b) The Eos Here I'd love some dev feedback, it any of you guys have time to comment. The ship did out-of-line DPS and needed to have that nerfed. On that I agree. However, the issue is that it has always been a poor gang/fleet support ship, the DPS was the only thing going for it. Now that's gone, and it remains a poor support ship (as compared to the other fleet commands). The recent move of one mid to a low brings the tank up to the level of the others, but removes what little flexibility it had. To date, I've practically never seen anyone fly an Eos with gang links. I've seen lots and lots of Damnations and Claymores, and some Vultures in that role. The Eos is, simply, not a very good option for what is its intended role. The issues/problems with the current (sisi) Eos are: The infowar gang links are by far the weakest of the four, mainly due to their limited role as compared to the others. They push the Eos into support role for EW squad (and only that role). Compare to the general usability of the others. The ship has fitting problems (lacking grid, mainly). It cannot reasonably fit plates, or 250mmII rails. This has various negative effects. Reduction of the drone bay size seems pointless "insult to injury", since the drone bandwidth is now in place. In addition, the drone bay size bonus is somewhat pointless, especially considering the now much reduced drone capability. In general, the above results in very little reason to fly the new Eos. Even as EW squad support, the other fleet commands have so much better stats that the Eos ends up lacking. In my view, the Eos would need some tweaks in order to be useful in its intended role. Emphasis on ranged weapons. If this ship is intended to act as EW support, it needs to be able to stay with the EW squad (i.e. at range) Due to the limited use cases of the infowar gang links, some "general" utility it could bring to a fleet/gang Now, my suggestions (supported by many others) to fix the ship as a fleet command ship would be: Increase grid so it can fit 250mmII rails, 3 x gang links, and either plate or 2xmed rep IIs Change the hybrid damage bonus to a hybrid optimal range bonus Since above change drops total DPS, increase drone bandwidth a bit correspondingly []Give the ship a static large(ish) drone bay []Replace the drone bay size bonus with something logistics/fleet support related. My suggestion would be bonus to logistics drone effectiveness. Result: ship that can support EW squad from reasonable range (to target), has some more drone flexibility (while keeping total DPS low), and can bring general-use support to a fleet via logistics drones (so it's not totally locked into the EW-squad-support-only role). Now, my questions to the devs would be: - do you see my analysis of the Eos situation, above, as accurate? - do my suggestions for fixing the ship sound reasonable?

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:55:00 - [402] Originally by: Maglorre Edited by: Maglorre on 09/11/2007 06:35:58 Pardon me if this has been mentioned before but it's hard to read all of the posts regarding this. One thing that has bubbled to the top of my mind every time I read about the hauling nerf is this. Why not make an "overloaded" ship unable to be placed in a carrier? An Iteron with no pilot can only hold 6000 m3, period, that is all you can put in it if it is not actively piloted. If it the code could be modified so that it is not possible to move an overloaded ship from one place to another this would potentially solve the whole issue of massive amounts of cargo in a hauler inside a carrier and still allow other ships to have anything they wanted in their holds (spare mods for changing setups etc.) Cheers Edit: Possibly two too many possibilities posted. This has been mentioned, you're just gonna have to read through it all :D


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:58:00 - [403] Originally by: Jurgen Cartis Will we ever see the missing 6th Amarr Frigate? Are specialized damp and TD ships going to have their bonuses increased somewhat, as ECM strength bonuses were improved/added when ECM got nerfed? I hope we get the lost Amarr frigate! It would be about time :). We've looked at the stats on the specialized TD and Damp ships and we're happy with them at the moment. Remember, Tracking Disruption and Sensor Dampening is a sure thing. ECM is not. Originally by: Jurgen Cartis Also, is the Mackinaw ever going to be brought in line with the other two barges so it can fit T1 upgrades and tank, or T2 upgrades without needing implants? At present it is severely lacking in CPU. That'll need to get looked at.

Apocalytica Insomnia DarkSide Defenders	Posted - 2007.11.09 09:58:00 - [404] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: CCP Nozh to encourage freight runs Expanded dreadnoughts. Expanded Rorquals. Titans. All of these will come before even considering running a freighter through 0.0. [...] Yeah, you can still* use deadnoughts or expanded rorquals, however you completely sacrifice your fit and you're nowhere close to being as effective.* Have you guys @ CCP thought about possibly allowing the same for cariers/motherships? I mean, as it stands right now small corps have used the carriers for beeing able to resupply themselfes from empire, may that be fuel to run your mandatory 1-Large Pos in a Station system, or may that be a lots of T2 stuff. I'll only adress this for Gallente, as thats what i am flying. (inlcuding rorqual) Max expanded with T2 and T1 rigs you get the following amounts of cargo bay, whilst sacrifizing alot of your tanking ability to survive an attack on you: Thanatos @ 900 mil --> 22334,89 m¦ + 10k Cargobay Moros @ 1,4 bil --> 68887 m¦ Rorqual @ 1,8 bil --> 62306m¦ Pre-patch - 124613 Post-patch Nyx @ 14 bil --> 42547 m¦+50k cargobay Erebus @ 80(??) bil --526784 m¦ Apocalytica Insomnia DarkSide Defenders Accounting and More

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:00:00 - [405] Originally by: Kuolematon 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. Wait, what happened to previous owner? Did he simply get vanished? Anyway, your tone and replies here says that "Oh looky, I'm a Dev, I know what I'm talking so STFU!" and you wonder why people go awol against you? How about you say something NICE and perhaps that your looking to carrier problems (Like allowing CERTAIN items in cargo holds, adding separate FUEL storage, fixing amarr ships that aren't inline with other races ships etc.) There's no need to be impolite Kuolematon. We've already answered a whole lot of questions regarding carriers. It seems to me you just want us to give answers that you want to hear and the others don't matter.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:02:00 - [406] 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.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:03:00 - [407] Originally by: F90OEX Nozh, just one question for you. Are the Torp changes on SISI Final or will they be adjusted again. Thanks .. They are final for Trinity release.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:04:00 - [408] Originally by: Dracorimus Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Minerva Vulcan Isn't Bandwith going to limit the usage of Medium Drones in the mix of 5 Drones usable at once, or am I misunderstanding it? The Ishtars bandwidth is 125m^3. Thus it can control 5x heavy drones, with that bandwidth it could launch 25x light drones or 12x medium drones, however it's still being limited by max 5 drones in space. So basically we aren't changing the Ishtar at all. So as an Amarr specialist, can I ask why a HAC has such a large drone bay, compared to for instance my Absolution Command Ship, I only have Guns to protect myself really, (read stick a Tracking Disruptor on it, GAME OVER Absolution) as it can only field 5 'light' drones, which an interceptor can kill off EASY..and then keep me stuck whilst it calls in the Cavalry.......My argument therefore is shouldn't an Amarr Command Ship, being bigger than aforementioned HAC, and much longer to train for/max out, be able to field at least 5 Medium drones to? I think that would be fair, I trained up Gallente Commands on SISI and I gotta say it's so much easier to 1v1 or 1vX in a Gallente Command or HAC than it is in my Amarr or Caldari Command/HAC. Ships have roles. The Ishtar is a drone boat, the Absolution is a tanking laser boat. I don't see the problem?

Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:07:00 - [409] Originally by: CCP Zulupark We think the modules with scripts are now balanced. 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? 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. Alex made a good post about the Eos, so I won't repeat any of that here. 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. -- Gradient forum

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:09:00 - [410] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Lots and lots of text Well now, the links the Eos is intended for are indeed specialized, but they do put a LOT of juice into EWAR ships it's boosting. I for one like the new slot layout, giving me a better tank at the expense of a midslot (and you still have 4 midslots anyway). The powergrid concern.. I'm not 100% sure it's a problem, but we'll look into it.

Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:09:00 - [411] About those Jump Freighters, i might have a negative attitude i am sorry, but this is how i look at it: - To low effective hp given they have no slots and no proper t2 resistances - They can easily be suicide ganked in empire (in high sec even) - They have no flexibility due to the lack of fitting - They require an other ship to remote recharge their cap after every jump - They currently cost 5+bil isk, (i know you said you want them to cost 2.5bil, but atm they don't) By looking at their low sec and 0.0 abilities, i'd have to say a rorqual is the superior freighter. What's your take on that? P.S: A thread like this was very much needed, i know there's alot of devblogs upcoming, but still alot of people appreciate communication like this. It's a very vital part of any dev job imo, more important than actual coding :)
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:15:00 - [412] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I'm not sure what role change or devblog you're talking about. Could you link it for me? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Originally by: CCP Tuxford General ship loving. There are some ships that need help and we're gonna give it to them. Which ships you might ask? Well, Armageddon might need some fitting help, the cruisers aren't really that great and Apocalypse might get a bit of a role twist. The Geddon got some fitting changes, but the cruisers and Apoc still suck more than is appropriate to mention on this forum

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:15:00 - [413] 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. 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. Originally by: Theron Gyrow Alex made a good post about the Eos, so I won't repeat any of that here. I've answered that. 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?

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:16:00 - [414] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: F90OEX Nozh, just one question for you. Are the Torp changes on SISI Final or will they be adjusted again. Thanks .. They are final for Trinity release. You guys realise this pretty much obsoletes Pulse Laser Battleships right?

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:17:00 - [415] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: CCP Zulupark I'm not sure what role change or devblog you're talking about. Could you link it for me? http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=427 Originally by: CCP Tuxford General ship loving. There are some ships that need help and we're gonna give it to them. Which ships you might ask? Well, Armageddon might need some fitting help, the cruisers aren't really that great and Apocalypse might get a bit of a role twist. The Geddon got some fitting changes, but the cruisers and Apoc still suck more than is appropriate to mention on this forum We've already said, again and again, that we want to look into giving Amarr more oomph. How we do that hasn't been decided.

Cailais Amarr W A R	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:17:00 - [416] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Jurgen Cartis Will we ever see the missing 6th Amarr Frigate? Are specialized damp and TD ships going to have their bonuses increased somewhat, as ECM strength bonuses were improved/added when ECM got nerfed? I hope we get the lost Amarr frigate! It would be about time :). We've looked at the stats on the specialized TD and Damp ships and we're happy with them at the moment. Remember, Tracking Disruption and Sensor Dampening is a sure thing. ECM is not. Originally by: Jurgen Cartis Also, is the Mackinaw ever going to be brought in line with the other two barges so it can fit T1 upgrades and tank, or T2 upgrades without needing implants? At present it is severely lacking in CPU. That'll need to get looked at. That's true, but as you know Sensor boosters (with reduction in targeting range) are a sure thing to 'effectively' jam a ship: as it cannot lock beyond its maximum targeting range. TDs are very different, having no effect upon drones, other EW attacks, missiles, neutralizers/nosferatu, webifiers or warp scramblers. Those are all pretty devestating effects in their own right which TDs offer no EW defence against. So my question is do you belive that leaving TDs unscripted would make them over powered in comparision with other EW effects? 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 10:18:00 - [417] Originally by: CCP Zulupark We've already said, again and again, that we want to look into giving Amarr more oomph. How we do that hasn't been decided. No need to be snippy, i was just providing the link you requested with the quote for easy access and some commentary.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:19:00 - [418] 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.

Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:23:00 - [419] Edited by: Goumindong on 09/11/2007 10:24:23 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Ships have roles. The Ishtar is a drone boat, the Absolution is a tanking laser boat. I don't see the problem? "Drone boat" and "laser tanking boat" are not roles. Those are descriptions of how the ship carries out its role. Not that the Absolution needs more drones[it needs another med slot or more laser dps because its utterly outclassed by the sleinpir as a tank/gank ship]. Roles are jobs within the system that the ship can perform. The Absolution is a short range primary damage dealer[or secondary damage dealer depending on how you look at it]. It is not a "tanking laser boat" as a role. When i am looking at what to bring to a gang, i do not say "I want to bring a laser boat" i say "i want to bring a DPS boat, what can fulfill my DPS needs". I then look for ships that can get dps on target as fast as possible while having a high hp:dmg ratio[I.E. i want ships as damage ships which are not beneficial to primary as to continue to keep their dps alive longer, hence the prevelence of plated battleships] keeping in mind that repairing gives a variable HP:DMG ratio depending on how large or small the engagement is. And that DMG is variable depending on the range of engagement.
Khalm Firing Squad Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.09 10:24:00 - [420] Originally by: Tyr Zewa About those Jump Freighters, i might have a negative attitude i am sorry, but this is how i look at it: - To low effective hp given they have no slots and no proper t2 resistances - They can easily be suicide ganked in empire (in high sec even) - They have no flexibility due to the lack of fitting - They require an other ship to remote recharge their cap after every jump - They currently cost 5+bil isk, (i know you said you want them to cost 2.5bil, but atm they don't) By looking at their low sec and 0.0 abilities, i'd have to say a rorqual is the superior freighter. What's your take on that? P.S: A thread like this was very much needed, i know there's alot of devblogs upcoming, but still alot of people appreciate communication like this. It's a very vital part of any dev job imo, more important than actual coding :) Idd like to hear an answer to this too. ---
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.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:25:00 - [451] Originally by: Goumindong 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? With 425's the sleipnir is doing 649 raw dps.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:26:00 - [452] 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. 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. Perhaps we need to look at Titans as well.

Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:26:00 - [453] 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?

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:28:00 - [454] Originally by: Max Teranous 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. Personally, I'd like to see the ability to "Anchor" these ships at a starbase (or something like that). But that's something we'd have to be very careful about. I'm not saying no, but I'm not saying yes.


CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:30:00 - [455] Originally by: Gemini Zero 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 Eagles will still be effective as snipers imo. Fitting 1x sensor booster for range and 1x for targetting speed, then 1x tracking computer for tracking (or range, whichever you want) still makes for a good anti-support sniperboat. Originally by: Gemini Zero 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! There are some mods that need looking into, I know Nozh is making a list of stuff he wants to look at closely. I'll see if he's added those modules to it.

Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:34:00 - [456] Originally by: CCP Zulupark There are some mods that need looking into, I know Nozh is making a list of stuff he wants to look at closely. I'll see if he's added those modules to it. You could try to setup a "mod review suggestion" thread. To keep it simple limit the format to something like Modulename: <what the issue is, max 250chars or so> Might be possible to get a decent list, if the thread is heavily moderated :P

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:35:00 - [457] Originally by: Tyr Zewa Originally by: CCP Zulupark There are some mods that need looking into, I know Nozh is making a list of stuff he wants to look at closely. I'll see if he's added those modules to it. You could try to setup a "mod review suggestion" thread. To keep it simple limit the format to something like Modulename: <what the issue is, max 250chars or so> Might be possible to get a decent list, if the thread is heavily moderated :P Or you could try setting one up yourself in the Game Development forum and see where it leads ;)

Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:35:00 - [458] Edited by: Silvero on 09/11/2007 11:36:21 Originally by: DeadDuck 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. You fail to see that with the new HIC's, once you enter the battle field its a 50/50 you either succesfully kill the hostile fleet or you lose a titan there is no way of escape. Not even a MoM which have significant more firepower then a titan are unable to break free from these new tacklers. "I do like poker but to go all in on every hand is pretty crazy". So then we have the tactical advantage of moving fleets which still stands +the fleet bonus but these things can be handled pretty much from whithin the safety of a forcefield. I personaly don't think ppl will venture to many km of a forcefield when these new ships enter the game. And having to restirct a titan/mom pilot to always make sure there are at least 200 ppl in a gang when loging on isnt viable.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:37:00 - [459] 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. No it's not only the omni tank, if you say it's similar DPS then please consider the following as well; -Sleip uses 0 cap for it's weapons leaving 18 cap/s at peak recharge -Abso uses 13 cap/s for it's weapons leaving only 5 cap/s at peak recharge Does this seem to be similar cap left to tank/ew as the sleip? If not then why would it be "fair" to have comparable DPS? Yes omni tanks ARE part of the problem (actually the real problem is innate resitances, it's that shield tanks aren't popular otherwise minmatar would have similar issues (but then again they can just use another ammo type)). One solution would be to nerf omni tanks but really an easier solution would be to increase DPS of lasers. But this wouldn't change the fact that amarr laser ships have significantly less cap/s to use then the other ships with absolutely 0 advantages. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:40:00 - [460] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Tyr Zewa Originally by: CCP Zulupark There are some mods that need looking into, I know Nozh is making a list of stuff he wants to look at closely. I'll see if he's added those modules to it. You could try to setup a "mod review suggestion" thread. To keep it simple limit the format to something like Modulename: <what the issue is, max 250chars or so> Might be possible to get a decent list, if the thread is heavily moderated :P Or you could try setting one up yourself in the Game Development forum and see where it leads ;) I might if you answer my "questions" about JFs ;P

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:41:00 - [461] Originally by: Shevar 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. No it's not only the omni tank, if you say it's similar DPS then please consider the following as well; -Sleip uses 0 cap for it's weapons leaving 18 cap/s at peak recharge -Abso uses 13 cap/s for it's weapons leaving only 5 cap/s at peak recharge Does this seem to be similar cap left to tank/ew as the sleip? If not then why would it be "fair" to have comparable DPS? Yes omni tanks ARE part of the problem (actually the real problem is innate resitances, it's that shield tanks aren't popular otherwise minmatar would have similar issues (but then again they can just use another ammo type)). One solution would be to nerf omni tanks but really an easier solution would be to increase DPS of lasers. But this wouldn't change the fact that amarr laser ships have significantly less cap/s to use then the other ships with absolutely 0 advantages. I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances.

Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:42:00 - [462] 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 It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Sinder Ohm Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:45:00 - [463] Wow you are answering alot of questions Zulupark I hope you get to mine. Ok this is regarding Carriers and MoMs, this is no whine just an honest question. with HICs able to scramble carriers with ease and tank alot of damage is CCP considering changing the carrier nerf somewhat. I think any carrier nerf you have install for carriers and moms coupled with the new nber cap/supercap tacklers would hit this shipclass back into the stone age and I do recall CCP once saying they wanted carriers and moms on the frontlines not at a pos delegating fighters. Thanks. *signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link) - Jacques([email protected])
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:45:00 - [464] 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 Uhh minmitar t2 get good em resists for the same reason amarr t2 get good ex resists... The only difference is that Amarr are most limited in their ability to change damage types. Which isnt necessarily bad unless they arent compensated.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:46:00 - [465] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. The thinking being that the cap use is the trade-off for being essentially ammo-less? BTW, I know it's been said before in the thread, but TY for the responses, guys. One of the main reasons I stay with this game when I've already ditched close to a dozen other MMOs is the developer-community interaction. While you may not do what I want or what I agree with all the time (buff Amarr now), you're still keeping an open dialog with us who dissent.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:46:00 - [466] 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 Diversity is EVE. Not all ships should be exactly alike.

Wizzkidy Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:46:00 - [467] Edited by: Wizzkidy on 09/11/2007 11:47:02 Zulupark I have read your responces to the Amarr issues and quite frankly I'm suprised that AFTER ALL THIS TIME CCP is still unable to "decide" what Amarr need. It's quite stupid really, the amount of threads and sugestions that have been given to CCP is HUGE! yet you just don't EVER change anything to give Amarr what they need Now I hear no changes to give them "oomph" are in Trinity? LAME CCP, LAME! (I really cant see an excuse here) you have had YEARS!
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:48:00 - [468] Originally by: Sinder Ohm Wow you are answering alot of questions Zulupark I hope you get to mine. Ok this is regarding Carriers and MoMs, this is no whine just an honest question. with HICs able to scramble carriers with ease and tank alot of damage is CCP considering changing the carrier nerf somewhat. I think any carrier nerf you have install for carriers and moms coupled with the new nber cap/supercap tacklers would hit this shipclass back into the stone age and I do recall CCP once saying they wanted carriers and moms on the frontlines not at a pos delegating fighters. Thanks. Not to mention a Titan in low sec which are running the alliance mothly logistic train with freighter (not needed anymore since jump freighters but just as an eg) If the titan gets tackled by a HIC with scripted disruptors, it can't do nothing since its lowsec and are prohibited from using it's own weapon.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:49:00 - [469] Originally by: Wizzkidy Edited by: Wizzkidy on 09/11/2007 11:47:02 Zulupark I have read your responces to the Amarr issues and quite frankly I'm suprised that AFTER ALL THIS TIME CCP is still unable to "decide" what Amarr need. That isnt fair. Even I have trouble deciding what Amarr need. The situation isnt so simple for a number of reasons.
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:50:00 - [470] Originally by: Silvero Edited by: Silvero on 09/11/2007 11:36:21 Originally by: DeadDuck 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. You fail to see that with the new HIC's, once you enter the battle field its a 50/50 you either succesfully kill the hostile fleet or you lose a titan there is no way of escape. Not even a MoM which have significant more firepower then a titan are unable to break free from these new tacklers. "I do like poker but to go all in on every hand is pretty crazy". So then we have the tactical advantage of moving fleets which still stands +the fleet bonus but these things can be handled pretty much from whithin the safety of a forcefield. I personaly don't think ppl will venture to many km of a forcefield when these new ships enter the game. And having to restirct a titan/mom pilot to always make sure there are at least 200 ppl in a gang when loging on isnt viable. The titan is not supposed to act alone... a titan is supposed to be a admiral ship when a titan strikes all the fleet, should be ready to go support it. Before the nerf I watched several times Titans "soloing" entire fleets, acting like a solopwnmobile, then the 1st nerf came and the bubles started to take effect and the 1st titans started to die, due to ... lack of support... Titans are very powerfull and very expensive, when fielding a titan in battlefield you better bring a extensive fleet with it, after all you dont want to use Titans in minor engagments or use titans to kill roaming gangs... or you can do that but you will face high odds of engaging titans in fight with lack of support. BOB titan died due to lack of support, MC Titan died due to the fact that support wasnt handy and arrived to late. Titans are now balanced. And with proper support, they will continue to be the ship capable of influence all the battlefield strategy, and decide the outcome of any sizable engagment.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:51:00 - [471] Originally by: Sinder Ohm Wow you are answering alot of questions Zulupark I hope you get to mine. Ok this is regarding Carriers and MoMs, this is no whine just an honest question. with HICs able to scramble carriers with ease and tank alot of damage is CCP considering changing the carrier nerf somewhat. I think any carrier nerf you have install for carriers and moms coupled with the new nber cap/supercap tacklers would hit this shipclass back into the stone age and I do recall CCP once saying they wanted carriers and moms on the frontlines not at a pos delegating fighters. Thanks. Other ships can also scramble carriers. The Hactor (lol) is going to have severe drawbacks while scrambling, so I think that's a fair trade-off. Regarding the carrier changes, nothing is set in stone and we're keeping an open line of communication with players :)

Wizzkidy Demonic Retribution Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:51:00 - [472] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Wizzkidy Edited by: Wizzkidy on 09/11/2007 11:47:02 Zulupark I have read your responces to the Amarr issues and quite frankly I'm suprised that AFTER ALL THIS TIME CCP is still unable to "decide" what Amarr need. That isnt fair. Even I have trouble deciding what Amarr need. The situation isnt so simple for a number of reasons. It's perfectly fair. As I stated the suggestions come into the forum every minute of the day there really is no excuse.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:51:00 - [473] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Diversity is EVE. Not all ships should be exactly alike. Seems like you cannot handle this angry mob who feels betrayed by your multiple nerfs in ONE patch. Naturally your right .. not all ships should be exactly alike but what about they should still able to battle against each other in equal terms? Thats what lags here (No phun intented). Why can't CCP make Amarr king of cap as caldari is king of missiles and as gallente is king of drones and as minmatar is king of .. speed. It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:51:00 - [474] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Wizzkidy Edited by: Wizzkidy on 09/11/2007 11:47:02 Zulupark I have read your responces to the Amarr issues and quite frankly I'm suprised that AFTER ALL THIS TIME CCP is still unable to "decide" what Amarr need. That isnt fair. Even I have trouble deciding what Amarr need. The situation isnt so simple for a number of reasons. You also don't derive your paycheck from being able to answer that sort of question. Someone at CCP does. Can said paycheck be justified?
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:53:00 - [475] Originally by: DeadDuck Originally by: Silvero Edited by: Silvero on 09/11/2007 11:36:21 Originally by: DeadDuck 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. You fail to see that with the new HIC's, once you enter the battle field its a 50/50 you either succesfully kill the hostile fleet or you lose a titan there is no way of escape. Not even a MoM which have significant more firepower then a titan are unable to break free from these new tacklers. "I do like poker but to go all in on every hand is pretty crazy". So then we have the tactical advantage of moving fleets which still stands +the fleet bonus but these things can be handled pretty much from whithin the safety of a forcefield. I personaly don't think ppl will venture to many km of a forcefield when these new ships enter the game. And having to restirct a titan/mom pilot to always make sure there are at least 200 ppl in a gang when loging on isnt viable. The titan is not supposed to act alone... a titan is supposed to be a admiral ship when a titan strikes all the fleet, should be ready to go support it. Before the nerf I watched several times Titans "soloing" entire fleets, acting like a solopwnmobile, then the 1st nerf came and the bubles started to take effect and the 1st titans started to die, due to ... lack of support... Titans are very powerfull and very expensive, when fielding a titan in battlefield you better bring a extensive fleet with it, after all you dont want to use Titans in minor engagments or use titans to kill roaming gangs... or you can do that but you will face high odds of engaging titans in fight with lack of support. BOB titan died due to lack of support, MC Titan died due to the fact that support wasnt handy and arrived to late. Titans are now balanced. And with proper support, they will continue to be the ship capable of influence all the battlefield strategy, and decide the outcome of any sizable engagment. The BoB was clearly due to lack of support, the MC was downed while our fleet was scrambling to the sight and it was downed while we where still in midwarp with our capitals that's how mighty your Titan is.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:54:00 - [476] Originally by: Kuolematon Originally by: CCP Zulupark Diversity is EVE. Not all ships should be exactly alike. Seems like you cannot handle this angry mob who feels betrayed by your multiple nerfs in ONE patch. Naturally your right .. not all ships should be exactly alike but what about they should still able to battle against each other in equal terms? Thats what lags here (No phun intented). Why can't CCP make Amarr king of cap as caldari is king of missiles and as gallente is king of drones and as minmatar is king of .. speed. You are ignoring the point. T2 Amarr are good against minmitar. T2 Minmitar are good against Amarr. The problem has to deal with t2 minmitar working against something that is already weak for various reasons rather than anything being wrong with the advantage. T2 Amarr get super ex shield resistances and so on and so forth down the line for all tech 2 ships.
Jakus Cemendur Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:54:00 - [477] Frankly i'm not surprised the devs are taking their time balancing Amarr, it's an entire race that needs to be looked at, almost 1/4 of the ships in EVE. If they rebalance Amarr and get it wrong, lots of things go wrong. They need to make sure they get it right. No quick or easy solution for Amarr will fix them without the possibility of maknig things a lot worse. And yes i fully agree that Amarr and underpowered and need boosts to their abilities.
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:57:00 - [478] Oh I must add that only good thing about upcoming Nerfinity-expansion is damp nerf and ecm boost .. I got old T2 BPO of ECM module. It's value will soar!! YARR!! It's great being Amarr isn't it.

CCP Fendahl	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:57:00 - [479] Originally by: Kaylana Syi 1) Triage module, as has been said, is a total goofball. It's greatest power is in its self tanking ability. The other roles for it are lackluster and have harsh cap and logistical penalties that are definitely not reasonable for mainstream adoption. Please get on them asap. That is a LOT of wasted SP hanging over my head. I agree that the triage module is of very limited utility and we plan on taking a look at it when we balance the carriers. However we need to know precisely which solution we're going for with the carriers before we can revise the triage module. Originally by: Kaylana Syi 2) The Vargur is not a good ship. It lacks powergrid. Please fix that ASAP. If you cannot fit a full rack of 1200 IIs on this ship without 2 fitting modules there is serious question as to why I would use this ship over a Maelstrom. The Marauder class characteristics do not make up for the lack of difference in this ship vs the Maelstrom. The marauders were designed to be short on powergrid in order to prevent them from becoming overpowered with close range nos/neut setups. The problem with the Vargur is the difference in power need between autocannons and artilleries and that autocannons do not lose all that much damage if you downgrade them. If the powergrid was increased it would become too easy to fit 3 heavy nosferatus / heavy energy neutralizers in the last 3 high slots. The Vargur can still fit 4 1200mm artilleries if you use power diagnostic systems in the lows. Originally by: Kaylana Syi 3) The Nidhoggur. The SISI changes do not solve any problems for this ship. Infact, it creates problems. For example, if you compare the carriers with a similar fitting ... You will see that the Nidhoggur runs the weakest tank no matter what tank profile you use. Its biggest quality is to have a greater cap recharge which will help the 2nd bonus. However, going to a 5/6 mid/low setup will not improve the tank much. It will be more similar to the Thanatos but will be far more cap intensive for its bonus. 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. Originally by: Kaylana Syi I petition you to leave the slotting as is and implement a Shield Boost bonus so that the shield tank can improve while the option to armor tank for better cap recharge to run remote repping will still be available. The repair bonus would need to substitue the logistics bonus, which would change the role of the ship. A repair amount bonus would not help with spider tanking either, which is a rather large disadvantage. Originally by: Kaylana Syi Black Ops Jump Distance. Can you please look into raising the base to 2.5 light years? 2 might be a tad short if you need carriers to support fast moving ship combat-logistics as well as Black-Op guerrilla deployment. Black Ops are meant to be a short range tool that can get highly specialized ships past gate camps. If you want to support Black Ops with carriers, then it has to be at the terms of the Black Ops.

Alex Tremayne Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2007.11.09 11:59:00 - [480] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Shevar 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. No it's not only the omni tank, if you say it's similar DPS then please consider the following as well; -Sleip uses 0 cap for it's weapons leaving 18 cap/s at peak recharge -Abso uses 13 cap/s for it's weapons leaving only 5 cap/s at peak recharge Does this seem to be similar cap left to tank/ew as the sleip? If not then why would it be "fair" to have comparable DPS? Yes omni tanks ARE part of the problem (actually the real problem is innate resitances, it's that shield tanks aren't popular otherwise minmatar would have similar issues (but then again they can just use another ammo type)). One solution would be to nerf omni tanks but really an easier solution would be to increase DPS of lasers. But this wouldn't change the fact that amarr laser ships have significantly less cap/s to use then the other ships with absolutely 0 advantages. I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. I remain unconvinced by this. Looking at those stats above and ignoring the effects of the omnitank, the autocannons are clearly better than the pulse lasers. Even if the omni tank problem were solved, what reason is there to use lasers over projectiles other than they look pretty? I'm genuinely curious, what is the benefit of using lasers that's supposed to counterbalance the insane cap? Lyrus Associates' Diplomat Of Last Resort
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:00:00 - [481] Originally by: Silvero Originally by: DeadDuck Originally by: Silvero Edited by: Silvero on 09/11/2007 11:36:21 Originally by: DeadDuck 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. You fail to see that with the new HIC's, once you enter the battle field its a 50/50 you either succesfully kill the hostile fleet or you lose a titan there is no way of escape. Not even a MoM which have significant more firepower then a titan are unable to break free from these new tacklers. "I do like poker but to go all in on every hand is pretty crazy". So then we have the tactical advantage of moving fleets which still stands +the fleet bonus but these things can be handled pretty much from whithin the safety of a forcefield. I personaly don't think ppl will venture to many km of a forcefield when these new ships enter the game. And having to restirct a titan/mom pilot to always make sure there are at least 200 ppl in a gang when loging on isnt viable. The titan is not supposed to act alone... a titan is supposed to be a admiral ship when a titan strikes all the fleet, should be ready to go support it. Before the nerf I watched several times Titans "soloing" entire fleets, acting like a solopwnmobile, then the 1st nerf came and the bubles started to take effect and the 1st titans started to die, due to ... lack of support... Titans are very powerfull and very expensive, when fielding a titan in battlefield you better bring a extensive fleet with it, after all you dont want to use Titans in minor engagments or use titans to kill roaming gangs... or you can do that but you will face high odds of engaging titans in fight with lack of support. BOB titan died due to lack of support, MC Titan died due to the fact that support wasnt handy and arrived to late. Titans are now balanced. And with proper support, they will continue to be the ship capable of influence all the battlefield strategy, and decide the outcome of any sizable engagment. The BoB was clearly due to lack of support, the MC was downed while our fleet was scrambling to the sight and it was downed while we where still in midwarp with our capitals that's how mighty your Titan is. Yep, scrambling... not ready... several minutes passed while it went down... maybe they should have put the capitals in place 1st and then log in the Titan ? Regarding how fast it went down... well the fact of being a "nano titan" didnt help I think...
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:01:00 - [482] Firstly. Well done for finally coming out from behind the curtain and finally communicating with the community about the upcoming changes. I wonder though whether anything people mention here now could make it into Trinity - have you avoided us until it is too late to stop your perhaps overzealous 'balancing'? I've got some less pointed questions/opinions too I'd love replies to - namely: 1. The Eos takes quite a long time to train and was seen as a top of the line Drone boat for people that focus their skills in drones. Considering the ships relatively poor tank, worst warfare links and crap range with blasters (or rails) that it might have been better reducing DPS by making it a proper Creodrone ship by removing the hybrid bonus, and its turrets but leaving its ability to field 5 (unbonused) Heavy Drones? 2. Similarly the Myrmidon - Why not do away with all its turrets rather than its heavy drones to reduce DPS? As you've effectively REDUCED variety heavily for Gallente drone spec'ed pilots where drones are the primary weapon to the choice of 2 ships - The Ishtar and Dominix. You've just upped the numbers of whiners who will want the Dominix NERFED next as most EOS/Myrmidon pilots will just shift to that 'overly good? (Dont you dare!)' drone boat... 3. Building on what the person said earlier about speed gangs - the issue isn't really the speed it is the lack of counters. Webbers are perhaps too effective at 90%, but too short in range even when overheated. I've lost count of the times the enemy makes a mistake, is caught in a web but then drifts out of the 10km web range due to inertia (yours and theirs). Why not have very weak webbing SW-300 (that have a chance catching 5km/s HACs) & SW-600 drones, and perhaps a 35% slow effect longer range (25km?) web module? As it stands - nano-gangs are not much different from warp core stabs in terms of 'not having to commit to a fight' due to the lack of counters save for everyone training Minmatar Recons. Cheers. - Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint! Please read my ideas
Captain Agemman Minmatar Legio Ultra	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:01:00 - [483] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: magnus amadeus 3)Do you view the racial resitance bonuses (+10%) as somewhat imbalanced or fine(10% being +25% for minmatar, while being +11% for amarr)? The Minmatar resistances to EM are quite ridiculous in my opinion. So, they Amarr resistances to EXP are quite ridiculous in your opinion too? Minmatar Commandship: EM/TM Shield: 62.5/50 EM/TM Armor: 88.75/59.37 Amarr Commandship: EX/KN Shield: 85/62.5 EX/KN Armor: 70/53 Minmatar CS shieldtank, Amarr CS armortank, both have the lower resistance pair on the tanking slots. The amarrian 70/53 is even clearly better than the 62.5/50. Minmatar HAC: EM/TM shield: 75/60 EM/TM armor: 92.5/67.5 Amarr HAC: EX/KN shield: 90/70 EX/KN armor: 80/62.5 Here, the amarrian 80/62.5 beats the minmatar 75/60 once again. Additionally, minmatar HACs can't really shieldtank with their slotlayout. On the other hand, they can't armortank with 5 lowslot either because they still have 2 resistance holes in armor. To even somewhat close them leaves only 1 slot for a repair unit and certainly no omnitank. A single MAR II Muninn with 3x EANM II plus 1x DC II tanks 900dps EM, yes. But thats it. Against EX, it tanks 92 dps. Against Antimatter M, 122dps. Switching to active hardeners (2x EX, 1x KN) does not help at all. Tankable EM is still around 320dps, but due to the increased cap Antimatter M drops to 74dps tankable. That is why noone fits a real tank on Minmatar HACs but instead simply tries to avoid damage. I won't talk about a 7 lowslot, both armor resistance holes plugged amarrian tank. Ah, yes, projectiles can switch damage types. Yes, somewhat. Most Minmatar ships start to work decently once you can use T2 ammo and that limits one to EX/KN. Against a shield-omnitank ship EMP gets loaded, yes, against an amarr T2 tank Phased Plasma gets loaded, yes. But with the range reduction this brings along and the most of the time, in comparison, gimped tanks (because Minmatar aren't a tank race) this is a highly risky gamble. But fighting in deep falloff with EX/KN damage on low base-dps weapons simply does not work either against these setups.
Blue Trucker	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:06:00 - [484] Edited by: Blue Trucker on 09/11/2007 12:05:53 Like Edmund said in the #404 post. Is there a chance of just baning haulers from carrier maintenance bays instead of nerfing carriers with the inability to store ships with mods in cargos?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:08:00 - [485] Edited by: Goumindong on 09/11/2007 12:10:50 Originally by: Captain Agemman tech 2 resistance info He means the tech 1 armor resist bonus, not the tech 2 bonus. ed: for further info. Amarr recieve a 10 point increase as do minmitar. But 10% on top of 60% as an addition is a 25% resistance bonus and 10% on top of 10% as an addition is an 11.111% resistance bonus. Quote: Minmatar CS shieldtank, Amarr CS armortank, both have the lower resistance pair on the tanking slots. The amarrian 70/53 is even clearly better than the 62.5/50. Actually its not, take a look at the damage types that each weapons do and you will see that the Amarran are shooting against the primary type more often than Minmitar. Also look at other ammos that each can change into.
Silvero Gallente Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:09:00 - [486] Edited by: Silvero on 09/11/2007 12:10:06 Originally by: DeadDuck Yep, scrambling... not ready... several minutes passed while it went down... maybe they should have put the capitals in place 1st and then log in the Titan ? Regarding how fast it went down... well the fact of being a "nano titan" didnt help I think... We where in gang we where sitting in a pos 20ly from the point he logged and later got probed, we heared him getting tackled then DD then still tackled. Then we where in warp the RA/AAA guys was in place faster then us and downed him before we got out of warp. We could have been 10-20 sec's faster thats sure but it wouldn't have changed anything and the fitting he had wasn't gonna help him if he got caught which he did. It's still pretty pathetic that the king of kings amongst the ships in eve, the admiral one as you say, goes down before the "extensive fleet" can warp to it.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:12:00 - [487] Originally by: CCP Fendahl Black Ops are meant to be a short range tool that can get highly specialized ships past gate camps. If you want to support Black Ops with carriers, then it has to be at the terms of the Black Ops. Uhh. Force Recons have pretty much no problem busting gate camps as it is...
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:14:00 - [488] Originally by: Alex Tremayne I remain unconvinced by this. Looking at those stats above and ignoring the effects of the omnitank, the autocannons are clearly better than the pulse lasers. Even if the omni tank problem were solved, what reason is there to use lasers over projectiles other than they look pretty? I'm genuinely curious, what is the benefit of using lasers that's supposed to counterbalance the insane cap? Range. Autocannons fall into falloff, and if it werent for the damage type issues would be considerably worse than lasers at range while being better up close due to tracking[laser tracking boost :psyduck:]
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:15:00 - [489] Originally by: CCP Zulupark No it's not only the omni tank, if you say it's similar DPS then please consider the following as well; -Sleip uses 0 cap for it's weapons leaving 18 cap/s at peak recharge -Abso uses 13 cap/s for it's weapons leaving only 5 cap/s at peak recharge Does this seem to be similar cap left to tank/ew as the sleip? If not then why would it be "fair" to have comparable DPS? Yes omni tanks ARE part of the problem (actually the real problem is innate resitances, it's that shield tanks aren't popular otherwise minmatar would have similar issues (but then again they can just use another ammo type)). One solution would be to nerf omni tanks but really an easier solution would be to increase DPS of lasers. But this wouldn't change the fact that amarr laser ships have significantly less cap/s to use then the other ships with absolutely 0 advantages. I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. Yes, Omni-tanks are, imho, the main issue of Amarrs. But the problem isn't with EANM II mods, it's with the high base resists ships have. That is a design choice you made when you created Eve, and a mistake, I think. Even when the cookie-cutter tank was the triple exp/kin/therm hardener setup, the fact that players didn't feel the need to harden one of their resists was an onimous sign. I think the only solution to solve this issue once and for all, is to correct that design mistake. I suggest you give all ships +20% shield EM resist and remove 20% form the armor resist, to keep things balanced. Also, for Minamatar and Caldari ships, I don't understand why the racial resist bonus is on the armor, and not on the shield. About cap usage on weapons: A while ago, on Singularity, I tested a megathron and a raven, with similar setup: tanks of equivalent strenght, same number of damage mods and cap-related mods (not sustainable tanks, and no cap booster), cap-skills maxed, controled burst IV. This was before rigs came out, but they won't change much to this test anyway. The test was simple: fire on an asteroid with all weapons and tank active, and see who last longer. The Raven outlasted the Megathron by a factor of 40-50%. This is just wrong. The truth is that, even before cap boosters, the kings of active tanking weren't the Amarr. Amarr weren't even significantly better than gallente, apocalypse excepted. The kings of tanking were Caldari and minmatar. I think that the controled burst skill should be boosted to 10%/level. That would help quite a lot Amarr and Gallente players, and remove part of the incentive to go for cookie-cutter cap boosters. Pve-wise, Amarrs would get some deserved Oomph if Angels were changed to be vulnerables to EM and explosive, instead of explosive and kinetic. Because, as an exemple, having to fight "elite" angel cruisers (90% Em, 85% therm) with a Zealot, is unbelievably hard. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Captain Agemman Minmatar Legio Ultra	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:19:00 - [490] Originally by: Goumindong Edited by: Goumindong on 09/11/2007 12:10:50 Originally by: Captain Agemman tech 2 resistance info He means the tech 1 armor resist bonus, not the tech 2 bonus. ed: for further info. Amarr recieve a 10 point increase as do minmitar. But 10% on top of 60% as an addition is a 25% resistance bonus and 10% on top of 10% as an addition is an 11.111% resistance bonus. Quote: Minmatar CS shieldtank, Amarr CS armortank, both have the lower resistance pair on the tanking slots. The amarrian 70/53 is even clearly better than the 62.5/50. Actually its not, take a look at the damage types that each weapons do and you will see that the Amarran are shooting against the primary type more often than Minmitar. Also look at other ammos that each can change into. I left that out as it was only an Amarr-Minmatar comparison as Zulupark specifically adressed Minmatar EM resistances, but you are right nonetheless. If you take in the full picture of all weapons, the advantage is gone. I think we can agree that high resistances are only one part of the problem, but don't create really a problem if you are lacking the slots to use them. Reducing "ridiculous" Minmatar EM resists won't solve the puzzle of amarrian problems.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:26:00 - [491] Originally by: Captain Agemman I left that out as it was only an Amarr-Minmatar comparison as Zulupark specifically adressed Minmatar EM resistances, but you are right nonetheless. If you take in the full picture of all weapons, the advantage is gone. I think we can agree that high resistances are only one part of the problem, but don't create really a problem if you are lacking the slots to use them. Reducing "ridiculous" Minmatar EM resists won't solve the puzzle of amarrian problems. Zulu was referencing the tech 1 resistance bonus dealing with a question directly referencing them. The aside was that with reference to minmitar vs amarr and the weapons they use, you are wrong, due to the ability to change damage types.
Captain Agemman Minmatar Legio Ultra	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:30:00 - [492] Originally by: Alex Tremayne I remain unconvinced by this. Looking at those stats above and ignoring the effects of the omnitank, the autocannons are clearly better than the pulse lasers. Even if the omni tank problem were solved, what reason is there to use lasers over projectiles other than they look pretty? I'm genuinely curious, what is the benefit of using lasers that's supposed to counterbalance the insane cap? The absolution example uses Heavy Pulse II with Conflag M - these 620dps are at 7.5km optimal with 5km falloff. The (revised) sleipnir example uses 425mm AC II with Hail M - these 650dps are at 1.5km optimal with 7.5km falloff. At point blank range, we have 650 vs 620, advantage autocannons. At 7km, we have around 390 vs 620, advantage pulse lasers. At 12.5km, we have around 200 vs 310. Lasers are very good in the range they are designed to operate. But it is very hard for amarrian ships to dictate fights into that range.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:37:00 - [493] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Kaylana Syi -Assault Frigates. Please do a eve-search on Weirda's ideas and please read them. We've already said we want to look at Assault Frigates As a small ship pilot (mostly Rifters, but also the Minmatar AFs) these days I'll sooner fly the T1 hull due to superior cost/efficency and vastly superior ability to run away / catch people then the T2 hull. I've put in quite a bit of thought in what would make AFs worthwhile, and since you'll actually responding to this thread, I'd offer a few ideas (and rationale for them): 1) Fix their mass - currently, the mass of the average AF is more then 50% worse then the T1 base hull mass (look at Incursus vs Enyo, Rifter vs Wolf, etc...) - which not only gimps the AF's speed (currently, a tank-fit Rupture will outpace 95% of the AFs) but also makes them very slow to align/warp. In low-sec, the real advantage of flying T1 frigs / interceptors is that it's much harder to catch you because of the agility these ships have. However, AFs can be caught much more easily and are therefore less survivable then their T1 counterparts. Now, being 'assault' ships, I don't mind them having a somewhat higher mass (and slower speed in all except the Jaguar) then their T1 hulls, but it should be a 15-20% increase from base. It would go a long, long way towards making AFs more worthwhile. 2) Fourth bonus - currently (unlike HACs) one of the bonuses is spent on HAC-level resistances, giving AFs three bonuses in addition to resists. Right now, AFs are preety underwhelming in actual combat compared to their price - they do somewhat more damage then their T1 hulls and have a better conventional tank (although, they pay the price for this with the inferior 'speed' tank, see (1)). However, currently even a mostly T1-fit cruiser brings somewhat more damage and significantly more tank and buffer (and often more utility) to the table. Having another combat-related bonus would greatly help these ships, wether it's damage or tank related. 3) Fitting. While the CPU requirements of some modules went up over time (EANMs, for example), CPU amounts of already hard to fit AFs stood the same. CPU is a very limiting factor on nearly all AFs, but some are seriously gimped - for example, the Wolf (which has the base CPU of the Rifter and an extra slot) and so on. It would really open up fitting options if a number of AFs had 5 or 10 more CPU.
Johho Bulon Gallente Freelancer Union Unaffiliated	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:41:00 - [494] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. High natural resists are the key there. Currently when I find a faction EM Armor hardener I cry a little inside, as I know I will never have any real reason to use it. The 60% base + an EANM I/II gives very healthy resists. But instead of worrying about omni tanking (your comments here sound quite ominous), which by necessity means quite a reduction in max DPS for those who practice it, you ought to think about increasing the base armor damage for the lasers. --------------- Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war. -- Ernest Hemingway
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:41:00 - [495] Originally by: Captain Agemman Agree to disagree? Nope, you're wrong.
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:42:00 - [496] Dear devs can we have an official answer or if it wasn't discussed internally then your personal opinion on this matter: electronic warfare on non-specialized ships. Is it ok but overpowered now or EW should not be worthwhile fitting on ships without bonuses to it?
Susitna Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:44:00 - [497] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Susitna Edited by: Susitna on 09/11/2007 03:20:51 Thanks for the updates and discussion. Regarding interdictors. Yes people in 00 use the sabre to tackle and bubble. The sabre has a complete package it can fit pretty decent tank, fit T-2 guns, and has two lows and a low mass for good speed. With rigs it is an interceptor on steroids. It has a bubble launcher and normal web and scram. Who would not choose to fly it over a interceptor? However, I think you are nerfing a ship class when the problem is really riggs and implants. A rigged sabre is about as fast as an unrigged stiletto. It is the rigs that overpower the sabre and make it more attractive than the stiletto for general tackling. Poly carbs are overpowered not just on dictors. Nerf them please and leave the dictors alone I also find it odd that you are going after the Interdictor speed but leaving the other nano ships untouched. A sabre is a good tool to combat nano gangs. The flycatcher is horrid now. If this ship is nerfed no ship is safe from the nerf bat. Being able to bubble up a 20km radius with a very very small ship should have some drawbacks don't you think? It shouldn't be a no-brainer to do in my opinion.
Pilgrippa 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:45:00 - [498] Thanks for your responses. I just have a couple of questions: 1.) What is your rough target for the cost of Marauders? I've seen loose estimates that predict a cost of at least 1 bil. If true, I can't honestly see many people fielding these things in the regular battles you find in Tranquility. 2.) Any plans on changing the way Sovereignty works? (ie. who's bright idea was it to give cyno jammers so many HP?) Thanks in advance.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:47:00 - [499] I mentioned the balance between carriers earlier in the thread. Is anyone planning to look at this when carriers are reworked as the 25% resist bonus works out to provide far more benefit than the DPS or remote rep bonuses.
Captain Agemman Minmatar Legio Ultra	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:47:00 - [500] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Captain Agemman Agree to disagree? Nope, you're wrong. Then I wish you good luck fighting in either double-falloff or inside webrange. Fly safe o/
Grim Vandal Caldari Burn Proof	Posted - 2007.11.09 12:51:00 - [501] Originally by: Grim Vandal 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. webifiers maybe this thread explains it better ... Greetings Grim
Jana N'dori	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:07:00 - [502] This might be a bit offtopic and not very dramatic but ill bring it up anyway. 1. Creating my character portrait was awesome. But once i was done it timed out on me. Over and over and over. That was some time ago and i know there is an easy way around it. But seriously, cant that be fixed? 2. The UI quite blatantly sucks. You cant see what module is active on which target. You have no idea how much is left of a modules cycle. You can barely see if a module is active or not. Just to name a few of the problems. And this is something every single player use when then play. It really, really deserves to be fixed.
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:13:00 - [503] Originally by: Jana N'dori 2. The UI quite blatantly sucks. You cant see what module is active on which target. You have no idea how much is left of a modules cycle. You can barely see if a module is active or not. Just to name a few of the problems. And this is something every single player use when then play. It really, really deserves to be fixed. They're working on the UI at the moment. The drone and fleet overhauls are a big step in the right direction. Really, the best thing they can do is make the UI semi-open source. Strictly limit automation, but let us modify the rest of it. I can name between 30 and 50 UI changes I could use off the top of my head; instead of putting that sort of demand on in-house coders, let the community do the grunt work for you.
Susitna Caldari	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:13:00 - [504] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Susitna Edited by: Susitna on 09/11/2007 03:20:51 Thanks for the updates and discussion. Regarding interdictors. Yes people in 00 use the sabre to tackle and bubble. The sabre has a complete package it can fit pretty decent tank, fit T-2 guns, and has two lows and a low mass for good speed. With rigs it is an interceptor on steroids. It has a bubble launcher and normal web and scram. Who would not choose to fly it over a interceptor? However, I think you are nerfing a ship class when the problem is really riggs and implants. A rigged sabre is about as fast as an unrigged stiletto. It is the rigs that overpower the sabre and make it more attractive than the stiletto for general tackling. Poly carbs are overpowered not just on dictors. Nerf them please and leave the dictors alone I also find it odd that you are going after the Interdictor speed but leaving the other nano ships untouched. A sabre is a good tool to combat nano gangs. The flycatcher is horrid now. If this ship is nerfed no ship is safe from the nerf bat. Being able to bubble up a 20km radius with a very very small ship should have some drawbacks don't you think? It shouldn't be a no-brainer to do in my opinion. Thanks for the answer but I don't think you adddressed anything I said. - what do yo think about poly carbs? - what about nano gang speed? - why a global dictor nerf? if you don't think the flycatcher has drawbacks you have never piloted one. Dictors even the sabre are often coffins in fleet flights. Speed helps them get away to drop a bubble again sometimes. I also must ask if the dictor speed nerf is such a no brainer why did it take years to implement it? Same question for the top nerf, and carrier cargo. When the devs leave ships alone for a very long time it is only natural for the players to assume they are working as intended and worth expending the training time for the features they want. If something is truly ovepowered I think you and the rest of CCP have an obligation to us the players to fix it in a timely manner. Many of the changes coming are to game mechanics that many have wrongly concluded were stable. Right now EVE looks very unstable from a development stand point. Long standing game mechanics are being changed that effect many ships. Scripts are a great tool but you all seem hell bent on having fun with the tool. You seem like a kid with a new hammer looking for nails to pound on lol. I have not been playing long almost a year. Two months ago I thought I would be playing EVE for many years to come. Now I am not so sure. Not because it is not a great game. It is a great game. But the recent quantity and quality of nerfs and changes make me wonder if the game is worth investing my time in and if EVE will remain a great game. I don't have a clue what to train for right now? Everything seems to be in the nerf cross hairs. Thanks for the reply and you time. Regards.
Pheonix Kanan Caldari Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:19:00 - [505] 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?
Jana N'dori	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:28:00 - [506] Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: Jana N'dori 2. The UI quite blatantly sucks. You cant see what module is active on which target. You have no idea how much is left of a modules cycle. You can barely see if a module is active or not. Just to name a few of the problems. And this is something every single player use when then play. It really, really deserves to be fixed. They're working on the UI at the moment. The drone and fleet overhauls are a big step in the right direction. Really, the best thing they can do is make the UI semi-open source. Strictly limit automation, but let us modify the rest of it. I can name between 30 and 50 UI changes I could use off the top of my head; instead of putting that sort of demand on in-house coders, let the community do the grunt work for you. I agree with the drone and fleet changes being a very good thing. But its still very little work for alot of reward to fix the rest. And i dont like the idea of a UI that can be modified by the players WoW-style. There isnt a huge amount of effort needed to fix this. And giving the players the option to customize to much tends to favor the ones who are more experienced in an unnecessary way imo.

CCP Zulupark	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:36:00 - [507] 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? It means we've identified the problem, we haven't started working on solutions.

Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:37:00 - [508] 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? I think this thread is more a q/a of what the general concensus is amongst CCP balancing guys. Not on what will be changed within the next 6 months. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Theron Gyrow Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:42:00 - [509] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Maxed skills? But anyway, sounds still a bit underpowered to me. One remote sensor boosted ships with one remote sensor booster per opposing damping ship will be able to negate a number of damping _ships_. Will remote sensor boosters get scripts, too, by the way? Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. Did a test run with a 130-sig rad ship going at 350 m/s transversal. Outside web range it looks like the Raven with one T2 painter is the best ship to use against it, even discounting the almost full damage type selection ability... Well, ok, at 24km+ Armageddon starts to outdamage it. Could you please post some charts that you have used to assess the change just to lay some worries to rest? -- Gradient forum
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.09 13:45:00 - [510] 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.
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.
Semkhet KR0M The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.09 17:39:00 - [541] @Devs: Frankly, my impression over time is that balance has always suffered in EvE, at least since I started to play the game. I can't count anymore the number of times that mods or ships have been modified, sometimes with conflicting results, unfortunate side effects, and instances were the changes clearly went overboard. To say the least, balance management has been erratic. While I understand that a game of this kind must evolve, I also suspect that devs will never have the time to test all the possibilities resulting from countless combinations, and if you continue to statically design the ships yourselves, we will never escape from this vicious cycle design -> implementation -> testing -> going live -> some players find the edge -> other players start a congenital whine -> back to the drawing board -> nerf. Instead, since you are introducing scripts, why don't you simply decide about the base stats of the ships, and then allow everything to be scripted ? That way, each player can come with a combination skills/implants/ship/mods which suits him the best. You could go even further. You could define a number of bonus points allowed to each ship category, and the player could partially modify the base stats of his ship by allocating himself these points to some relevant areas (tank, resists, speed, dps, rof, range, sensor strength, etc...). I think it's the only way to achieve diversity while not hampering any race in what can be done or not. Besides, since the effectiveness of a ship almost designed from the ground by the player itself would depend from said player understanding of game mechanics, whines wouldn't be very smart in this context since it would simply mean that the whiner isn't fit to play EvE. IMHO, the only alternative to this if you are to continue to decide 100% unilaterally what ships and mods can do or not is to design an analytical model allowing you to keep track of the countless interactions and relationships between all these ships and mods in order to detect incoherence.
Myra2007	Posted - 2007.11.09 17:56:00 - [542] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Wizzkidy Edited by: Wizzkidy on 09/11/2007 11:47:02 Zulupark I have read your responces to the Amarr issues and quite frankly I'm suprised that AFTER ALL THIS TIME CCP is still unable to "decide" what Amarr need. That isnt fair. Even I have trouble deciding what Amarr need. The situation isnt so simple for a number of reasons. Yes, the situation is complicated. On the other hand: Originally by: CCP Zulupark Note that we have at no point sat down and said "lets tinker with Amarr" Originally by: CCP Zulupark Personally I have a wish list for what I'd like to do with a few Amarr ships, but that's a whole other discussion at a later date. Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. So, is the complexity of the matter the only problem here? I have great respect for the devs and can only be gratefull for the nice gaming experience that eve gives me(never played computergames or mmos before prolly never will again after eve). But as an amarr specced player (and customer) i do think i have the right to be puzzled when such comments are made 8 Months after many of the problems have been devblogged. And i do think i am not alone with that. I do appreciate the statement that it will be looked into. But frankly i thought that famous oomph devblog actually already stated that.
Frothgar Caldari coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.09 18:23:00 - [543] Edited by: Frothgar on 09/11/2007 18:25:53 Edited by: Frothgar on 09/11/2007 18:25:05 Have you considered making the player choose what resists go into the Omni module like through software scripts? I wouldn't want people nerfing minnies by stacking everything in explosive but perhaps cut the base effectiveness of the EANM II down to 1/3 of what its at now, slightly lower the armor base EM resist, and allow them to be programmed (Permanently, or only in stations so no hot swapping) with scripts that allow them to be emphasized to say 3 resists at current levels instead of 4. This allows people to Omnitank with passive setups, but slightly cuts the effectiveness of the module so 3 actives is better if you can fit/run it. IMO the problem with the Omni tank is it gives you more resists than 3 actives. If you're actually spending cap for the resist I think actives should be better. Edit: You could even make each portion of the script is stacking penalized to further discourage people from going 4x explosive, 1x kinetic, 3x therm. <Dons flame-proof suit> <3
Cosmo Raata Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.11.09 19:05:00 - [544] Zulupark, Are HIC's finalized for trinity? Because I am starting to worry about these ships being able to tank too well. The caldari one's tank is sick, I have yet to be able to kill one with a full gank astarte, megathron or even the new Kronos (with a 22.7 dam mod & 4.34 rof). This is even when they deploy the bubble. Shield tanks have always been balanced because they dont have room for med slot ew (scrams, webs, etc.) but now they get a high slot scram and can tackle super caps. Are you really sure you want them tanking this well? Sure, in a big fleet perhaps they will get primaried, but dictors manage to survive, these will survive even easier. On Sisi, a broadsword was calling everyone to FFA2 to help him kill a nyx, which he had solo tackled and the Nyx couldn't come close breaking his tank with his fighters (yes, he had the bubble deployed and had over a 1000 sig radius) or any combination of fighters. I think the resistance bonuses are just too much. Please look into this and reconsider. & yes, if you keep them as is, I plan on training for them, as they are way too overpowered not to. Thanks P.S. Did Oveur give you guys that raise yet? Don't Ban me for my Love of Amarr!
magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.09 20:01:00 - [545] Edited by: magnus amadeus on 09/11/2007 20:05:41 I'd like to make a suggestion if I may: This thread has grown to 19 pages, and if I have learned nothing else from visiting the eve-online forums its that people don't read a thread before they reply. So, I would suggest sticking a thread or two up top in which devs do answer questions, but make the thread harshly moderated. Repeats of questions can be moderated out, along with crap-posting (with accompanied warnings). Many of us appreciate this type of interaction with the developers, but you cannot have a thread grow to this size and retain its constructiveness on Eve-o forums. Thats not meant as an insult to the dev/mods, just pointing out the ADD riddled poster-base has trouble staying on-topic. EDIT: I also don't want to see the devs get burnt out by having to deal with the same questions over and over and over, accompanied by "u sux" and other junk. _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
HenkieBoy	Posted - 2007.11.09 20:02:00 - [546] Question: Is there a reason why some modules are so simple? I mean, just look at webbers and scramblers. Why aren't there different versions in a way they have a max they can web/scramble. This would be a great way to make combat even more diverse. A webber/scramble with less power could have a greater range but can't web/scramble large ships while webbers/scrambles with great power would have a small range but can we/scramble big ships. Just a thought from a newbie
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.09 20:29:00 - [547] 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 The problem with Mech engineering datacores is that they are required for the vast majority of blueprints. This creates a demand that is approximately 6 times the demand of the starship engineering datacores. Since every ship requires them and many modules and drones do as well, the demand cant go down and unless there is a flood of supply the situation wont change. What I think CCP should do it to make each race of ship depend on a different secondary datacore (secondary to the starship engineering). This would not only boost the price for non mechanical engineering datacores but also cause more diversity in the market. Once that change is in then all the modules should balance out the datacores demand. As for the auxiliray datacores, I would sugest you make them match the datacore used for the module that the racial recons specialize in. Perhaps even add two different datacores. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Rells Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.09 20:37:00 - [548] @GM Nozh: Did you get a chance to look at my freighter recommendations thread? As for the Amarr question, the previous poster had a point that lasers run your cap down so bad that they end up severly affecting many other aspects of the ship. That should be taken into account when rebalancing. Also I just wanted to thank all of the devs for all of the great answers that have made this thread one of the most epic in history. There is SO much info in here that this should be stickied IMHO. Four years is long enough to leave the corp interface broken!
Deadly Huntress Mining Bytes Inc. D-L	Posted - 2007.11.09 20:41:00 - [549] Originally by: CCP Nozh @ Necrologic I like you. @ Torco we'll get to them. Don't fret Amarr have yet to receive their "Oomph" I think I've answered pretty much all questions since I refreshed this page last, probably more been added now. But it's 1am soon and I need to get on with my social life.. Woot Amarr Oomph to come!!! Oh and if the carrier ship bays are doubled and BSes are halved in size that'll just be nice.
Dravius Luxor	Posted - 2007.11.09 21:43:00 - [550] Originally by: Motokko ...Ignore all the whining wh*res because no matter what you do you'll not please them, they'll always find something to whinge about. Keep your heads down and continue to create the game according to your own vision rather than letting all these crying children grab at the steering wheel and pull the game in conflicting directions. YARRR!!! I couldn't put it better myself. A lot of players seem to think they have the right to demand change because they pay a subscription. We are paying for the right to play Eve, not interfere with it.
Torco	Posted - 2007.11.09 21:46:00 - [551] I want to give Kudos to the DEVs speaking to the community in this thread. Very cool :-) That is one reason why I often come back to the game. They talk about problems, ideas and stuff the community has and all this Forum-Stuff is a big part of an Online-Game. I think CCP understands that. thanks
Y3R M4W	Posted - 2007.11.09 22:14:00 - [552] This thread gets my vote of win. My question would be what is the timescale of the 'oomphage' of amarr? Even an estimate would be nice Note: YER MAW! is Scottish for Your Mother.
magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.09 22:20:00 - [553] If you can't be bothered to read all 19 pages of this thread, I put the highlights for it here. _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Icarus Starkiller Minmatar	Posted - 2007.11.09 22:46:00 - [554] With this poorly implemented (and 'snuck in') nerf to cargo carrying by carriers, why not do away with jump freighters entirely. Their price is going to be prohibative for 85% of the playerbase for the better part of a year. Instead give existing freighters a single mid slot and introduce a Jump Drive. The T1 version offers 5au base jump range and a hefty fuel requirement. Mounting the device reduces the freighter's cargo capacity by 80%. The T2 version offers a 7au base jump range and moderate fuel requirment. Fitting one reduces the freighter's cargo capacity by 65%. Also, implement a Hangar Can, 150k m/3, that allows freighters to move assembled ships. Since it cannot deploy them it does not obviate the now useless carrier, but enables movment of assembled (insured & rigged) ships. - Life is pain...anyone who says differently is selling something.
gpfwestie	Posted - 2007.11.09 23:26:00 - [555] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Necrologic 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. This is something we'd love to do, there are some ideas floating around, but at the moment they would fall more into the pipe-dream category more then being actual designs. 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.
magnus amadeus Amarr Hammer Of Light	Posted - 2007.11.09 23:42:00 - [556] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: magnus amadeus Now to the meat of it. Its no secret that certain amarrian ships are lack-luster. The omen, prophecy, maller, punisher, apocalypse all suffer from a lack of damage coupled with a lack of versatility when compared to other ships within the amarrian line and racial contemporaries. Do you, and by extension, CCP share this point of view? I think we could do something to make these ships more fun and useful. Do you have any ideas? Note that we have at no point sat down and said "lets tinker with Amarr". I'm just talking theoretically here :) Ok, I would like to help out any way I could, but I need something from you guys, guidance. 1)What does CCP view the role or overall guiding philosophy of amarr to be, especially the laser boats? 2)Would CCP have issues with radically changing certain ships (i.e. the apoc, armageddon or the abaddon)? 3)Which ships do you feel are fine? 4)What problem are we trying to solve? These are critical answers that we (as a playerbase) would need to understand in order to come up with usefull ideas for you guys to chew on. There are many suggestions out there, but if none of them "fit" with what CCP wants what good are they? _________________________________________________ Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you down with experience.
Hashi Lebwohl Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.10 00:03:00 - [557] I definitely think the Amarr Laser boats need to be revised. Could I ask that the Caldari Rail boats also get some attention. I'm not quite sure why the dev commented that the Eagle is fine when its principle modules (sensor boosters and tracking mods) will be less effective after the patch. The Eagle effectiveness is in the time between acquiring a target and that target getting within warp scrambling range (when its effectively dead). Longer lock times, shorter sniper ranges and poorer tracking are not going to assist a ship that has be adversely affected by the hit point gain, the rise of nanoships, and the nerfing to spike's effectiveness. Taken with the agility and speed nerfs (remember the old Scorps and Blackbirds!) can you as Devs honestly state when Caldari rail ships actually got a buff since Castor rather than the thick end of a 2 by 4?
Siege Minmatar Siegecraft Bounty Hunting	Posted - 2007.11.10 00:06:00 - [558] Since this has become a general question and answer thread, I'm going to sneak in my pet-peeve. Anchored cans in high-sec! Pretty obvious problem in some systems, there are still hundreds of thousands of abandoned anchored cans in high-sec belts, left-over from the days you could anchor them. Hundreds of cans in some belts, to the point of absurdity. Are there any plans to do anything about this at all? I've never seen any dev respond to any thread regarding the issue. They are ugly, cause lag issues on warp-in, and as players there is nothing we can do about them. I had seen some posts where NPC's had an aggro-issue and they were accidentally targeting cans. This would cure the issue in systems with security of .8 or less if the aggro could be tweaked a bit to prevent abuse. (I.E. always target player ships first, and don't target jettisoned cans). Any thoughts? ------ begin signature ----- Little known Eve fact, The original race names were: Amarr Empire, Caldar Empire, Minmatar Republic, The Jovians, and The Remanaquie Federation.
Kaker Viper Squad Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.10 00:07:00 - [559] Edited by: Kaker on 10/11/2007 00:09:16 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Spenz It appears CCP refuses to make anymore comments about drones. They just nerf the drone-boats, lose all focus as to what they actually are (ccp: omgz drone boats are boosted you can now launch more ewar drones whoopee) and are just going to leave it at that. Out of all the drone threads, only one got a response, and it was basically a CCP guy coming in to say "we aren't changing it because we are smarter than you goodbye". I feel as if CCP are treating drones and their users like some invention by Ron Popeil. "Just set it and forget it". The Eos is a Fleet Command ship. If you look at the other Fleet Command ships (Damnation, Vulture and Claymore) you'll see why the Eos is being balanced. As for the other ships, Dominix is not being affected. Ishtar is not being affected. The Ishkur is a frigate sized ship and can still launch 5 light drones. 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. Hey dev the eos is balanced already look at the brutix hull 7 turrets. damnation hsa 6 missles (propchey has 6 guns) 5 for the cyclone and 5 for the ferox. They all got their t2 bonus and can out tank the Eos and do damage zomg past 4km! Think man leave the eos how it is in TQ t2 ogre or zerkers are so easy to kill same with the myrm its basically in line already with the other ships considering that 3/4 of a standard fit's dps is destroyable. Any other BC thathad half a brain could kill the myrm or the eos. Orbit at 14 15 and pop drones laugh. this is so sad why change for the whiners cause they cant adapt? Gimme My 8 hvy drone Thorax back !
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.10 00:51:00 - [560] Originally by: Siege Since this has become a general question and answer thread, I'm going to sneak in my pet-peeve. Anchored cans in high-sec! OMG so /signed!!! Anchored cans should unanchor after 90 days. During the next DT after the unanchor they are pulled to the nearest celestial body (planet, belt, gate). The anchored/unanchored icon should appear whenever you mouse-over them, too, rather than relying on that little red light. Also, since they've been in our overview settings since Castor, implement unanchoring drones already!!! Base them off the Hacking skill & give them a long period (30 seconds or more). A maintained can (one that has been accessed in the last 30 days) have 100% anchor stability (pretty much impossible to unanchor). For each 5 days after 30 the can looses 10% of it's anchoring stability. The drones have a base 20% (+5%/lvl hacking) to unanchor a can with 0% anchoring stability per cycle. New skills: None (based on Hacking). New Drone: Unanchoring Drone (medium drone) New Function: Anchoring Stability. 100% for 30 days (refreshed whenever can is accessed), -5% per 10 days thereafter. This is not modified by anchoring skill, it is a set function. Since POS structures will unanchor automatically whenever the tower goes down (with Tranqility patch) having this stability function on POS structures is pointless.
Audri Fisher Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.10 01:13:00 - [561] Edited by: Audri Fisher on 10/11/2007 01:15:06 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Gemini Zero 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 Eagles will still be effective as snipers imo. Fitting 1x sensor booster for range and 1x for targetting speed, then 1x tracking computer for tracking (or range, whichever you want) still makes for a good anti-support sniperboat. Originally by: Gemini Zero 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! There are some mods that need looking into, I know Nozh is making a list of stuff he wants to look at closely. I'll see if he's added those modules to it. In order to be an effecting sniping antisupportship, you need to be able to kill said support before they MWD to you at 11km/s. that means shooting at over 200km away, other wise you simply get toasted. forcing someone to warp away is only a temp ( 30 sec solution). if you could get your own support to web/scram the guy long enough for an eagle to finish the support off, you don't need an eagle, you need a thorax.
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.10 02:08:00 - [562] Originally by: Audri Fisher In order to be an effecting sniping antisupportship, you need to be able to kill said support before they MWD to you at 11km/s. that means shooting at over 200km away, other wise you simply get toasted. forcing someone to warp away is only a temp ( 30 sec solution). if you could get your own support to web/scram the guy long enough for an eagle to finish the support off, you don't need an eagle, you need a thorax. Seems to me that with all of these heavy-handed hammerblows from the nerfnuke that the Devs are desperatey trying to force all combat to be 'close range'. Especially with the overdone scripts change pretty much crippling effective 100+KM sniping without attending to the broken velocity system. Not that I've ever used a sniping eagle, but this is going to be a big fat nail in the efficency of a Harpy working to take out support craft from the useful standoff distance they enjoy. They're overdoing it with the nerfage. The guy with the 'Nerfinity' sig has the right of it. Added content does not come close to balance out the breaking of so much existing content.
Necrologic Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.11.10 03:16:00 - [563] 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.
Kenneth McCoy Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.10 04:25:00 - [564] I'm not sure how that would be implemented, but I must admit, some sort of formations in gangs would be pretty cool. Related note, seeing huge Dread/Carrier gangs floating haphazardly jumbled together looks uttery silly. How cool would it be if they all at least pointed in the same direction? Maybe it's just me.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.10 05:16:00 - [565] Would be excellent if we could keep this kind of line of communication open, perhaps have a mod or dev lock the thread when no official responses are going to made for a few days and re-open when someone drops by.
blik	Posted - 2007.11.10 05:17:00 - [566] 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). We are going to return to a state where it is easier to simply jump a transport route then actually transport the goods. I like many people were actually glad when this became less of a problem due to cyno chains of jumping cargo carriers. It let me as a player focus more on the things I enjoyed rather then having to deal with the tedious and treacherous transports. 0.0 life is already more difficult then Concord fairy land. If I have to go into the reasons why then it's really not worth reading any further. I can really understand why CCP does not like the all-in-wonder carrier. None the less, wouldn't it be less burdensome to the players if you simply made the jump freighter take on the role and do it better? Convoys suck and it's not an aspect of the game I enjoy. Maybe it is too advantageous to the players who can field these units, but I would rather stick to the basics. Rat and blow things up. For me and others returning to the convoy system is not something we really want. The latter happens to be a generalization I don't think many will disagree with. (Except those who like to pray on convoy routes)
blik	Posted - 2007.11.10 05:24:00 - [567] Originally by: I SoStoned Originally by: Audri Fisher In order to be an effecting sniping antisupportship, you need to be able to kill said support before they MWD to you at 11km/s. that means shooting at over 200km away, other wise you simply get toasted. forcing someone to warp away is only a temp ( 30 sec solution). if you could get your own support to web/scram the guy long enough for an eagle to finish the support off, you don't need an eagle, you need a thorax. Seems to me that with all of these heavy-handed hammerblows from the nerfnuke that the Devs are desperatey trying to force all combat to be 'close range'. Especially with the overdone scripts change pretty much crippling effective 100+KM sniping without attending to the broken velocity system. Not that I've ever used a sniping eagle, but this is going to be a big fat nail in the efficency of a Harpy working to take out support craft from the useful standoff distance they enjoy. They're overdoing it with the nerfage. The guy with the 'Nerfinity' sig has the right of it. Added content does not come close to balance out the breaking of so much existing content. I always respected DAoC when I played that game. Changes would be gradual and the devs would watch the effect as it played out. They were very careful with making modifications to the balance. CCP on the other side of the fence makes sweeping changes and irons it out much later. Usually after several uber cookie cutter templates have been created. Perhaps we are seeing the pendulum swing back now or perhaps not. I can't say I've reviewed much of the intended changes. For me, it's all much easier to swallow as I think I'm nearing the end of my Eve days. So I'm much more agnostic oriented to the changes. Either they will get it right or they don't. On one hand the game will flourish and on the other it will not. On an odd thought, I've seen several games crash due to the forum *****. More posts then kills as the rule goes. I don't worry too much as there will always be something for me to spend my entertainment time on.
Beowulf Scheafer Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.10 07:10:00 - [568] i would like to ask some questions about hactors. i have no idea whether thoose have been asked or not, this whole thread is not exactly easy to read through 1) most important for me: is the warp disruption usable in highsec while beeing in focused mode (or whatever you call the scripted infinite strengh mode)? 2) i compared the phobos and the broadsword. some points look a bit mismatched to me: -the broadsword is able to fit a launcher in its 6th highslot, the phobos isn't. surprisingly the phobos model has one hell of a big launcher on its wing. is it considered to get phobos a launcher hardpoint? -both ships have the same bonuses, except the fact the broadsword gets 10% falloff, while the phobos only gets 5%. is that intended? and if so, why? -the broadsword has 450m¦ cargohold, while the phobos only has 300somewhat. as both ships will rely on cap injectors mostly, another huge advantage for the broadsword. again: is that intended? and if so, why? - the broadsword gets 5% armor resistence bonus instead of 5% shields. is that only a wrong description text, or is it considered to be overpowered with 5% shieldresistences? (not that the broadsword doesn't outperform the phobos in its current state allready, especially when having in mind the broadsword can increase its tanking by using a crystal set if wanted) thx for your (hopefully given) answers PS: i would love to fly a red thorax with a haloset in empirewars, but atm i'm very sure i will use a broadsword with a crystalset instead
Tessikhet	Posted - 2007.11.10 07:33:00 - [569] 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. I hope that you will give the market a big long chance to work out these issues before stepping in with artificial market regulation. The EVE market is a game for players to play, not CCP devs. Let us capitalize on opportunities instead of stepping in to squash them. Otherwise you set a precedent that makes it very hard to justify the risk of pursuing in-game business opportunities in the future. I personally won't invest SP and ISK in any EVE business venture once I've observed that CPP doesn't mind intervening on the consumer's behalf to artificially lower the value of goods. For example, right now I'm grinding away standing with two NPC corps while training a multitude of science skills. I'm setting myself up to sell mech eng and nanite eng datacores, which takes a significant investment of time. A side-effect of this effort be to reduce the cost of those datacores slightly due to increased supplier competition. But if a month or so after I get settled into that business, CCP steps in and artificially fudges with the market by, for example, reducing the value of mech eng datacores by reducing the number of modules they are used to create, then suddenly I'll find out that due to a risk I could not evaluate, I've wasted my time. It would be like if the government of a certain country suddenly started a practice introducing price-controls to prevent private industry from making a significant profit in certain industries. Suddenly, the landscape for doing business in such a country starts looking extremely risky, because you never know when the government might step in and crush your profits. Just stand back, take your hands off the steering wheel, and let the invisible hand do its job.
Uchuu Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.10 10:04:00 - [570] I actually have one question for the devs. It's not to do with the imbalance of amarr, carriers, market, drones nerf, etc etc... I am not really concerned with these. It's with changing ammo! Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat? Cause when I am in the middle of a gang fight, i find myself trying to change ammo in extreme lag, which takes over half the total time of the gang fight.... This sole interface defect really interferes with the fun of the game for me
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.11.10 12:49:00 - [571] Originally by: CCP Nozh And yeah, I know people will disagree (using the polite term here also) with me, I just hope they don't disagree with me too hard :l If You want simple match: 2 years of EVE time costs 336 Euros. And giving You no moral or intellectual rewards. Basically You feel Yourself stupid idiot with every new "changes". Sniper rifle costs 360-420 Euros. And gives You many times confirmed rewards. Guess what people will buy next time... It was about maintenance bay changes, specifically on carriers maintenance bays. Just to demonstrate insanity of upconimg changes: State: Carriers can carry ships of any tipe which fits in their maintenance bays. People use carriers to carry industrials filled with goods, turning them into highly efficient haulers. Problem: You want to stop using carriers as super-effective haulers. Right (and easy) solution: Let only Rorqual can carry industrials (barges, haulers, transports) and carriers can only carry combat ships. In addition: You may restrict them to not carry Battleships if You want to see more small-sized ships in fight. Pros: Easy, intuitive change. Cons: People loose one current role of carriers. No other problem, no whining on forums. Well, not much... Typical CCP's solution: Deny to place ships with anything in cargobay. Pros: Nothing at players side. Cons: Instantly inspired problem: You can't carry ammo, You can't store ships in POS maintenance array without some manipulation, which takes time of lags to move items between hangars, increasing database load, etc, etc. Too many problem with such change, isn't it? If You ready to say that Rorqual variant is still not acceptable, hint: Hulk with cargorigs and expanders can carry way more than many industrials can imagine. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Jakus Cemendur Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.10 12:53:00 - [572] CCP have said you can have ships with ammo, boosters and scripts in a carrier, and that they're reducing the size of some ships so carriers can carry more.
Jack Thurner Quam Singulari	Posted - 2007.11.10 12:59:00 - [573] Originally by: Jakus Cemendur CCP have said you can have ships with ammo, boosters and scripts in a carrier, and that they're reducing the size of some ships so carriers can carry more. Carry scripts? like a sheet of paper? o_0
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.11.10 14:31:00 - [574] Originally by: Jakus Cemendur CCP have said you can have ships with ammo, boosters and scripts in a carrier, and that they're reducing the size of some ships so carriers can carry more. I know, but what about rest of modules? Can gangmembers get refitting if they is not in the same corp with carrier pilot? What if there's one newbie who not have any access to corp hangar? (Falling into previous question) What if there's no required modules in hangar? Do You know how it is laggy to move NNNN items between hangars? -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Jakus Cemendur Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.10 14:34:00 - [575] Originally by: Jack Thurner Originally by: Jakus Cemendur CCP have said you can have ships with ammo, boosters and scripts in a carrier, and that they're reducing the size of some ships so carriers can carry more. Carry scripts? like a sheet of paper? o_0 The new scripts they're introducing for some modules.
Kweel Nakashyn Minmatar Aeden Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.10 14:57:00 - [576] Were you aware that scripts would be uneasy to find in 0.0 as per now when you'll have to buy an E-war module, you'll have 3 things to look on the market. Forget 0.0's. Did you though of scripts on web (+75% efficiency/-75% range and vice versa) ? Did you though of scripts on remote modules (efficiency / range) ?? 2isk
Vicious Phoenix	Posted - 2007.11.10 15:59:00 - [577] Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Were you aware that scripts would be uneasy to find in 0.0 as per now when you'll have to buy an E-war module, you'll have 3 things to look on the market. Forget 0.0's. Did you though of scripts on web (+75% efficiency/-75% range and vice versa) ? Did you though of scripts on remote modules (efficiency / range) ?? Getting a hold of NPC seeded goods, especially ones as small as scripts, shouldn't be an issue to any competent 0.0 player. Webs should not have scripts because they only have one effect, reducing velocity. Remote modules also only have one effect, reping someone. Scripts are not intended to add functionality, merely force people to make choices instead of fitting "2 for 1" modules. CFW (Certified Forum Warrior) I kill people ingame too. Originally by: CCP Tuxford I prefer dew over pepsi. I prefer beer over most things. Damn now I want beer.
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:03:00 - [578] 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? :) the problem with defensive roles is that currently it is impossible to actively defend anything on eve. the only way to prevent anything from dying is either killing the attackers before they kill your stuff or remote repairing whatever you are defending. so there is really no point on fitting defensive modules to defend any thing other than your self. what i would propose is a module that lets you steal the attackers from the ship you activate it on. so, if i am scorting a freighter, i would activate such module on the freighter pilot, and this way anybody targetting the freighter would instead target me, the big badass moros besides him. this way, if they want to kill the freighter, they would have to kill me before. it could be balanced by putting a limit on either how many of those modules can a single ship fit, or how many attackers does each module steal, or even both attributes. another way to boost defense would be to let logistic ships activate certain modules (remote repairing specially) without a lock, right through the fleet interface, thus preventing a jammed logistic ship from being useless, although maybe that is something you want that way.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:06:00 - [579] Originally by: Uchuu It's with changing ammo! Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat? it's coming on swift wings after trinity and yes, it is something we all want and will get!

Ramblin Man Empyreum	Posted - 2007.11.10 16:26:00 - [580] First... offers cake* to the hungry dev's* Second... any thoughts on T2 v. faction ammo? (Apologies and please ignore if already mentioned, I may have missed a post) Third... (a correction on an earlier mention) Moon mining does hypothetically make decent profits; the numbers quoted were inaccurate. The problem is not the lack of income there, but the seemingly random (I believe?) distribution of moons. There are not 'better' moons in 0.0 / specific pockets of 0.0 (ooh, that would be nice): there are only more moons. And, Finally... Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Kuolematon I still don't get it why minmatar T2 gets uber EM resists to SHIELDS when others does not. [...] Diversity is EVE. Not all ships should be exactly alike. This. (Not-so-much the initial post, but the reply) Just as I enjoy playing EVE because I might get ganked (honestly!), I also like not knowing what the shipclass I'm coming up against will be fitting. Please keep giving a thought to, "If a player sees this ship, will he more-or-less know what it's fitting before engaging -- and if so, will that unbalance the fight?" Welcome to the dark side old friend. .Shar Where we hate people through words.
Ione Hiigara Altera Odyssea Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:03:00 - [581] Well, about carriers / T2 freighters change : Keeping carrier's offensive capacities and increasing their ability to deliver combat-ready's ship while making them being unable to use their ship maintenance bay to haul large quantity of materials seems to make sense. They're combat ships after all. However, i have a few suggestions about rorqual and jump freighters. The two classes seems to be a little bit redundant, so why not : - get rid of T2 freighters - make the rorquals still able to carry industrial ship with cargo in them. On the one hand, we would have carriers clearly dedicated to "offensive" logistics in hostile environnement, on the other hand we would have rorquals, dedicated to hauling and mining supervision (they are capital industrial ship, after all). In this way, you could change the "no cargo inside ship in ship maintenance bay" nerf to a "only combat ships in carrier's ship maintenance bay and only industrial (barge and haulers) ships in rorqual'ship maintenance bay" If the mining supervision and hauling role is too much for only one ship, you could possibly add a ship to the capital industrial class. One more dedicated to mining supervision, the other to hauling.
Hannobaal Gallente Igneus Auctorita GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:13:00 - [582] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Uchuu It's with changing ammo! Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat? it's coming on swift wings after trinity and yes, it is something we all want and will get! Oh, thank you!!!
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:27:00 - [583] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Uchuu It's with changing ammo! Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat? it's coming on swift wings after trinity and yes, it is something we all want and will get! You just became my new best friend.
Sylvia Lafayette	Posted - 2007.11.10 17:34:00 - [584] 601st! hello anyone that read this far o/
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:03:00 - [585] Originally by: Rells What I think CCP should do it to make each race of ship depend on a different secondary datacore (secondary to the starship engineering). This would not only boost the price for non mechanical engineering datacores but also cause more diversity in the market. Once that change is in then all the modules should balance out the datacores demand. In my mind, as Racial Starship Engineering describes hull construction, there is no need for mechanical engineering datacores which again describes hull construction (bad thing to have two for the same). Better to add datacore related to racial propulsion systems, IMO. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Amarria Black Clan Anthraxx	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:14:00 - [586] Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Rells What I think CCP should do it to make each race of ship depend on a different secondary datacore (secondary to the starship engineering). This would not only boost the price for non mechanical engineering datacores but also cause more diversity in the market. Once that change is in then all the modules should balance out the datacores demand. In my mind, as Racial Starship Engineering describes hull construction, there is no need for mechanical engineering datacores which again describes hull construction (bad thing to have two for the same). Better to add datacore related to racial propulsion systems, IMO. And/or racial sensor emphasis.
Synapse Archae Amarr Solarflare Heavy Industries Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:23:00 - [587] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Jita TradeAlt Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: magnus amadeus Ok, one more question if you will: Do you view the ability of 0.0 alliances to project force throughout multiple regions as a problem? It's not a problem if the alliances have the infrastructure and manpower to actually harvest and build up those regions. However when alliances claim space just to claim space, maybe we need to look into something there. Are you kidding? Grabbing new regions has been ALL about just holding more space since you removed static plexes. Let's just say people aren't fighting over a few more belts of ark after they already own thousands of ark belts, most of which aren't being mined since 1) the zyd/mega prices have crashed thanks to ccp, 2) not worth the risk/effort compared to sitting in empire running farming Level 4 missions for LP in complete safety. I've honestly not heard "let's fight those guys over [resource]" since static plexes, which means for most of us there isn't really anything to fight over. It all feels pretty meaningless. Here's a fun little thing you could get your economist to look at though: how much of the money lost in 0.0 was made in 0.0? My guess is that 70-80% of all the isk lost in 0.0 comes from high-sec missions, cosmos farming and trade/production. In your opinion; is that something we need to fix? YES. This is something you need to fix. It would be awsome to think about the resources in the next region and how we could use them instead of "meh, its the same as what we've got, rent it out!" The blandness of resource distribution is in part why you're seeing a surge in alliances renting out their space. It was much more exciting when complexes were something to really fight over for a particular system or group of systems. - - - Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
Ash Vincetti Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:31:00 - [588] Originally by: Synapse Archae YES. This is something you need to fix. It would be awsome to think about the resources in the next region and how we could use them instead of "meh, its the same as what we've got, rent it out!" The blandness of resource distribution is in part why you're seeing a surge in alliances renting out their space. It was much more exciting when complexes were something to really fight over for a particular system or group of systems. Interesting. We've gone from a world of Static Belts & Static Complexes, to a world of Static Belts & Dynamic Complexes. Perhaps, a better distribution would be Static Complexes & Dynamic Belts. The Large complexes that are NPC controlled, would be in known locations. The current smaller exploration complexes & encounters can remain all over, but the 8/10 - 10/10 could return as static content to generate interest as well as resource scarcity & conflict. Asteroid belts, mining sites, etc, should be moved to the current anomaly encounter system. Exploration & salvage/hacking/etc sites can stay in the harder to find exploration system. That might actually be a good compromise. The big issue with the old static plexes, was that once the warp gates were locked, nobody could get in without the keys. Perhaps a combination of hacking / archeology / analyzing could be used to unlock the complex gates, that way nobody needs to use the timers, and you don't have PVP immunity. ----- free bree!
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:36:00 - [589] Originally by: Amarria Black Originally by: Tonto Auri Originally by: Rells What I think CCP should do it to make each race of ship depend on a different secondary datacore (secondary to the starship engineering). In my mind, as Racial Starship Engineering describes hull construction, there is no need for mechanical engineering datacores which again describes hull construction (bad thing to have two for the same). Better to add datacore related to racial propulsion systems, IMO. And/or racial sensor emphasis. And, please, CCP Aside from joking, ships really have many things at once. Hull/shields/capacitor/propulsion/sensors... It is expected (and intended) to have big knowledge required to work on one of these things. And having many different types of cores need to invent one ship may means that success rate for invention may be safely increased a bit for ships. -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Tonto Auri	Posted - 2007.11.10 18:40:00 - [590] (To clarify things - I'm science/industrial man the same time as covert/assault pilot, so I know what I said and how it will reflect my own game...) -- Thanks CCP for cu<end of sig>
Sprak Kiroshi Group	Posted - 2007.11.10 21:16:00 - [591] I have a couple questions I'd like answered if possible. First, are you planning on introducing probes that can scan cloaked ships? As it is now, when you're out in 0.0 hunting NPCers, it seems as soon as you jump in, they warp to either a POS or a safe spot and cloak. I have no issues with people having POSes up and hiding in them - jump in your capital fleet, and they'll have a hard time hiding. However, finding cloaked Ravens, is not yet possible. It seems that the less scrupulous members of the community have caught on, and are using this to their advantage. It's very nearly impossible to catch somebody who has a cloaked battleship. This brings me to my second question. The idea of removing local has been bounced around ever since local was introduced. I was wondering with the addition of being able to see standings on people entering local, if there was any plan on removing it, for say people who don't have sovereignty of the system? This would give alliances a tactical advantage when claiming systems and at the same time take the "I-win" or rather the "Haha I see you in local I'll safe spot and cloak my raven and come out only when you leave" button. While people may complain that this provides an unfair advantage to people who are out to kill NPCers, I would argue that it in fact increases the thought required when NPCing and hunting NPCers. A smart NPCer could make it much more difficult to follow his tracks - ie. removing all of the loot cans, NPCing in asteroid belts far from jump gates etc. I'm a large fan of small-scale warfare and both changes would help small gang warfare immensely. Any thoughts?
Trojanman190 Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.11.11 00:45:00 - [592] Edited by: Trojanman190 on 11/11/2007 00:45:51 Originally by: Sprak Edited by: Sprak on 10/11/2007 22:50:11 I have a couple questions I'd like answered if possible. First, are you planning on introducing probes that can scan cloaked ships? As it is now, when you're out in 0.0 hunting NPCers, it seems as soon as you jump in, they warp to either a POS or a safe spot and cloak. I have no issues with people having POSes up and hiding in them - jump in your capital fleet, and they'll have a hard time hiding. However, finding cloaked Ravens, is not yet possible. It seems that the less scrupulous members of the community have caught on, and are using this to their advantage. It's very nearly impossible to catch somebody who has a cloaked battleship. This brings me to my second question. The idea of removing local has been bounced around ever since local was introduced. I was wondering with the addition of being able to see standings on people entering local, if there was any plan on removing it, for say people who don't have sovereignty of the system? This would give alliances a tactical advantage when claiming systems and at the same time take the "I-win" or rather the "Haha I see you in local I'll safe spot and cloak my raven and come out only when you leave" button. While people may complain that this provides an unfair advantage to people who are out to kill NPCers, I would argue that it in fact increases the thought required when NPCing and hunting NPCers. A smart NPCer could make it much more difficult to follow his tracks - ie. removing all of the loot cans, NPCing in asteroid belts far from jump gates etc, and people hunting the NPCers have the advantage of not being seen straight away. I'm a large fan of small-scale warfare and both changes would help small gang warfare immensely. Any thoughts? I don't really like the idea of removing local all together, but tieing it to system sov would be a great reason to claim territory and the like. Local is used as a defensive AND an offensive weapon. In its current state, cloaking is important due to the existance of aggression timers. If you are in a fleet fight and you get girlfriend agro, requiring you to go deal with it, safespotting and cloaking is the only way to accomplish this. Otherwise fleet combat would be a serious problem for dudes that cant play for 6 hours straight at a time. The unfortunate side effect is that ratters (farmers) can just go to a safe and cloak. Creating scan probes and things that can find cloakers solves one aspect of gameplay and breaks another. So, my solution: Change the timers associated with cloaking based on a ship's size. Frigate: everything is the same. Cruiser: cloaking is not instant, it happens after 30 seconds (recons not effected). The recloak timer is 2 minutes. Battlecruiser: cloak delay of a minute. Recloak timer of 5 minutes. Battleship: cloak delay of 3 minutes. Recloak timer of 10. Cloaking is of course still very useful but its no longer a warp to a safe spot and cloak at the first hostile local. In fleet fights you can still go to safe, cloak, and use the bathroom or whatever.
Sprak Kiroshi Group	Posted - 2007.11.11 00:59:00 - [593] Originally by: Trojanman190 Edited by: Trojanman190 on 11/11/2007 00:45:51 I don't really like the idea of removing local all together, but tieing it to system sov would be a great reason to claim territory and the like. Local is used as a defensive AND an offensive weapon. In its current state, cloaking is important due to the existance of aggression timers. If you are in a fleet fight and you get girlfriend agro, requiring you to go deal with it, safespotting and cloaking is the only way to accomplish this. Otherwise fleet combat would be a serious problem for dudes that cant play for 6 hours straight at a time. The unfortunate side effect is that ratters (farmers) can just go to a safe and cloak. Creating scan probes and things that can find cloakers solves one aspect of gameplay and breaks another. So, my solution: Change the timers associated with cloaking based on a ship's size. Frigate: everything is the same. Cruiser: cloaking is not instant, it happens after 30 seconds (recons not effected). The recloak timer is 2 minutes. Battlecruiser: cloak delay of a minute. Recloak timer of 5 minutes. Battleship: cloak delay of 3 minutes. Recloak timer of 10. Cloaking is of course still very useful but its no longer a warp to a safe spot and cloak at the first hostile local. In fleet fights you can still go to safe, cloak, and use the bathroom or whatever. In my experience of fleet battles, nobody ever fits a cloak, bar maybe some capitals. Other than that, the loss of a high slot and increased lock time = no cloak. CCP has stated that they never intended for local to be used as a strategical tool, but merely as a chat channel. Since constellation/corp/alliance/player created channels exist, I see much less use or need for it. As per the "girlfriend aggro," you can usually jump out to a neighbouring system, idle in a POS, or dock at a station.
Raketefrau Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 02:12:00 - [594] This may have been answered already and I missed it earlier in the thread... But timing-wise, will the carrier cargo nerf be hitting before the jump freighters are introduced? signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- Really enjoying this, maybe you could just tell us why you hate
Bod Roid	Posted - 2007.11.11 02:52:00 - [595] Steps on soap box My 2 pence okay the carrier nerf ... well I have to say ... I spent aprox 6 months training ... over 1bil isk in skill books ... and about 1bil on the ship and mods itself. and now I have ... a paper weight. I spent all that time and effort and isk to get a ship that fitted a role ... that role was ... being able to jump my stuff around. stuff inc - ships ... alloys .. minerals ... mods ... rigged ships ...etc now I cna only move ships and well ammo .. I did NOT spend all that time and isk to get a ship that go into the front line and fight. sure I was willingt o be pushed into it by my alliance ... but its there for logisitcs (in the dictionary sense of the term not the armour repping sense) you stopped the haulers carrying GSC's and that was a touch annoying but something I could cope with ... but this completely wastes all that time and effort I have put in! I agree no ship should be an "I win" button and i was all behind this making the carrier have to fit for the specific role with mods and such. but preventing them from being used AT ALL for the role I trained and saved for is completely out of order! steps off soap box Bod - Doane - PURE
Bod Roid	Posted - 2007.11.11 03:09:00 - [596] Steps on soap box ... again one solution that I cna see to avoid the growing ship maintanence bay being used to turn them into SUPER haulers ... is ... go ahead with your proposed change ... ie the ship in the maint bay cnat carry cargo ... but expand the corp hangar to 30k and give them a half decent cargo bay Steps off soap box ... again
Elmicker Black Sea Industries Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.11 04:22:00 - [597] Originally by: Raketefrau But timing-wise, will the carrier cargo nerf be hitting before the jump freighters are introduced? Technically, no. They're both being introduced with the same patch, however, jump freighters are T2. They will take several MONTHS to invent and build, at a simply staggering cost (estimates ranging into the 7-8b region). There is also a huge lack of freighter pilots with the required jump skills, so it will take time to transition the duties of the experienced carrier logistics pilots to the freighter pilots training jump skills.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.11 08:48:00 - [598] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Uchuu It's with changing ammo! Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat? it's coming on swift wings after trinity and yes, it is something we all want and will get! woo! so when can we expect a dev blog that goes over some of these changes, as that will make everyone truly happy (or truly mad, but either is better then what it is now, Uncertain)
Yukisa	Posted - 2007.11.11 09:00:00 - [599] I've been thinking of how to fix the amarr issue for awhile, and have come up with this. While EANM II and inherent high EM resist is also an issue.. The original problem with amarr was back in the old days, lasers were very effective weapons. Thus, amarrian ships need to have 1 bonus dedicated to using lasers, leaving only 1 real bonus left, it was a good design back then. But things have changed. Lasers are no longer superior weapon platforms hence, there is no longer to reduce their ship effectiveness with only giving them 1 bonus. Thus, they do not need to have an inherent ship bonus "wasted" to utilize the weapons anymore. I suggest a possible fix which would not cause any imbalance. * All amarr laser ships with the 10% bonus to energy weapon cap use will have it removed. Instead, these ships receive a "Role Bonus: 50% bonus to energy weapon cap use". Then they get 2 proper bonuses like other racial ships. What the new bonus will be is up for dev planning. But amarr is a tank and spank race mostly, meaning heavy armor and powerful lasers. They lack EW capability (reflected in lack of mids). - This effectively keep lasers as "amarr only" as was the original intended design. It also reflects the core amarrian principle of building their ships to be less flexible, but focused on wielding lasers. For an analogy, the problem is very similar to this: Lets say all hybrid weapons now require 50% more powergrid to fit. Then all gallente turret ships one bonus "10% reduction in grid requirement for hybrids per level". See how this could be a problem? That's the major issue with amarr. ps. It's awesome that the devs are communicate with players. Keep it up, and thanks!
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.11 10:07:00 - [600] Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 11/11/2007 10:08:24 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. i agree that it should, but atm it doesnt and it should really get fixed asap
here'n'there	Posted - 2007.11.11 11:01:00 - [601] a few questions from me. 1) can you comment this? 2) why nerfing tracking computers, are they really overpowered now? 3) will you make die cast models someday?
Sniser Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.11 11:36:00 - [602] I have been reading all the threat but i didnt found any answer about this so there here go. if you check weapon types usually there are 3 tiers of each type weapon for example Medium blasters - Electron - Ion - Neutron medium auto cannons - dual 180mm - 220mm - 425mm medium pulse laser - focused - Heavy The gap of damage between focused and heavy pulse laser is a lot, many times i would like to fit a weapon between focused and heavy, because i dont have enough powergrid for heavy but i dont want use focused because im not full tanked. Is there any chance to make a new weapon between those , focused and heavy? The same question go for bs sized weapons. if this is not possible then would be possible make a taychon pulse so i can use the powergrid left after i use a pg/module rig? Atm i find it a problem since if i want go gank fitted i feel im out of pg(no powergrid module) or i feel i have too much pg left(a powergrid module). there isnt anything in middle of those options
Def Antares	Posted - 2007.11.11 11:43:00 - [603] Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... LOL! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP! I feel the same way. I also remember a time when devs used to talk and listen to the players
Miz Cenuij Caldari Simply Smacktackular	Posted - 2007.11.11 12:21:00 - [604] We are all going to WOW ! Im sure they hired some WOW devs. "Men are going to die... and I'm going to kill them"
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.11 12:36:00 - [605] Edited by: MotherMoon on 11/11/2007 12:36:46 Originally by: Def Antares Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... LOL! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP! I feel the same way. I also remember a time when devs used to talk and listen to the players wow good job ignoring the 20 dev replys in THIS VERY THREAD. please don't troll. also live dev blogs with live questions, and fanfest, the round tables they JUST HAD with players form bob and goonswarm at the same table. tthey listen numnuts. Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
Ramblin Man Empyreum	Posted - 2007.11.11 13:47:00 - [606] Originally by: MotherMoon Originally by: Def Antares Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... LOL! That was exactly what I was thinking when I read the OP! I feel the same way. I also remember a time when devs used to talk and listen to the players wow good job ignoring the 20 dev replys in THIS VERY THREAD. please don't troll. also live dev blogs with live questions, and fanfest, the round tables they JUST HAD with players form bob and goonswarm at the same table. So... there's now [OHGODBOB], who is in actuality engaged in a civil war? Welcome to the dark side old friend. .Shar Where we hate people through words.
ilovedronesandcarriers	Posted - 2007.11.11 14:20:00 - [607] Originally by: Miz Cenuij We are all going to WOW ! Im sure they hired some WOW devs. Le OutragT! Indeed.
Raketefrau Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.11 14:56:00 - [608] Originally by: Elmicker Originally by: Raketefrau But timing-wise, will the carrier cargo nerf be hitting before the jump freighters are introduced? Technically, no. They're both being introduced with the same patch, however, jump freighters are T2. They will take several MONTHS to invent and build, at a simply staggering cost (estimates ranging into the 7-8b region). There is also a huge lack of freighter pilots with the required jump skills, so it will take time to transition the duties of the experienced carrier logistics pilots to the freighter pilots training jump skills. The drone regions are only survivable through massive logistics programs. The last thing we need is a nerf like this. signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- Really enjoying this
Lord AtTiLAs Legion Du Lys GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.11 15:06:00 - [609] Thanks for all of you answers DEV. You made my anger almost dissapear about the carrier nerf/change/buff. Now I think that was a needed change and I understand that carrier became a too easy way of transportation for POS fueling / Minerals / Moon harvested producst. Also, carrier buff enabling to transport 2 battleship, more rigged ship ( since we are not gonna hesitate to load hauler or not) and a lot more smaller ship is really awesome and will still give a lot MORE potential to the new carrier. But here is some points that, in my opinion, is needed to realease at the same time of the carrier change: 1) All capital ship, due to their complex structure, should not be able to use any expanded cargo hold and/or cargohold optimization anymore. To avoid any carrier pilot to see Dread or Rorqual as an alternative and then get nerfed again ( Loosing 450M of skill ). 2) Rorqual, like the carrier, should not be able to load any ship filled with stuff other than ammo/charges in its Ship maintenance Bay. Avoiding Rorqual to reach a ridiculous 126K Cargo (nerfed by rule 1) + 10K hangars + 3 X 38K Iteron in cargo = 250K m3 !!!! 3) Carrier should be at least get the same amount of cargohold as the dread which is near 8.5K m3 ( While being also nerfed by rule 1 ) to get some kind of way bring more fuel, travel longer distance and use Triage mode more efficiently. Or best double up the Corporate Hangars since carrier will be rapidly filled up with only 10K by goods + carrier fuel. This giving carrier 20K ( cargo buff ) or 26K ( Corporate hangar buff) of effective transportion space which is allready a 60% nerf comparered to actual 65K ( With Rigged iteron 5 and Hulk ). Please don't make an temporary alternative while not nerfing ALL capital ship. Rorqual will then be the most effective POS fueler with 50K cargo and may be gonna need a little bit more nerf to avoid all carrier pilot to get over rorqual for its hauling potential and not for his Mining purpose. Thanks
Hmaon STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.11 19:52:00 - [610] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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. If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers.
I SoStoned	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:05:00 - [611] Edited by: I SoStoned on 11/11/2007 23:07:07 So, well, now the Devs are finally seeing that people are expanding their logistics by manufacturing modules... so they introduced the Rorq and mineral compression & refining nerf. Apparently that didn't work well enough, now their increasing module size by a factor of 10... lovely. Now ratters can't loot. At all. Not even with a salvaging destroyer... ... so where's the hauler with the huge cargo hold, abysmal speed, 8 high slots for tractors (tractors & salvagers fitting into 'utility' slots no hardpoints need to be offered on the hull), and a 100% range/speed bonus for tractor beams per level in whatever skill? Or make these huge flying jetcans very nimble, but extremely slow, and with huge volume so they can't be hauled by ... whatever nerfed ship that may have tried. Oh, yes, and Hangar Cans that freighters can use to haul rigged/insured/fitted ships (without cargo or ammo!). The freigher can't deploy them, so it's forced to dock or move them into a POS hangar before they can be used.
SamuraiJack Caldari Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.11.11 23:28:00 - [612] All i'm gonna say is i want a respec of my SP's. oh and WTS: Carrier. i wonder if the devs even play the logistics game. Go mine and acutally discover the "other" part of EVE. Stop griefing in lowsec like the rest of the 12yr old idiots. SJ. CLS CEO, Valainloce Executor and Standings Director =-
Alex Shurk	Posted - 2007.11.12 01:45:00 - [613] Originally by: Hmaon If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers. For some reason that, and just plain outright increasing the mass of haulers has never even been mentioned by the devs. No clue why, it's the first obvious solution. Stops the SMAs of carriers becoming useless, for a start.
Raketefrau Caldari Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.12 02:04:00 - [614] Right now the Rorqual and the jump freighter are so close together that I don't want to train for them, because you know that 6 months from now some CCP employee is finally going to say "we need to differentiate these ships" and start swinging the nerf bat all over again. I trained a carrier because it WAS a hauler. Who knows what the Rorqual will be come this time next year? signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected]) <--- Really enjoying this
Max Hardcase Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.12 07:48:00 - [615] Edited by: Max Hardcase on 12/11/2007 07:49:15 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Susitna Edited by: Susitna on 09/11/2007 03:20:51 Thanks for the updates and discussion. Regarding interdictors. Yes people in 00 use the sabre to tackle and bubble. The sabre has a complete package it can fit pretty decent tank, fit T-2 guns, and has two lows and a low mass for good speed. With rigs it is an interceptor on steroids. It has a bubble launcher and normal web and scram. Who would not choose to fly it over a interceptor? However, I think you are nerfing a ship class when the problem is really riggs and implants. A rigged sabre is about as fast as an unrigged stiletto. It is the rigs that overpower the sabre and make it more attractive than the stiletto for general tackling. Poly carbs are overpowered not just on dictors. Nerf them please and leave the dictors alone I also find it odd that you are going after the Interdictor speed but leaving the other nano ships untouched. A sabre is a good tool to combat nano gangs. The flycatcher is horrid now. If this ship is nerfed no ship is safe from the nerf bat. Being able to bubble up a 20km radius with a very very small ship should have some drawbacks don't you think? It shouldn't be a no-brainer to do in my opinion. @ you if you think anything based on the caldari dessie is small. Its a pregnant hippo, almost cruiser sized with its 90m sig radius.
Aphotic Raven Gallente E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.12 08:57:00 - [616] In response to CCP Chronotis here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=18#536 Things are looking interesting thats for sure. A question I have for anyone in the know, not just a dev is in regards to invention are gallente decryptors (or whatever) used for Hulks AND the new freighters. I ask because the people i know who get there hands on gallente R&D are pumping it into hulk production still. This means gallente t2 combat ships seem to be bucking the price slash trend earlier and holding at a much higher price point than ships of other races. (Zealot/Cerb vs Ishtar/deimos for instance) Is this seen as a problem or just part of life? I think it could become problamatic once t2 freighters are the new lifeline of 0.0... Originally by: Dr Cupid Let me tell you all that I'm really enjoying eve-beta, and can't wait for the real game to come out!
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.12 09:46:00 - [617] Originally by: Aphotic Raven In response to CCP Chronotis here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=18#536 Things are looking interesting thats for sure. A question I have for anyone in the know, not just a dev is in regards to invention are gallente decryptors (or whatever) used for Hulks AND the new freighters. I ask because the people i know who get there hands on gallente R&D are pumping it into hulk production still. This means gallente t2 combat ships seem to be bucking the price slash trend earlier and holding at a much higher price point than ships of other races. (Zealot/Cerb vs Ishtar/deimos for instance) Is this seen as a problem or just part of life? I think it could become problamatic once t2 freighters are the new lifeline of 0.0... The Decryptor balancing should change that, by making each decryptor more or less worth using (at least I hope). ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Feng Schui Minmatar The Ninja Coalition Drunken N Disorderly	Posted - 2007.11.12 11:45:00 - [618] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. I wonder what type of curse you fly tbh, a nano-damp-curse (which is currently, overpowered in my eyes), or a curse that uses its actual ewar bonus instead. there have been quite a few good threads around the pilgrim and curse, as related to the current state and future state (script + bandwidth changes). I'm sure that you could find them. however, a number of suggestions are: -complete role change for pilgrim to make it fit the role of a cap warfare boat (75% reduction to energy emission systems capacitor use). -5% bonus to armor -and quite a few more that i cannot recall at the moment.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.12 12:59:00 - [619] Originally by: Necrologic 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. Something like this would be key to really providing any sort of viable defensive play options. The nature of eve as a space game starts it off at a significant disadvantage with defensive aspects compared to a "people on foot" game in terms of the "meatshield" factor that lets you physically keep attackers away from your vulnerable targets. It's even worse with no real LOS being implemented, so you can't even have your tanks physically dive in front of projectile attacks to protect the weaker elements. The thing is that adding either of these elements wouldn't really fit with eve (space is just too big to form a meatshield wall and LOS in general would be a real pain with the limited navigational controls we have). At the moment there's no real way of forcing attackers to engage your combat ships instead of the weaker industrial targets they are escorting. These weaker targets also generally do not have enough HP or resistances to be remote repped effectively when under any sort of group fire. Thus, the only defensive option becomes running away, with any military resistance being in the form of a counter-attack rather than a real defensive operation. This consequently means that simply having a presence in an enemy system is enough to disrupt their industrial operations, wheras it should really depend on their ability to actually overcome the defensive escort. The only way round this is to either prevent the attackers from choosing the guarded ships as targets, or forcing the damage to be applied to the guarding ships regardless of who in the formation was actually shot. Clearly there would need to be limits to prevent abuse (50 barges being "defended" by one drake just to give the barges time to warp out, for example), so there would probably have to be some sort of points system to balance how big an escort could be considered an effective defence for a given ship(s). This would also prevent it being used as another form of spider tanking, as you could only focus the protection on a small part of the total group. You'd also need things like the requirement of everyone in the formation to be in the same grid etc so no safespotted tanking gang. Clearly there would be a lot of undesirable cases to identify and deal with, but that's true of any new concept. I certainly think it's worth looking at though. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Mattduk Gallente Universal Army INTERDICTION	Posted - 2007.11.12 13:02:00 - [620] Edited by: Mattduk on 12/11/2007 13:02:59 Originally by: I SoStoned IMO classic idiocy, CCP. I've read your thread of idiot rationalizations kicking your player base square in the cajones because they decide to use something 'their way'. Now you take the bat and go home because the third baseman caught your foul ball. 2.8 bil build cost for a f*ing jump freighter? Jebus, you twits, yank logistics away from every small/medium alliance (and pretty much any corp) at a single go. Just like HACs before widespread invention these damn ships will be 10 bil for a year or more, if not 20 bil or even higher. You can introduce these super-movers and not even touch the haulage capacity of a much less expensive carriers and, in time (if you would allow it!!!) the jump freighters would eventually take over. Forcing them down our gullets with a broken invention system is a big fat 'screw you' to your playerbase. I'd like to see all the hate flames you're going to recieve from all the cancelled subscriptions. And no, you can't have my stuff. It's all going to be trashed (the worthless carrier included). You'll find my main on eBay, for real world money thank you. Not that it can sell after this change, only idiot nuubs will bother with eve after this monumental stroke of game-stalling genius. 'cajones' is spanish for 'drawers' I believe you intended to say 'c0jones'. see how that works? Regards Matt
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.12 14:26:00 - [621] Originally by: I SoStoned only idiot nuubs will bother with eve after this monumental stroke of game-stalling genius. Idiot nub reporting in. /salute
Futureface01 Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.11.12 14:51:00 - [622] In my post linked in my signature, I spelled out a list of issues with the Golem. If you can take a look that'd be great. My questions to the Devs are: 1. Are marauders designed with PVE in mind? 2. Are you expecting people who fly Golems in Missions to use Cruise Missiles? (Despite the bonuses implying torpedo use) 3. Are you aware that if a mission runner uses Cruise Missiles on the Golem his DPS is less than that of a Cruise Missile fitted CNR? (More details in the thread in my Signature) 4. Have you "held back" on Marauders because of the threat of PVP'ers becoming too effective in them? Thank you. State of the Golem Oct 25, 2007
SiJira	Posted - 2007.11.12 15:31:00 - [623] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Necrologic 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. Something like this would be key to really providing any sort of viable defensive play options. The nature of eve as a space game starts it off at a significant disadvantage with defensive aspects compared to a "people on foot" game in terms of the "meatshield" factor that lets you physically keep attackers away from your vulnerable targets. It's even worse with no real LOS being implemented, so you can't even have your tanks physically dive in front of projectile attacks to protect the weaker elements. The thing is that adding either of these elements wouldn't really fit with eve (space is just too big to form a meatshield wall and LOS in general would be a real pain with the limited navigational controls we have). At the moment there's no real way of forcing attackers to engage your combat ships instead of the weaker industrial targets they are escorting. These weaker targets also generally do not have enough HP or resistances to be remote repped effectively when under any sort of group fire. Thus, the only defensive option becomes running away, with any military resistance being in the form of a counter-attack rather than a real defensive operation. This consequently means that simply having a presence in an enemy system is enough to disrupt their industrial operations, wheras it should really depend on their ability to actually overcome the defensive escort. The only way round this is to either prevent the attackers from choosing the guarded ships as targets, or forcing the damage to be applied to the guarding ships regardless of who in the formation was actually shot. Clearly there would need to be limits to prevent abuse (50 barges being "defended" by one drake just to give the barges time to warp out, for example), so there would probably have to be some sort of points system to balance how big an escort could be considered an effective defence for a given ship(s). This would also prevent it being used as another form of spider tanking, as you could only focus the protection on a small part of the total group. You'd also need things like the requirement of everyone in the formation to be in the same grid etc so no safespotted tanking gang. Clearly there would be a lot of undesirable cases to identify and deal with, but that's true of any new concept. I certainly think it's worth looking at though. i support this post ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Hmaon STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.12 16:43:00 - [624] Originally by: Alex Shurk Originally by: Hmaon If that's undesired, why not have cargo expanders increase ships' volume proportionately? Then there would be no advantage to storing cargo-expanded haulers in carriers. For some reason that, and just plain outright increasing the mass of haulers has never even been mentioned by the devs. No clue why, it's the first obvious solution. Stops the SMAs of carriers becoming useless, for a start. Yeah, I don't know. I wonder whether it's even been considered.
Der Komissar	Posted - 2007.11.12 16:49:00 - [625] Edited by: Der Komissar on 12/11/2007 16:49:57 One way ticket to carebear hell, swg ne1? Every mmog turns into carebear paradise with "fairplay" and safety. When is Eve's turn?
Vitelius Caldari Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.12 17:04:00 - [626] Edited by: Vitelius on 12/11/2007 17:06:38 Edited by: Vitelius on 12/11/2007 17:05:07 I must ask, now that the heavy dictors have the ability scram motherships and generally everything in low sec, isn't this kind of bad for the balance? I'm definitely for the idea of making moms scrammable but heavy dictors will now be the favorite tool of low sec gate campers. If they have infinite point strength they can quite happily catch everything they want and combined with the fact that it's a T2 cruiser that's doing this I imagine it can efficiently tank the sentries as well. I wouldn't mind if the ship using that infinite strength scram was a regular interdictor which can't effectively tank sentries, that would mean risk involved when using it and of course it still could be used in low sec near gates against mommy pilots with piratey tendencies as pirates are legal targets to shoot. If you have hopes of populating low sec more, that is not really going to help. The carebears with full rack of stabs fitted won't be able to neither defend themselves with all those stabs or run away from the infinite strength scram. While one could relatively safely move goods through low sec in a blockade runner before, this won't be the case anymore. I just want to ask if you have considered the consequences of bringing "targetted bubbles" into low sec? Perhaps making the targetted mode script have a limited strength against regular targets would be a better solution? This and making it even more difficult to haul stuff using carriers isn't really making anyone happy. Hauling becomes a painful task, even through low sec. I just cannot see the point in forcing people to train for new expensive tools, having a months long training gap to use the new tools while the old ones get nerfed and hauling is generally made more painful than ever before. ---
Slaatibartfast Forty Two	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:08:00 - [627] Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 12/11/2007 18:14:21 Edited by: Slaatibartfast on 12/11/2007 18:12:58 Originally by: CCP Zulupark The SISI stats for the T2 BS are pretty much final. The Black-Ops ships are pretty expensive ships, and will probably not be used in close range combat. The agility bonus was to allow the Sin to scoop up sentry drones, and accelerate quickly to warp out. We're probably never going to allow the Black-Ops ships to use Covert Ops cloaks, they do however get bonuses to normal cloaks. (you even go faster while cloaked) Sad to hear that these ships aren't attractive to you, I'm really excited about both of them myself (mostly the black-ops though). Just a few follow on questions: 1. You say the stats are pretty much final, but many people are reporting varying degrees of fitting issues with most of the t2 bs, my personal experience being that the amarr ones (the only ones i've tested yet) need more cpu and a bit more powergrid to actually be able to make use of all their slots (those utility highs being a problem). Are you guys aware of fitting issues and if so, is this intended or just a pre-nerf? 2. You say that the black ops bs won't be used in close range combat....what makes you think that exactly? The fact that long range fits typically mean less tank? The fact that they'll be cyno'ing into systems and can therefore not dictate range till they're had a chance to get out? The fact that being survivable means a decent tank, which in turns means cap injector if you want any sustainability, which to a large extent precludes the use of long range fits due to fitting issues? [Please don't counter using the sin as an example, it's unique in that its chief weapon system requires no cpu or grid, leaving lots of room for a tank, drone mods etc.] 3. A whole bonus just to be able to pick up sentry drones and warp out? Seriously? Well I guess that explains the agility bonus but man.... [also doesn't that tell you something needs to be looked at with regard to sentry drones if you need to waste an entire ship bonus just so they can be scooped without getting you killed?] 4. What value do you believe being able to fit an improved cloak (along with the bonus) has for a billion isk high mass bs? How do you see it being used? The way they tend to work is as follows: you cloak on grid with hostiles, you get de-cloaked and die; you cloak, say, 100km off a gate and wait for targets...why use a black ops? No real gain and lots of risk over a t1 bs. Or you can safespot and cloak...in this case an un-bonused proto cloak would do. 5. You say you're really excited about black ops bs, well what specifically are you excited about? Could you give some scenarios in which you plan to use them to give an advantage over taking on the same situation with conventional ships without the covert bridge? With the current limitations (here i'm chiefly referring to cargo size, bridge fuel consumption, jump fuel consumption, range, and the amount needed for each ship bridged, oh and the lack of room for ammo and boosters) I'm having a really hard time thinking of situations where the cost, hassle and risk involved actually gives an appreciable gain over the standard way of doing things. I await your responses with baited breath.
Fire Stone	Posted - 2007.11.12 18:21:00 - [628] Dev's was post #536 a mistake when it said electrical engineering?
vipeer Celestial Horizon Corp. Valainaloce	Posted - 2007.11.12 19:41:00 - [629] Im a drone user so i'll say this: There are two drone types worth training up to T2. Third one is conditional (people running CNRs doing caldari missions vs guristas can find them useful but nobody else and only T2 mediums since they cant use T2 large drones effectively. T2 thermal drones have top damage. Speed sucks on T2 ogres but mediums and smalls pwn. Every drone user and their mom has T2 thermal drones in their drone bay T2 explosive drones have very good damage and they excell against armor on T1 ships. They are also the fastest of them all and a batch of warrior II's in the dronebay is there to swat ceptors and dictors. Their tracking is best of all drones. All in all explosive drones are the drones of choice for me because they do serious damage and can keep up with all but fastest ships in their respective classes. T2 kinetic drones are useful for swatting guristas rats and that's about it. T2 thermal drones have superior damage and T2 explosive drones have superior maneuvrability and speed and lay down heavy smack on armor. T2 EMP drones are the bastard child nobody needs or wants. Their damage is crap compared to T2 ogres. Everyone is tanked by default on armor against them and be sure any shield tanker will plug the EMP resist hole with a 50% hardener so youre screwed either way. Add on top of that a crappy 1,38 base damage mod of the T2 Praetor compared to 1,92 on the T2 ogre. With the ship bonuses and drone interfacing 5 this translates into a massive difference in the damage output. T2 Praetors are quite fast but usually when drones arrive at the enemy the shield should be halfway down anyway. If it's not youre shooting a raven or the sort or doing something very wrong. T2 explosive drones have better tracking. There is another important aspect why T2 EMP drones are such pieces of crap. They have the least amount of shield of all. Drone users will agree that when micromanaging drones you scoop them to refull their shields f they take damage. Shield is a buffer and EMP drones have smallest buffer on top of all the disadvantages already pointed out. If you will change something Amarr you can start with drones. It's preety straightforward -> boost dmg mod by 20-25%, boost speed by 5%, boost tracking by 5%, boost shield by 50%, decrease armor by 30%. While youre at it you can also decrease thermal drone dmg output by 5% and increase their speed by 10% to compensate (they will arrive to target faster but do less damage). and boost explosive drone damage by 7-10%. This way all drones will be balanced out just like different types of missiles. For example you dont have emp missiles do 100 dmg and fly 1000m/s with explosion radius of 50 while explosive missiles do 140 dmg and fly 1150m/s with 45 explosion radius and have the end of all thermal missiles fly do 220 dmg but only fly 900m/s and have 55 explosion radius. As it stands T2 thermal drones are the be-all-end-all wtfbbqers. I will write the next line in caps to clarify myself: THIS IS NOT A WALL OF TEXT FOR NERFING THERMAL DRONES BUT A CALL TO BOOST EMP (AMARR) DRONES. -------------SIG STARTS HERE------------- Chaining BoBo in south Feyth: Your Neutron Blaster Cannon II perfectly strikes Dukath [EVOL]<BOB>(Vindicator), wrecking for 741.0 damage.
Caine Azuris Gallente Killson Corp Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.12 21:34:00 - [630] See what im finding funny about all this is, CCP is oh like "We want players to decide what happens in game and they control the game". But then nerf ANYTHING that isnt going the way THEY want it to go. If people want to use carriers as hualers then wtf, why not? Why do you guys feel the need to mess with what we pay 14.95 a month to do in game? I think that somehow you all have gotten the mentality that this is YOUR game and we will do what you all want us to do. Well tell you what, you can have the game ......... but what good is it going to do you with now players? ------------
Sylper Illysten	Posted - 2007.11.13 00:54:00 - [631] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Sylper Illysten So some Devs have touched on the carrier chanegs, module issues and a whole host of other topics. How about some replies to the concerns about the Marauder class of ships? The deathly silence from any Dev is getting a tad old. I'll point Fendahl in your direction. And the silence continues. No Dev comments in any thread regarding Marauder class ships...
Corphus The NewOrder BORG Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.13 02:45:00 - [632] what are the devs thoughts on the Elektronic Attack Ships and do u guys see any dangers of this lil buggers become a overused, overpriced and overpowered menace to everyone in eve? my points are: they are small they are almost as agile as interceptors they posses more than good resilence due to TII resists they have the sensor strenght of a bs they are by far superior to any ship EW wise they have twice the lockrange of interceptors they have high scan resolution thus firststrike advantage in any given situation how will a cruiser pilot for example counter those pesky things in a 1 vs 1? and how will someone even survive if those things start to camp 0.0 gates on mass since everyone will be able to fly em in a matter of 1 hour after skill release?
Terianna Eri Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.13 03:23:00 - [633] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Uchuu It's with changing ammo! Are there any plans to implement a simple shortcut function (like heat) so that you can change ammo of a stack with one click, like overloading a stack for heat? it's coming on swift wings after trinity and yes, it is something we all want and will get! Do make sure that when you do this, Amarran ships don't get problems where two different guns try to load the same crystal. And if tech 1 crystals would stack together automatically when they go to the hold, it'd rock. thanks __________________________________
Kuolematon Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United Cult of War	Posted - 2007.11.13 08:00:00 - [634] So CCP cave in to whiners and won't do carrier nerf until 3 months after trinity? yay They are too scared about people quitting, it seems. It's great being Amarr isn't it.
Malarki X Caldari Ad Astra Vexillum Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.13 08:29:00 - [635] Change is good in general - but not every change is good ... They want to make EVE more easy for wave that is coming of new player base that cant compete to veterans. For every veteran that will just say - I have losed 2 years of my life to a game that is becoming kindergarden - they will get 10 new subscribers that dont want big MOFO ships in theire cortyard. Total balance in any game is utopia, true. But that doesnt mean DEVS have to nerf everything that is "overpowered" just because its bigger and can be hard to kill. New players will have a harder time coming to just about any MMO that is on the market for years. That doesnt mean you have to nerf existing playerbase - that means you have to get creative in stoping US kill THEM.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.11.13 08:29:00 - [636] Originally by: CCP Chronotis decryptors are still regarded as luxury items and are also tiered by rarity. They are a luxury for modules but they are an absolute necessity for ships. Datacores the main reason for issues at the moment isn't so much the heavy dependence on mech eng datacores, it's the fact that it's disproportional to the number of available agents in that field. Typically for anything like this, if the demand is higher, everyone can 'switch' to that field. With the agents being tougher to come by and standings issued etc it means the players aren't able to easily switch to meet the higher demand. Moving some things to fields with more easily available agents is pretty much exactly the same solution as just giving more agents the mechanical engineering field, though with slightly quicker results. Eventually all datacores will be almost the same price, we're still seeing though some people who can't switch to other fields due to lack of agents in those fields, as well as lots of left over RP from lottery days.
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2007.11.13 09:13:00 - [637] Can I sneak in a single nudge about blockade runners, and the 'vision' for them? It's been noted that an active tanking bonus on a ship built for running away seems a little redundant... (Oh, and the crane needs 4 powergrid, so it can fit a MWD like all the others) -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
MotherMoon Huang Yinglong Namtz'aar k'in	Posted - 2007.11.13 09:17:00 - [638] Originally by: Kuolematon So CCP cave in to whiners and won't do carrier nerf until 3 months after trinity? yay They are too scared about people quitting, it seems. your not bright are you... the dev blog was never a nerf, it was an idea and they asked what the community though, the community spoke, so CCP stated the problem and asked for other eays to fix it. they never said anything about putting the changes into place, unlike the EOS or an assult frig or a bomber, they knew these were big ships to change, and what are you talking about there too!!! the carrier nerf is happening! the logtsics nerf numnuts. Official fanboy of jenny< pink supporter! looking to work in the art department with CCP, 3 years and counting. http://www.digipen.edu/main/Gallery_Games_2004#Narbacular_Dropthi
bloomich Trotter's Independent Traders Co	Posted - 2007.11.13 11:49:00 - [639] Originally by: CCP Zulupark I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. While few will disagree with that statement, Omnitanks never were a problem prior to RMR. This was because compensation skills were not a issue. When Compensation skills were introduced in RMR, they were prenerfed to effect only passive hardners and not active. Therefore it because more effective to change from active hardner setups to passive herdner setups. My question is when is it likely that Compensation skills will be un-nerfed so that they effect all hardners and thus remove EANM issue altogether? --SIG-- I am aware that my name means reproductive organ in another language, I bought this char for isk with that name without relising that.
midge Mo'yb R.U.S.T. Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.13 11:53:00 - [640] Edited by: midge Mo''yb on 13/11/2007 11:53:23 as mentioned earlier in this thread i agree with just banning haulers from the maintenance bay and can we get a seperate fuel bay - which will allow use of what little cargo hold you have? -----------------------------------------------
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.13 12:02:00 - [641] Originally by: bloomich Originally by: CCP Zulupark I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. While few will disagree with that statement, Omnitanks never were a problem prior to RMR. This was because compensation skills were not a issue. When Compensation skills were introduced in RMR, they were prenerfed to effect only passive hardners and not active. Therefore it because more effective to change from active hardner setups to passive herdner setups. My question is when is it likely that Compensation skills will be un-nerfed so that they effect all hardners and thus remove EANM issue altogether? It would make 64% hardeners overpowered, along with invulnerability fields. 64% hardener: 80% resist. Invul field II: 37.5% all resists. A CN Invul field II would give 47% resists to all. Estamell Invul field: 62.5% all. The game doesn't need invulnerable Leviathans and the like. What is needed is a rethink of the base resists of every ship. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Scott Ryder Infestation.	Posted - 2007.11.13 12:10:00 - [642] Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Shevar 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. No it's not only the omni tank, if you say it's similar DPS then please consider the following as well; -Sleip uses 0 cap for it's weapons leaving 18 cap/s at peak recharge -Abso uses 13 cap/s for it's weapons leaving only 5 cap/s at peak recharge Does this seem to be similar cap left to tank/ew as the sleip? If not then why would it be "fair" to have comparable DPS? Yes omni tanks ARE part of the problem (actually the real problem is innate resitances, it's that shield tanks aren't popular otherwise minmatar would have similar issues (but then again they can just use another ammo type)). One solution would be to nerf omni tanks but really an easier solution would be to increase DPS of lasers. But this wouldn't change the fact that amarr laser ships have significantly less cap/s to use then the other ships with absolutely 0 advantages. I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. That looks to be the solution, Nerf the amarr tanks! A harbinger 7 heavy modulated beam (Equal to t2 heavy beam lasers, but less fitting and costs more) G or M Crystals Cap booster, Webber and disruptor 2x t2 Energized adaptive nano membranes 2x t2 active hardeners T2 medium armor rep Last low is Rcu or Heatsink Rigs: T1 grid rig. 2x t1 cap recharger rigs. I fit 2 cap recharger rigs on almost any amarr ship to compansate for the fact that it is amarr. Buildcost 130 million isk? VS A drake, the caldari battlecruiser equal to the harbinger. A passive tanked drake rigged, fitted a large shield and some t1 missile launchers. Who do win? The drake as my dps is lower then his passive recharge rate peak, not to mention his 30000 shields or something. But yea i see the problem with the amarr tank
bloomich Trotter's Independent Traders Co	Posted - 2007.11.13 12:47:00 - [643] Edited by: bloomich on 13/11/2007 12:52:05 Originally by: Shadowsword Originally by: bloomich Originally by: CCP Zulupark I still think that the root of the problem is omni tanking and high natural EM resistances. While few will disagree with that statement, Omnitanks never were a problem prior to RMR. This was because compensation skills were not a issue. When Compensation skills were introduced in RMR, they were prenerfed to effect only passive hardners and not active. Therefore it because more effective to change from active hardner setups to passive herdner setups. My question is when is it likely that Compensation skills will be un-nerfed so that they effect all hardners and thus remove EANM issue altogether? It would make 64% hardeners overpowered, along with invulnerability fields. 64% hardener: 80% resist. Invul field II: 37.5% all resists. A CN Invul field II would give 47% resists to all. Estamell Invul field: 62.5% all. The game doesn't need invulnerable Leviathans and the like. What is needed is a rethink of the base resists of every ship. Invulnerable Leviathans? Look, Compensation skills were pre-nerfed. We all know it. The proof is RMR expantion pack. Prior to this, EANM was never a issue. When CCP released Compensation skills in a pre-nerfed form, it broke the entire Amarr Damage in the same way that you Talk about. Invulrerable Leviathans? That is a failure of your argument, since how many Leviathan and Estamal items are there in this game? And if someone had 20 dread shooting a Estamel fitted Leviathan, then by jove, it should take slightly longer to take down. That is the point of Compeansation skills and why CCP added them! Lol, now you know how Amarr Felt when CCP added prenerfed broken skills into this game! Just now, most things Amarr pilots fight is "invurnerable". Look At Vagabonds with 92.5% Em resist. Look at Munins and look at Omni-tanks which ONLY exist because CCP prenerfed Compensation Skills to effect passive hardners insted of active + passive hardners. Since RMR, you guys have been telling Amarr pilots to Train skills to lvl5, Cross train or even quit the game. The reality is, Amarr pilots are already the elite, as most of them have full racks of lvl5 skills and even then they are sub-par compared to other races. So back on topic - Yes This is EXACTLY what CCP should do - Un-nerf Compensation skills so that everyone feels like what it is to be Amarr for a day. But more importantly, people will switch back to active Setups Someone could take your arguments to ask for removal of compensation skills altogether. I would agree that either unnerf Compensation Skills or remove them altogether. Both methods will result in people using active hardners insted of omnitanks again. --SIG-- I am aware that my name means reproductive organ in another language, I bought this char for isk with that name without relising that.
Cadela Fria Amarr Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.13 13:14:00 - [644] Edited by: Cadela Fria on 13/11/2007 13:16:11 Originally by: Malarki X Total balance in any game is utopia, true. But that doesnt mean DEVS have to nerf everything that is "overpowered" just because its bigger and can be hard to kill. New players will have a harder time coming to just about any MMO that is on the market for years. That doesnt mean you have to nerf existing playerbase - that means you have to get creative in stoping US kill THEM. I totally disagree...Total game balance is NOT utopia. See from my point of view this really comes down to the value of a sandbox environment, the freedom, the ingenuity, the ideas and so on. It's all great and fun that more space is added to the sandbox, and it's okay too if you board of holes in the sandbox. The problem comes along when you've built yourself a great, great sandcastle, you've chisled out the details, added water to stabilize it, and spent hours making it, maybe even a few days, and then the owner of the sandbox comes along and destroys the whole thing. He then tells you : "Oh I'm sorry, but you're building the wrong way, it's too effective and the new sandbuilders feel left out on how you did it..so from now on, when you build, it has to be within these boundaries. That means all the planning you put in, is useless now, you have to find a new way. That alright with you?" Does that sound like something that would make you smile, be happy and feel good? It doesn't to me anyway. This universe called EVE, is a big, HUGE universe with it's own life and creation. The amount of things that have been accomplished in this game through will, passion, teamwork, sneakiness, backstabbing, trust, determination and hard work, absolutely astonishes me everytime I sit down and think about it. It is the creation we have all made and built for ourselves the way we wanted it to be. And if there's something we don't like, we change it on our own. There will undoubtedly be those who say "But I'm only a 3 months old player, on my own, how the hell can I make a difference?? It's unfair!!". To you I say: Then you're not thinking big enough, or outside the box. You're the kind of person who want things done FOR YOU, so you don't have to put any effort in, or think for yourself for a change. You can do whatever you want to, if you really want to..you need money? go make some, theres plenty of ways. You need muscle? Go join a corp that has it. Your muscle are a bunch of lame *******s? Cope with it, do something about it, or find another corp. You want a ship? Do the work it takes to get it. The list goes on, and it's filled with simple answers that, unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to deal with, so they complain until it gets fixed or done for them in one manner or the other. My point? My point is that I've played this game for 3 years now, without a single break from the game. This is the ONE game, I've played for so long as I have, and I've been a gamer all my life ever since I sat down with my first weird machine I can't remember the name of, and played Ping Pong. I play this game, and have been playing this game as long as I have, because of the freedom I have in this game. The possibilities are endless if you really cared to think about it without trying to come up with a smart sounding reply. The game is likewise intelligent, and usually (note: USUALLY) genuine stupid people, are driven away from the game. The game itself might be rough around the edges, have imbalances, have oddities, but so does real life. No I won't compare, but it's the imbalances from completely useless, to the ultimate power in the universe and the imbalances of those inbetween races in all kinds of ways that does something very grandous and spectacular to the game: It makes it feel ALIVE, and EXCITING. It gives you food for thought and ponderings on how to deal with whatever you're up against, cause it's so dynamic and realistic in the way things are built.
bloomich Trotter's Independent Traders Co	Posted - 2007.11.13 13:40:00 - [645] Originally by: Cadela Fria {Sniped out lots of very important text] It makes it feel ALIVE, and EXCITING. It gives you food for thought and ponderings on how to deal with whatever you're up against, cause it's so dynamic and realistic in the way things are built. A Very good point. Your sandcastle analogy is perfect. However, is part of the sandcastle is broken, then you fix it. If the roof is leaking, you use a bucket to catch the water while it gets fixed, and live with it. The thing about Amarr, is that the roof has leaked for 3 years, and the bucket we have is the size of a teacup, and it is chipped. The floor is waterlogged and the only solution is to leave or move to one of the other 3 races. Then we see that is not a real solution at all. Utopia will never happen, we both know that, but what you can aim for is competitiveness. And Amarr, simply put, are uncompetitive and broken. But the reality is, and this has been proven time again both in real life and in eve, that the "live with it" attitude is for chumps who lack any sense of ambition. If your voice is not heard, then you do not exist and the issue is not an issue at all. However, this is different from the chumps who expect everthing to be handed to them on a plate. You see, if you can control something, then you should be responsible for it (e.g setting your own goals and making aplan to acheive these goals are possible). Amarr pilots cannot control how gimpeed their race is, they cannot transfer their skillpoints to another race, nor could CCP care less. Therefore Amarr pilots are training for other races or canceling their accounts. Oh and BTW, I actually uncancelled this account to make my voice heard on Amarr, so that should say something in itself. So in short, the usual eve argument of people not setting goals to fix the problems is very valid but does not have a place in this argument. Amarr pilots are unable to set themselves of a goal of having a competitive race, therefore these arguments wont work. The reason for this is that such changes are not within the sandbox. It is outside the sandbox. If someone urinates in the corner of the sandbox that contains the Amarr Sandcastle, there is nothing Amarr can do to stop the urination in-game. All they can do is ask out of the sandbox to urinate someware else. After all, a year ago, we were told Amarr was going to be look at. A year later, Tracking Disrupters get nerfed, Nos get nerfed and anything else that Amarr pilots had faith in got hit badly. --SIG-- I am aware that my name means reproductive organ in another language, I bought this char for isk with that name without relising that.
Queen Ba'Ku	Posted - 2007.11.13 13:51:00 - [646] Edited by: Queen Ba''Ku on 13/11/2007 13:51:43 Originally by: Saint Luka Originally by: Delphi Disra Honestly i'm counting down the days for a similar game too come out, they can take my subscription. Infinity - The Quest For Earth will be the one, and its looks awesome - really it does...
James Lyrus Lyrus Associates	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:02:00 - [647] Edited by: James Lyrus on 13/11/2007 19:02:44 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Tyr Zewa Originally by: CCP Zulupark There are some mods that need looking into, I know Nozh is making a list of stuff he wants to look at closely. I'll see if he's added those modules to it. You could try to setup a "mod review suggestion" thread. To keep it simple limit the format to something like Modulename: <what the issue is, max 250chars or so> Might be possible to get a decent list, if the thread is heavily moderated :P Or you could try setting one up yourself in the Game Development forum and see where it leads ;) Careful what you wish for :) http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=635989 -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP
EliteSlave Minmatar Tau Ceti Global Production Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.13 19:55:00 - [648] Originally by: CCP Zulupark 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 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. I want to also enlighten you on something... The Sleipnir can Change its Damage type, thus if it is hitting for low damage it can change to an Ammo for more damage. When the Abso cannot change its Damage Type.
Lady Trade	Posted - 2007.11.13 21:35:00 - [649] Originally by: Corphus will this mean that any other closerange bs like the pulse geddon, autotempest or blasterthron will from now on be vastly inferior to the raven tank and damage wise? Well my tests on SiSi told me yes. Even if we started within web range (my optimal) it was still damn tight. Once I died and the raven had 2% structure left and the second time he died and I had about 5% left. As soon as the raven starts moving or if we start at 20-30km then my t2 mega is toast vs. t2 raven. Best I can hope for is a tight win or if the raven is a total noob (which doesn't count). Currently the raven is a neutron mega with better tank, 30km optimal and doesn't use cap to fire. But on the other hand as soon as you are in a gang the raw DPS is not the only factor. We'll have to see how it pans out against all the different targets that you meet when you're out roaming but at least against all other ships of it's peer a t2 torp raven is gonna smack you imho.
SillyWaif Galactic Kingdom	Posted - 2007.11.13 23:20:00 - [650] Edited by: SillyWaif on 13/11/2007 23:21:37 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: F90OEX Nozh, just one question for you. Are the Torp changes on SISI Final or will they be adjusted again. Thanks .. They are final for Trinity release. OMG I just checked ... i go from 110 km reach to 24 km with torpedos! Really final ? Talking about lost training time!!! And there is no 'compensation' whatsoever :( Not even more damage, just an even bigger explosion radius. Really really disappointing... Talking about 'does someone want my stuff level'-disappointing
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 00:27:00 - [651] Originally by: SillyWaif Edited by: SillyWaif on 13/11/2007 23:21:37 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: F90OEX Nozh, just one question for you. Are the Torp changes on SISI Final or will they be adjusted again. Thanks .. They are final for Trinity release. OMG I just checked ... i go from 110 km reach to 24 km with torpedos! Really final ? Talking about lost training time!!! And there is no 'compensation' whatsoever :( Not even more damage, just an even bigger explosion radius. Really really disappointing... Talking about 'does someone want my stuff level'-disappointing You fire 25% faster, which means you do 33% more dps.
SillyWaif Galactic Kingdom	Posted - 2007.11.14 08:39:00 - [652] Originally by: Goumindong You fire 25% faster, which means you do 33% more dps. If i want a high rof i might as well use rockets Now torps will utterly useless to me. For example in L4 missions BC, BS and the like orbit at 35, 50 or more km. Torps wont reach those... Or when one warps into WC with the 2 factions behind the gates at about 110 km away. It means 10+ mins of slowboating just to get the torps in reach. The roughly 80% less distance nerf is just too much And if you consider torps as slow damage dealers you dont make them faster (in speed and rof) and kill the flight time.
bloomich Trotter's Independent Traders Co	Posted - 2007.11.14 08:45:00 - [653] Originally by: SillyWaif Originally by: Goumindong You fire 25% faster, which means you do 33% more dps. If i want a high rof i might as well use rockets Now torps will utterly useless to me. For example in L4 missions BC, BS and the like orbit at 35, 50 or more km. Torps wont reach those... Or when one warps into WC with the 2 factions behind the gates at about 110 km away. It means 10+ mins of slowboating just to get the torps in reach. The roughly 80% less distance nerf is just too much And if you consider torps as slow damage dealers you dont make them faster (in speed and rof) and kill the flight time. Then use cruise or jav toprs + velocity rigs etc. Cruise is faster than torps currently for speed running on a isk/hour basis. But torp changes are NOTHING compared to the nerfs Amarr are getting. E.G Sensor booster nerf, TD nerf etc and amarr lack mids to fit extra mods to make up for these nerfs while other races are more flexible in working around it. --SIG-- I am aware that my name means reproductive organ in another language, I bought this char for isk with that name without relising that.
Reem Fairchild Minmatar Military Industrial Research	Posted - 2007.11.14 08:47:00 - [654] Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 14/11/2007 08:48:11 Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 14/11/2007 08:47:38 Originally by: SillyWaif Originally by: Goumindong You fire 25% faster, which means you do 33% more dps. If i want a high rof i might as well use rockets Now torps will utterly useless to me. For example in L4 missions BC, BS and the like orbit at 35, 50 or more km. Torps wont reach those... Or when one warps into WC with the 2 factions behind the gates at about 110 km away. It means 10+ mins of slowboating just to get the torps in reach. The roughly 80% less distance nerf is just too much And if you consider torps as slow damage dealers you dont make them faster (in speed and rof) and kill the flight time. Move around, you lazy bastard. Or use cruise missiles instead. For people who actually play the game (that is, do pvp combat) this is a huge boost.
Herring Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.14 11:43:00 - [655] Originally by: Cadela Fria Edited by: Cadela Fria on 13/11/2007 13:16:11 I totally disagree...Total game balance is NOT utopia. See from my point of view this really comes down to the value of a sandbox environment, the freedom, the ingenuity, the ideas and so on. It's all great and fun that more space is added to the sandbox, and it's okay too if you board of holes in the sandbox. The problem comes along when you've built yourself a great, great sandcastle, you've chisled out the details, added water to stabilize it, and spent hours making it, maybe even a few days, and then the owner of the sandbox comes along and destroys the whole thing. He then tells you : "Oh I'm sorry, but you're building the wrong way, it's too effective and the new sandbuilders feel left out on how you did it..so from now on, when you build, it has to be within these boundaries. That means all the planning you put in, is useless now, you have to find a new way. That alright with you?" Does that sound like something that would make you smile, be happy and feel good? It doesn't to me anyway. This universe called EVE, is a big, HUGE universe with it's own life and creation. The amount of things that have been accomplished in this game through will, passion, teamwork, sneakiness, backstabbing, trust, determination and hard work, absolutely astonishes me everytime I sit down and think about it. It is the creation we have all made and built for ourselves the way we wanted it to be. And if there's something we don't like, we change it on our own. There will undoubtedly be those who say "But I'm only a 3 months old player, on my own, how the hell can I make a difference?? It's unfair!!". To you I say: Then you're not thinking big enough, or outside the box. You're the kind of person who want things done FOR YOU, so you don't have to put any effort in, or think for yourself for a change. You can do whatever you want to, if you really want to..you need money? go make some, theres plenty of ways. You need muscle? Go join a corp that has it. Your muscle are a bunch of lame ******s? Cope with it, do something about it, or find another corp. You want a ship? Do the work it takes to get it. The list goes on, and it's filled with simple answers that, unfortunately, too many people are unwilling to deal with, so they complain until it gets fixed or done for them in one manner or the other. My point? My point is that I've played this game for 3 years now, without a single break from the game. This is the ONE game, I've played for so long as I have, and I've been a gamer all my life ever since I sat down with my first weird machine I can't remember the name of, and played Ping Pong. I play this game, and have been playing this game as long as I have, because of the freedom I have in this game. The possibilities are endless if you really cared to think about it without trying to come up with a smart sounding reply. The game is likewise intelligent, and usually (note: USUALLY) genuine stupid people, are driven away from the game. The game itself might be rough around the edges, have imbalances, have oddities, but so does real life. No I won't compare, but it's the imbalances from completely useless, to the ultimate power in the universe and the imbalances of those inbetween races in all kinds of ways that does something very grandous and spectacular to the game: It makes it feel ALIVE, and EXCITING. It gives you food for thought and ponderings on how to deal with whatever you're up against, cause it's so dynamic and realistic in the way things are built. After you read this excellent and well thought out post, I'd like to ask you two questions: (1) What is being done to prevent 'epic expectations' (to quote a phrase coined by another player) requiring massive amounts of training time from being, as we see it as players, completely wasted when the role of a particular shipclass is radically changed? (cont) CCP - please stop with the nerfing and boost something already.*
Herring Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.14 11:46:00 - [656] (2) When is the development team, given the fact that no game is ever going to be completely balanced, going to realize that some irregularities and imbalances make for an interesting and exciting game (as stated by the poster above)? CCP - please stop with the nerfing and boost something already.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 12:26:00 - [657] I have another question if you folks might answer it: What is the balance teams thoughts on tiering? The last thing that was said on tiering when the new ships were introduced last year was "different not better" However, what we got was mainly "better, not necessarily different". Will ships ever be looked at such that tiering as less of an effect? Especially at the battlecruiser and below, whenever balancing issues are brought up you hear the "but they are a different tier" bull**** excuse. Heck, you even hear it for Battleships. Currently, with insurance, the difference in cost for different tiered ships is only significant on the battleship level and at that point you have the least difference in ship quality at that level[and it only really manifests itself for Amarr due to ship differences between the other races]. So i would like to know if anything is being looked at to make low tier cruisers, battlecruisers, frigates, and the like "different and not worse" Because currently they are just plain worse. And that is pretty stupid.
HarryManback Minmatar Gr0und Zer0	Posted - 2007.11.14 13:04:00 - [658] Originally by: CCP Fendahl Originally by: Kaylana Syi 2) The Vargur is not a good ship. It lacks powergrid. Please fix that ASAP. If you cannot fit a full rack of 1200 IIs on this ship without 2 fitting modules there is serious question as to why I would use this ship over a Maelstrom. The Marauder class characteristics do not make up for the lack of difference in this ship vs the Maelstrom. The marauders were designed to be short on powergrid in order to prevent them from becoming overpowered with close range nos/neut setups. The problem with the Vargur is the difference in power need between autocannons and artilleries and that autocannons do not lose all that much damage if you downgrade them. If the powergrid was increased it would become too easy to fit 3 heavy nosferatus / heavy energy neutralizers in the last 3 high slots. The Vargur can still fit 4 1200mm artilleries if you use power diagnostic systems in the lows. CCP you don't get it though. There is litterally no insentive to use this ship over a maelstrom.
JeanPierre Gallente The Scope	Posted - 2007.11.14 14:54:00 - [659] Originally by: Constance Noring I like how CCP operates: first they give people some cool overpowered pvp pwnboats, let them train all the skills, then bam out of nowhere comes the nerfbat. It's the best kind of griefing. I think this is what really gets under a lot of people's skins. Not disagreeing (or agreeing) with any of the changes mentioned here. Does it bother me that alliances will have to reduce territory? No. It's always been way too easy to claim entire galaxies of stars and maintain them logistically without too much effort (yes, this is my main, yes I've been in major alliances, thanks). Ok, fine. But still, c'mon, lots of people have spent a lot of time training and using things in game as they are designed, then wammo, all for naught (or mostly for naught). And the net effect on the "problems" will still amount to nothing with this change. A month's lag time to get trained, maybe a month and a half, then the major alliances have the new ships. Time which will be accounted for by surplus storing of POS fuel, then back to business as usual with the new shiny toy. An ISK sink, plain and simple, with no net end effect that actually addresses the "problems" currently being put forth as needing solved. I get a very strong impression that the game devs or producers spend very little real time in the game. Yes, I know some play, but apparently not enough to realize what effects the ships they introduce in a game will have in the long run. They may test code, but any person who has spent any time even looking at a carrier's stats can easily discover the neat idea of "hey, we can use this to haul POS fuel instantly with little to no risk". If you play the game with a carrier in an alliance "sandbox" setting, as the devs should be doing before releasing new items in game, they'd quickly come to invent the same neat ways of using things that players do. This "never intended to be used" actually tells me "we designed from a list of requirements without knowing how the end product would be utilized by the end user because we never tested as an end user ourselves". That's a bogus way to develop. When we develop an application (in case it isn't obvious, I'm a lead developer for a rather major company), we do both unit and regression testing, as is normal, then we use the application to determine if anybody can do things "not as intended" and fix those things before we release the application. While you certainly won't catch everything in the "we don't intend" category doing this, you will catch the obvious ones. Like, say...carriers being used a jump haulers. All in all I think a lot of these kinds of issues (regressive ham fisted nerfs to fix "problems" that were specifically built into the code to occur) could be fixed if the devs had a development sandbox (not Sisi) of their very own that they actually sat down and played the game at in-shop, before even breathing a word about releasing a new ship/module to the public. Or hell, play the game here. Can't hurt right? As to the actual changes, I agree, carriers != haulers. But you designed them that way, and let that design stick for a long time. Your solution seems to me to be a year too late and ten degrees too drastic. How would I have solved it? Dunno honestly, maybe do a few "never intended to be used this way" tests and product evaluations before letting the end users even know we were thinking about it. Hard to say. Hire me and I'll come up with a better plan. Just my thoughts. ------------------------------ Ever notice that people who spend money on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets are always complaining about being broke and not feeling well?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:14:00 - [660] Originally by: HarryManback Originally by: CCP Fendahl Originally by: Kaylana Syi 2) The Vargur is not a good ship. It lacks powergrid. Please fix that ASAP. If you cannot fit a full rack of 1200 IIs on this ship without 2 fitting modules there is serious question as to why I would use this ship over a Maelstrom. The Marauder class characteristics do not make up for the lack of difference in this ship vs the Maelstrom. The marauders were designed to be short on powergrid in order to prevent them from becoming overpowered with close range nos/neut setups. The problem with the Vargur is the difference in power need between autocannons and artilleries and that autocannons do not lose all that much damage if you downgrade them. If the powergrid was increased it would become too easy to fit 3 heavy nosferatus / heavy energy neutralizers in the last 3 high slots. The Vargur can still fit 4 1200mm artilleries if you use power diagnostic systems in the lows. CCP you don't get it though. There is litterally no insentive to use this ship over a maelstrom. Yes there is. Tracking + falloff boosts mean that in most mission encounters it does more dps. Heck, it just plain does more dps with autocannons.
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:37:00 - [661] Problem: Logistics and keeping POS running in deep 0.0 Problem: Game benefits attacking and actually leaves you nothing really to defend Problem: POS warfare is boring One idea to solve this: Make POS starbases more self sufficient, have expandable abilities and give people more things to attack. 1. Harvesters i) give them a much shorter cycle of 10 minutes (with similar efficiency for moons) ii) each cycle have the harvesters send out destroyable harvester drones to near Moons (collect raws), or to belts (collects minerals or ice), selectable by the owner. This means the owner can focus on self sufficiency (ice, low end minerals) or try to profit (raws, high ends) iii) place the harvesters outside of POS forcefields making them also targets for dreads. PRO: This gives a REAL opportunity for smaller forcess to attack the logistics of large alliances empires either by destroying their harvester drones, their harvester structures or the POS itself with the usual capital blobbing. PROS: This gives people's corps and alliances a reason to build up 0.0, something to defend in 0.0, something else to attack/raid other than afk ratters/miners and gives corps the ability to become more subsistant (at least for ice, trit). CONS: Ice mining would also need to be looked at to buff/modify it greatly to compensate. Sure this introduces a new farming in 0.0, but it also gives the ability to raze your opponents fields to dust. - Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint! Please read my ideas
Hydrogen Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.14 15:38:00 - [662] Edited by: Hydrogen on 14/11/2007 15:45:13 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: Cailais Noooooo! what about the pilgrim!!!! /me sobs C. OK, really last reply here: I fly the Curse and the Pilgrim myself. I think the Curse is a damn fine PVP ship (I'd show you some pretty cool killmails if I could). The Pilgrim however might need some loving, especially in regards to the range it's doomed to fight at. But on the other hand, you have to realize that all the similar recons for the other races (falcon, arazu and rapier) have next to no damage output and are pretty useless solo. Pilgrim still does its role in small gangs / fleets. I completly disagree here. Sorry, but in all due respect - if you are serious then click the link in my signature and go out to proove each point wrong. 1. the Curse is not fine at all. The only thing worth it is the Nano-Curse and it doesnt even excel there. 2. the Pilgrim is plain broken. There is nothing a Pilgrim can do, which another ship can't do better or similarly effective. Plain nothing. Cyno field - why risk a Pilgrim, when you can take a Kestrel??? Cloaked hunter - you sure do not hunt in 0.0 alone with your alt and encountered the isnta-logoffskis or SS-cloakers?? Recon - you apparently never flew a Covert Ops and encountered the difference in survivability in escaping gate camps of Pilgrim vs Cov Ops? Cool kill mail? It is no problem whatsoever to score nice killmails versus inadequate or inexperienced players. Almost any ship can do that! Want to see cool kill mails? Look at the Helios of doom - no kidding here, but serious... Your answer is imho inadequate. If I am wrong, then please go out and proove it and I gladly admit that I got no clue about EvE. The link is right below this signature. __ - click here -
bobtheminer Damned Legion	Posted - 2007.11.14 19:47:00 - [663] hey nozh sure your busy with balancing etc, but is their any sight of that lovely blog we were promised at the start of this moster of a thread
Wolf 10 Purgers	Posted - 2007.11.14 20:14:00 - [664] To be honest I have hated every major change CCP has made to Eve ever since I started playing, but in the back of my mind I guess I felt that it was needed even though some of the nurfs may have weekend my favorite ship I knew they were a bit over powering or whatever. But for this particular patch I don't feel the same. As Rells said, I don't see the need for the change.
Alex Langhans Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.14 20:20:00 - [665] Originally by: Delphi Disra agreed.... anyone remember star wars galaxys? I fear eve may go the same way... NOOOOOOOO! I dont think its going that far. They really messed up the skills in SWG. The freeform ability to pick and choose is totally ingrained into EVE. Changing how the ships operate is tricky ground. But they can always change it back i suppose.
Toku Jiang Jiang Laboratories and Discovery	Posted - 2007.11.14 22:06:00 - [666] Edited by: Toku Jiang on 14/11/2007 22:15:48 Originally by: CCP Nozh 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). This sucks and the recent changes CCP is implementing sucks. You are creating a giant time sink (freighter runs) inside of an already enormous and gigantic time sink, EVE itself. We will all spend our time running freighters around instead of playing the game and enjoying the game. Your jump freighter still sucks, I don't care how you try to justify its existence, I don't which one of you twits at CCP designed it. It is poorly implemented, it has terrible bonuses, it can die an in instant, and it will cost 4-5 billion isk to attain it. The carriers are hard enough to get into and take months of training. The whole thing is this, you are doing what every other MMO in existence has done. You created something, and now people aren't using it how you had envisioned its use. Now you are changing how it works to suit yourself, not the players. You should at the very least give people their skill points back to be used in other areas if you are going to gimp the carriers and allow this abortion called a jump freighter in the game. Oh and by the way, your dev blog sucks about carriers. It takes 10 months of training to even sit in one, let alone fight with it effectively. Who asked you to change the ship anyway, I can't recall a single post by the community asking for changes to carriers.
Kenneth McCoy Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.14 23:13:00 - [667] Originally by: Toku Jiang Edited by: Toku Jiang on 14/11/2007 22:20:48 Edited by: Toku Jiang on 14/11/2007 22:15:48 Originally by: CCP Nozh 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). This sucks and the recent changes CCP is implementing sucks. You are creating a giant time sink (freighter runs) inside of an already enormous and gigantic time sink, EVE itself. We will all spend our time running freighters around instead of playing the game and enjoying the game. Your jump freighter still sucks, I don't care how you try to justify its existence, I don't know which one of you twits at CCP designed it. It is poorly implemented, it has terrible bonuses, it can die an in instant, and it will cost 4-5 billion isk to attain it. The carriers are hard enough to get into and take months of training. The whole thing is this, you are doing what every other MMO in existence has done. You created something, and now people aren't using it how you had envisioned its use. Now you are changing how it works to suit yourself, not the players, and in the process screwing them over, especially the ones who have trained for months. You should at the very least give people their skill points back to be used in other areas if you are going to gimp the carriers and allow this abortion called a jump freighter in the game. Oh and by the way, your dev blog sucks about carriers. It takes 10 months of training to even sit in one, let alone fight with it effectively. Who asked you to change the ship anyway, I can't recall a single post by the community asking for changes to carriers. Why don't you just cry about it some more? Can I have your stuff when you finally unbunch your panties long enough to leave? My opinions and views are not the official views of my Corp.
skipper johnson The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.15 00:19:00 - [668] QUESTION: Could you please explain why using the carrier "as not intended" needs to be fixed? What are you trying to achieve by removing this use from the ship? I've read every single post in this thread, and I still am not entirely convinced of your reasoning other than you want to make pos fueling harder work for alliances. I'm loving this thread. I love seeing a bit of an insight into what CCP are thinking, However...I'm getting a bit of a sinking feeling... As per the past few posts, its the culture of MMORPG's that I do not like. The devs(CCP) make a game with certain mechanics and attributes. The players, having many more of them and many more hours than the devs could put into it, come up with all sorts of ingenious ideas and different "exploits" to use things as they were "not intended" to be used. Solution? Devs NERF the F### out of everything. Player response? Find more ingenious ideas. Devs respond again - Nerf the F$#@# out of everything.. until we have a very watered down version of what was a very good idea... Am I the only one who sometimes wishes for an Eve Reset back to 2004 or 2005? I HATE THAT THE DEVS THINK THEY HAVE TO FIX EVERYTHING WHEN PEOPLE USE THEM AS "NOT INTENDED." It makes me feel physically ILL to think about it (I'm not being sarcastic here... I REALLY FEEL ILL !!!) Here's a thought. If us humans weren't so ingenious to find different ways of using things, we'd still be living in caves, without fires, without tools, no clothing, being chased by tigers, lions etc. I mean this in the nicest possible way, but CCP YOUR ATTITUDE THAT YOU HAVE TO "FIX" EVERYTHING EVERYTIME SOMEONE USES IT AS "NOT INTENDED" IS WRONG! I get that there needs to be balance, but we'd like some rather considerable communication before hand. For some background, I played Project Entropia/Entropia Universe for 3 years. I saw the same sh#t happen there. The difference with that game was you used real money to buy stuff, and so I spent over $5000 of REAL MONEY skilling up and buying stuff, only to have it Nerfed time and time again, and have all my fun stolen from me, which is probably why I get so emotional about Eve, because although I'm not spending as much, I do play 4 accounts, and it IS a considerable TIME investment if not only money, so when you start making changes that affect my fun, I may get a little tense. BTW, I don't fly a carrier or an Eos, and so I don't have any specific problems with the said changes other than now I might have to be involved in corp ops hauling fuel 50 jumps for carriers(or perhaps mods and fittings), for wars or pos fueling. Its the general attitude that worries me here. They're having too much fun, set Nerftaser on kill. Btw, I fly pretty much all races, and I enjoy Amarr ships, except for the zealot - PLEASE PRETTY PLEASE FIX THIS SHIP. There is no reason to use it!
Rhaegor Stormborn Pestilent Industries Amalgamated The Volition Cult	Posted - 2007.11.15 01:19:00 - [669] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Necrologic 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. Something like this would be key to really providing any sort of viable defensive play options. The nature of eve as a space game starts it off at a significant disadvantage with defensive aspects compared to a "people on foot" game in terms of the "meatshield" factor that lets you physically keep attackers away from your vulnerable targets. It's even worse with no real LOS being implemented, so you can't even have your tanks physically dive in front of projectile attacks to protect the weaker elements. The thing is that adding either of these elements wouldn't really fit with eve (space is just too big to form a meatshield wall and LOS in general would be a real pain with the limited navigational controls we have). At the moment there's no real way of forcing attackers to engage your combat ships instead of the weaker industrial targets they are escorting. These weaker targets also generally do not have enough HP or resistances to be remote repped effectively when under any sort of group fire. Thus, the only defensive option becomes running away, with any military resistance being in the form of a counter-attack rather than a real defensive operation. This consequently means that simply having a presence in an enemy system is enough to disrupt their industrial operations, wheras it should really depend on their ability to actually overcome the defensive escort. The only way round this is to either prevent the attackers from choosing the guarded ships as targets, or forcing the damage to be applied to the guarding ships regardless of who in the formation was actually shot. Clearly there would need to be limits to prevent abuse (50 barges being "defended" by one drake just to give the barges time to warp out, for example), so there would probably have to be some sort of points system to balance how big an escort could be considered an effective defence for a given ship(s). This would also prevent it being used as another form of spider tanking, as you could only focus the protection on a small part of the total group. You'd also need things like the requirement of everyone in the formation to be in the same grid etc so no safespotted tanking gang. Clearly there would be a lot of undesirable cases to identify and deal with, but that's true of any new concept. I certainly think it's worth looking at though. I don't like the idea of just spreading any incoming damage with the defense formation or gang escorting. Some sort of Line of Sight or a Focused Fire nerf would be what I would consider, but yes, I totally agree with your post that this is something that I would like to see change in Eve. Rhaegor Stormborn Fleet Admiral - Pestilent Industries Amalgamated [PIA] Recruitment Thread
Kelbesque Crystalis Minmatar Eve University	Posted - 2007.11.15 01:22:00 - [670] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: HarryManback Originally by: CCP Fendahl Originally by: Kaylana Syi 2) The Vargur is not a good ship. It lacks powergrid. Please fix that ASAP. If you cannot fit a full rack of 1200 IIs on this ship without 2 fitting modules there is serious question as to why I would use this ship over a Maelstrom. The Marauder class characteristics do not make up for the lack of difference in this ship vs the Maelstrom. The marauders were designed to be short on powergrid in order to prevent them from becoming overpowered with close range nos/neut setups. The problem with the Vargur is the difference in power need between autocannons and artilleries and that autocannons do not lose all that much damage if you downgrade them. If the powergrid was increased it would become too easy to fit 3 heavy nosferatus / heavy energy neutralizers in the last 3 high slots. The Vargur can still fit 4 1200mm artilleries if you use power diagnostic systems in the lows. CCP you don't get it though. There is litterally no insentive to use this ship over a maelstrom. Yes there is. Tracking + falloff boosts mean that in most mission encounters it does more dps. Heck, it just plain does more dps with autocannons. Except I just lost optimal and tracking because I had to drop 2 Tracking enhancers to fit my guns. And I still can't fit T2 guns, and AB, a XL booster, and a cap booster even with 2x RCUII's, which I can do on a Maelstrom with no fitting mods, and less fitting skills. Fitting with only PDS in the lows would mean you'd have to start scrapping even more lows since 2x will not cut it. That usually means less gyros and less DPS.
Jerusalem Eve Amarr Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2007.11.15 07:10:00 - [671] It would have been nice if he actually talked about his reasoning for this instead of burying it on a different topic. Originally by: SillyWaif Edited by: SillyWaif on 13/11/2007 23:21:37 Originally by: CCP Zulupark Originally by: F90OEX Nozh, just one question for you. Are the Torp changes on SISI Final or will they be adjusted again. Thanks .. They are final for Trinity release. OMG I just checked ... i go from 110 km reach to 24 km with torpedos! Really final ? Talking about lost training time!!! And there is no 'compensation' whatsoever :( Not even more damage, just an even bigger explosion radius. Really really disappointing... Talking about 'does someone want my stuff level'-disappointing
Hydrogen Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.15 12:27:00 - [672] Originally by: Hydrogen I completly disagree here. Sorry, but in all due respect - if you are serious then click the link in my signature and go out to proove each point wrong. 1. the Curse is not fine at all. The only thing worth it is the Nano-Curse and it doesnt even excel there. 2. the Pilgrim is plain broken. There is nothing a Pilgrim can do, which another ship can't do better or similarly effective. Plain nothing. Cyno field - why risk a Pilgrim, when you can take a Kestrel??? Cloaked hunter - you sure do not hunt in 0.0 alone with your alt and encountered the isnta-logoffskis or SS-cloakers?? Recon - you apparently never flew a Covert Ops and encountered the difference in survivability in escaping gate camps of Pilgrim vs Cov Ops? Cool kill mail? It is no problem whatsoever to score nice killmails versus inadequate or inexperienced players. Almost any ship can do that! Want to see cool kill mails? Look at the Helios of doom - no kidding here, but serious... Your answer is imho inadequate. If I am wrong, then please go out and proove it and I gladly admit that I got no clue about EvE. The link is right below this signature. Somehow CCP answers suddenly cease, when players bring valid arguments to the table... __ - click here -
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.15 13:06:00 - [673] Originally by: Kelbesque Crystalis Except I just lost optimal and tracking because I had to drop 2 Tracking enhancers to fit my guns. And I still can't fit T2 guns, and AB, a XL booster, and a cap booster even with 2x RCUII's, which I can do on a Maelstrom with no fitting mods, and less fitting skills. Fitting with only PDS in the lows would mean you'd have to start scrapping even more lows since 2x will not cut it. That usually means less gyros and less DPS. Autocannons
Doddy Omega Fleet Enterprises Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2007.11.15 14:00:00 - [674] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Matrixcvd Originally by: CCP Nozh Our goal is to make EVE better, more balanced and more fun for everyone. By making it worse, more difficult, ridiculous for the majority of people who have spent a long time trying to work out the complex mechanics?... Yeah it's really complex to fit a carrier. I lolled
Kelbesque Crystalis Minmatar Eve University	Posted - 2007.11.15 16:46:00 - [675] Edited by: Kelbesque Crystalis on 15/11/2007 16:46:37 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Kelbesque Crystalis Except I just lost optimal and tracking because I had to drop 2 Tracking enhancers to fit my guns. And I still can't fit T2 guns, and AB, a XL booster, and a cap booster even with 2x RCUII's, which I can do on a Maelstrom with no fitting mods, and less fitting skills. Fitting with only PDS in the lows would mean you'd have to start scrapping even more lows since 2x will not cut it. That usually means less gyros and less DPS. Autocannons No one has argued that the Vargur is a bad ship for auto cannons. There is no reason an arty user would use the it over a Maelstrom. The Maelstrom has that flexibility it fitting that the Vargur does not. The PDS argument above was for 1200mm, not AC's. The other turret boats can fit their long range weapon systems, but the Vargur can not.
Agif Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.16 02:09:00 - [676] CCP nerf carrier as a 0.0 Hauler I applaud you CCP for being ********. Nuff said. /Agif
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.16 09:57:00 - [677] Originally by: Kelbesque Crystalis No one has argued that the Vargur is a bad ship for auto cannons. There is no reason an arty user would use the it over a Maelstrom. The Maelstrom has that flexibility it fitting that the Vargur does not. The PDS argument above was for 1200mm, not AC's. The other turret boats can fit their long range weapon systems, but the Vargur can not. Edit: using d450 or d650 "bullet hose" AC's also defeats the point of making the Vargur a ship that doesn't need to dock as often. The post you were replying to was responding with the fact that the bonuses present means it does more dps at most applicable ranges than the Maelstorm. And that means autocannons. That isnt to say it shouldnt be able to fit 1200s, but it is a better mission boat no matter how you look at it. As for "bullet hose" comments Autocannons dont use more ammo than other weapons anymore. In fact d450's with an ROF bonus still shoot slower than Electron blasters. And d650s only slightly faster than Ions.
Ottman	Posted - 2007.11.16 11:35:00 - [678] i dont read 24 pages of topics, i would get even more ill minded as i already are :P but to come straight to the point, the carrier nerf together with an alternative that isnt one could damage eve down to its bones. well the great alliances that have sov will not get affected by that changes really, they have their jump bridges and can simply say ** off and i dont care and call other who are really getting **** by these changes whiner. but what about those who live in places in eve where is no sov available and who need a capital with cargo space and capable of doing jumps ? those ppl are effected by the carrier nerf and then by a presentation of a jump freighter that shows a nice ship for sure, but unpayable for smaller corps that were able to buy a carrier and do their freight logistics with that ship. i cant say what kind of impact it will has when ppl loose their abilities to run pos, and i cant say how many subscribers will quit then, and i can only hope the effect on eve economy will not be a catastrophe. but there is a simple way to prevent that, just redesign the jump freighter, i have some thoughts about that basing on that what i have seen til now : 1.) jump freighter should not be t2 freighter, it should be an own ship class, and its a t1 ship, that makes it possible to use t1 capital components and will reduce the costs to produce a jump freighter and should keep price for a jump freighter about 1,5-2 billion isk, thats a realistic price, a rorqual is not cheaper, a carrier also not, but both are also no t2 ships, that should give you the decent hint 2.)well the cargo space, it should be with cross boni from freighter and jump freighter skill around 350 k m¦, just to give the jump freighter the useful edge above the rorqual. 3.)jump range, its okay when the base jump range is 5 lj, but maybe some boni over jump drive related skills and jump freighter skill level ? 4.) make invention easier and faster , also to reduce costs, that would help alot. all i all, ppl who runs pos buisness wants at first cargo space that can jump, if we would need any kind of big resistances we have done something very wrong, most carrier pilots dock immeate at next npc station after jumping, so please ccp guys, like americans were following the kiss principe in ww2, "keep it simple stupid" the jump freighter should be a t1 ship, and cost effective to produce so that the selling price should be around 2 billion isk, maybe 3-4 when its new and rare. and not the 12-15 billion isk that is the current jump freighter you showed us >><< MfG ottman
Velas Opium	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:21:00 - [679] CCP I have lost all faith in you, I think you are idiots and I hate you for what you are doing to the game. 'Nerf everything as if there's no tommorow'. This seems to be a recurrent policy. You are taking all the fun in eve out of it by attempting to 'balance' things. Your perception of what is overpowered and underpowered is warped behond comprehension. Carrier nerf. Why? Nobody has ever moaned that carriers are 'too useful'. Eve was a much more fun, interesting game in the Second Genesis.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:25:00 - [680] Edited by: Grimpak on 16/11/2007 16:26:10 double post --- planetary interaction idea!
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.16 16:26:00 - [681] Originally by: Goumindong Autocannons dont use more ammo than other weapons anymore. In fact d450's with an ROF bonus still shoot slower than Electron blasters. And d650s only slightly faster than Ions. what? since when? I loved the uzi style of the D425's --- planetary interaction idea!
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.16 17:47:00 - [682] Originally by: Grimpak Originally by: Goumindong Autocannons dont use more ammo than other weapons anymore. In fact d450's with an ROF bonus still shoot slower than Electron blasters. And d650s only slightly faster than Ions. what? since when? I loved the uzi style of the D425's Since the Tier 3 battleships/Tier 2 Battlecruisers went in, so about a year now[same time as the hit point boost]. All autocannons got a damage increase and ROF increase so that they did the same dps but used less ammo.
WAEWAE lol	Posted - 2007.11.16 23:37:00 - [683]
Voin Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2007.11.17 10:40:00 - [684] Curious if some of DEV's get paid by other on-line game office to make ruin a game... Wish, those heathead had a nerf bat in somethere they won't to have it... even IRL to feel how it can hurt... CCP get ready for reimburs, cause some missionrunner 'll not turn to PVP with Torpedos they have... Me bougth 1 mil different Javelins by price 1200-2000 per each, as well I spent LP and money for Caldary Torpedo's... Be sure to return all those Torpedos you did useless for the mission to use... Yes, I can fly lvl 4 mission's on Cerberus, Drake or Nighthawk, but I'll not funcy to loose 2bil ISK, just, cause you decided to remove Torpedos off the mission runners... Atleast, you'll remake range of all NPC's to be at the distance less then 30 km... Personally I don't like to fly far and warping to 0 km for last 1.5 year... And last, I would like to see statistic after new big ruin pack about how many subscribers left a game... p.s. lost my interest to play, and didn't play 3 weeks + so far... And I'm not alone... p.s.s. in my eye CCP are not trustable anymore they created best game but they play big game with subscribers as well... p.s.s.s. 2 those pilots (PvP or PvE) who wasn't touch by this nerf - don't be sure in the future CCP 'll not hurt you as well... to whom who want to call me a whiner... whatever - i don't give a $hit... :-) !!!My little friend (be aware)!!!
Liam Liam	Posted - 2007.11.17 12:00:00 - [685] One nerf leads to another nerf. Eve is a complex game. The problem is reducing the effectiveness of one module/ skill / ship /strategy usually imbalances another two or three leading to an ever increasing cycle of nerfs in the name of balance. Most so called unbalanced modules / skills /ships/ startegies can be countered by other modules/ skills / ships or strategies. The real problem is the previous nerfs and new content like heat and need for speed have imbalanced the game to the extent that the only way to fix it is to remove them. They can't and won't admit this. So they will change everything else in a vain attempt to find stability.
NoobALTS	Posted - 2007.11.17 13:39:00 - [686] Originally by: Liam Liam One nerf leads to another nerf. Eve is a complex game. The problem is reducing the effectiveness of one module/ skill / ship /strategy usually imbalances another two or three leading to an ever increasing cycle of nerfs in the name of balance. Most so called unbalanced modules / skills /ships/ startegies can be countered by other modules/ skills / ships or strategies. The real problem is the previous nerfs and new content like heat and need for speed have imbalanced the game to the extent that the only way to fix it is to remove them. They can't and won't admit this. So they will change everything else in a vain attempt to find stability. That is partially true. Some of the biggist imbalances, were caused by prenerfing a new feature and then to fix the imbalace, nerf other things. I.E insted of solving the problem, just shoot the messanger. Example of this is EAMN issue for Amarr race. introduce Prenerfed compensation skills that effect passive and not active harders. Suddenly CCP wonder why people switch to EAMN's insted of active, and nerf EAMN's insted of fixing the whiole issue by boosting compensation skills to effect active hardners. Oh well.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.17 14:11:00 - [687] Comp skills boosting passive hardeners would have other, more widespread effects, and would probably single handedly break current balance as we know it.
Ottman	Posted - 2007.11.17 17:07:00 - [688] well there will be a pos dying in 0.0 space where is no sov available, just out of the prenerf that jump freighter is a t2 freighter make it impossible for much ppl to afford them to keep their pos running. these ppl are often just doing moon mining with their pos, and provide eve market with moon minerals and simple reactions on affordable niveau. one simple solution would be making jump freighter an own capital ship class, and a t1 capital ship. but can happen that ccp guys dont want that. another solution would be a heavy industrial ship as i read somewhere else. well another idea i had then would be a jump drive module that can be fitted on t1 industrials and transport ships, as last option that there is any possibility to do stuff when everything else is not doable. thinkable is also a kind of jump drive module for the heavy industrial ship class too. there are ideas enough, of course gankers scream against that because they are licking already all ten fingers to grab convoys flying from empire to .0 space. but that cant be an argument, we have the right to have freight logistic over ships that can jump, thats it. MfG ottman
SiJira	Posted - 2007.11.18 00:00:00 - [689] you whine too much people ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Velas Opium	Posted - 2007.11.18 02:23:00 - [690] blizzard are paying off certain ccp devs to make eve ****
Mithrantir Ob'lontra Gallente Ixion Defence Systems The Cyrene Initiative	Posted - 2007.11.18 02:40:00 - [691] Originally by: Velas Opium blizzard are paying off certain ccp devs to make eve **** Since you are unwilling to read the whole thread and see what the Devs are saying, while in the same time emerge from your own little world and see (and comprehend) the bigger picture, i assume you will quit. So can i have your stuff? Contract them to me ------- Nobody can be exactly like me. Even I have trouble doing it.
Ottman	Posted - 2007.11.18 03:54:00 - [692] i wont quit, many other ppl maybe do, and they dont will hand over their stuff, just erase their character with all the stuff, try that somewhere else MfG ottman
Original Copy	Posted - 2007.11.18 04:53:00 - [693] Yeah. Screwing logistics and grinding our nose in the stinky pile someone left in the corner saying "Bad, bad, you MUST use 20 billion ISK jump freighter to fuel your POS!!! Nothing else is allowed!" CCP is wonderful for f'ing people a year after they've learned how best to use a thing. I just wish they'd fix invention (mech eng), normalize ammo invention, and get rid of the idiot nerfs on T2 ammo!!! that makes it utterly pointless in comparison to faction ammo. Example: Med Projectile V & Faction guns (425mm auto) & Faction EMP vs Med Autocannon Spec IV & T2 425mm auto) & Hail Hail beats faction by only 11 DPS. No nerf to faction boat. Hail boat can't recharge. Nerf faction, or un-nerf T2 to make it useful. (Knowing CCP, they'll nerf before they 'repair' something they broke (unless it negatively affects people who have trained up to use the 'broken' item... i.e. carriers, NOS, EW other than ECM). Yadda, yadda bullsh*t.
SiJira	Posted - 2007.11.18 20:11:00 - [694] Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra Originally by: Velas Opium blizzard are paying off certain ccp devs to make eve **** Since you are unwilling to read the whole thread and see what the Devs are saying, while in the same time emerge from your own little world and see (and comprehend) the bigger picture, i assume you will quit. So can i have your stuff? Contract them to me cant you afford newbships on your own? ____ __ ________ _sig below_ devs and gms cant modify my sig if they tried! _lies above_ CCP Morpheus was here Morpheus Fails. You need colors!! -Kaemonn [yellow]Kaem
Agif Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.18 20:50:00 - [695] Originally by: Elendar Supply convoys should be vulnerable and be forced to actually move through space, not untouchable jump boats. Personally i'd prefer it if they removed jump logistics altogether. Its a game, adapt to the new meta rather than crying about the loss of the old one contradiction as you say stop whining but you started ur comment with a whine? I am surrounded by .......
Agif Templar Republic R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.18 21:01:00 - [696] Originally by: CCP Nozh Originally by: Semkhet People log in EvE to have fun. Logistics are a pain in the ass. You should think twice before altering the balance between fun & boredom. Your customers aren't all kiddies paying the subs with daddy's CC. Yeah but too easy logistics are also a pain in the ass. We've been making logistics a lot easier with "jump bridges" and the POS fueling change, the hauling carriers were over the top. LOL hauling carriers are over the top and its taken how long for you to realize you think you made a mistake. Well guess what you are over the top with your nerf bat and TBH id petition for you to get the sack along with your so called "BALANCING TEAM" Dont nerf the carrier its stupid and bring back NOS and stop this stupid nerf with the Myrm and ...... u seeing a pattern in all these posts???? We all ask you to fix things but we get no results or we get hot fix's.... Concentrate on lagg i mean seriously put some thought into that and stop fraking this game up and making it more worse than its getting. + Id love to know where you get these stupid ideas for nerfing from i mean what bunch o idiots decided it would be beneficial to the players to do this? I mean this is what were talking about right, making the game better for us not p1ssing everyone off. So where did this nerf come from as clearly we dont want it!
shinsushi	Posted - 2007.11.19 01:58:00 - [697] Originally by: Goumindong Comp skills boosting passive hardeners would have other, more widespread effects, and would probably single handedly break current balance as we know it. What balance? We have Speed > bubbles > everything. The counter to speed? two recons and faction toys..... The counter to bubbles? A smartbomb if you are right on top of the bubble..... We have a capless/worry free 30km range vessel about to completely annihilate blaster boats...... Ships that don't use cap to fire have nearly identical capacitor profiles as those that do..... everything else is upside down and inside out. This isn't balance, this is madness.... An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.
skipper johnson The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:35:00 - [698] So I see all the whining killed this thread, and thats a pity because I felt we were really getting somewhere (I know I was moaning a bit, but at least I tried to put it in a constructive manner). One question weighing heavily on my mind is... Why slow down interdictors? I'd really like to hear CCP's reasoning behind this.
eyesinthesky	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:11:00 - [699] Here's an idea, lets nerf shuttles and nood ships!
skipper johnson The Arrow Project Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.22 18:32:00 - [700] Bumpage: And I'll repeat my question for CCP. WHY do you want to slow down interdictors?

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