EVE Search - New Fendahl Dev Blog, ARM Scripts and Bandwidth

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Fendahl Dev Blog, ARM Scripts and Bandwidth

» 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 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)

CCP kieron	Posted - 2007.11.20 01:29:00 - [1] A variety of features, changes and new content is coming with the forthcoming EVE: Trinity expansion slated for deployment SoonÖ. Among the new features are two items known as ARM Scripts and Bandwidth, tools that will allow players more flexibility when using certain modules and drones. While the list of ARM Scripts is nowhere near as comprehensive as we like (more will be added in future patches), the drone changes should offer pilots more flexibility in the selection of their 'little friends'. [/Scarface] Click the link and head on over to Attribute Reassignment Modifier Scripts and Bandwidth. kieron Director of Community Relations, EVE Online EVE Online, CCP Games Email/Netfang Look ma, I'm in a Dev thread! Oh wait...

Tek'a Rain Gallente Isis Technologies	Posted - 2007.11.20 01:32:00 - [2] Edited by: Tek''a Rain on 20/11/2007 01:32:06 linky working properly? edit: fixed, Whoohoo! and First!
TheSystem Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.20 01:32:00 - [3] Edited by: TheSystem on 20/11/2007 01:33:20 Wow! I'm actually on the first page of one of these, haha. Second Nice dev blog CCP. Cool stuff ahead.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2007.11.20 01:52:00 - [4] Clearly tracking disruptors needed a nerf. They were widely used and the curse and pilgrim are known for knocking turret ships out of combat even with a single td. Next should be target painters. They also very much need a nerf, dont you think?
Zhulik Abyss Restless Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.11.20 01:53:00 - [5] My heart is overflowing with joy!
N1fty Amarr Galactic Shipyards Inc HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2007.11.20 01:53:00 - [6] Edited by: N1fty on 20/11/2007 01:53:34 Jeez, tell us something we didn't already know I like the drone changes, 5 Heavy drones being used by anything but a battleship is just wrong. Script change is an interesting one, we knew about it for ages though thanks to the test server. I think combat isn't long enough to have yet another layer of complexity added, but having said that, I don't know what other changes are coming which will aid in changing all these different ammotypes. Module grouping perhaps? Can we get a blog on that one? ============================================
Chruker	Posted - 2007.11.20 02:35:00 - [7] Script thingies: meh Drone bandwidth: double meh ----- http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online ----- Top wishes: - No daily downtime - Faster training on sisi - Speedup IGB table rendering
TheSystem Caldari The Blackstone Group Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.20 02:41:00 - [8] Edited by: TheSystem on 20/11/2007 02:41:03 Originally by: N1fty 5 Heavy drones being used by anything but a battleship is just wrong. UHH ISHTAR CAN STAY. TYVM.
Led Thespo	Posted - 2007.11.20 02:47:00 - [9] Edited by: Led Thespo on 20/11/2007 02:47:48 Edited by: Led Thespo on 20/11/2007 02:47:27 Edited by: Led Thespo on 20/11/2007 02:47:02 Drone bandwith, and you just don't have any other choice but to rush for a BS that can handle 5 drones, or play CAL-rocket-madness-DARI. Gallente has nice, beautiful ships, hence I love them, but if someone pops them, they won't be nice looking anymore. And 75Mbit/s?? Even my broadband does better than that .. LOL (actually it doesn't, but it's not way in the future either :])
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 02:50:00 - [10] ok 2 things: first, the ARMs. While it's true that the damps could need somewhat of a nerf, I don't see the reasoning behind the rest of the modules tbh (like the TD wich must be the most underpowered piece of ECM in EVE, now even less usefull tbh). Also this raises concerns about the gallente recon classes, that will get pretty much half of their capabilities nerfed. Maybe double the bonuses like it was done with ECM? Drone bandwith: it is pretty much of a delicate issue tbh, altho I usually use med drones in my myrm and lights in my ishkur that said, I would think a bit more about the ARM thing. I can see the only "good" recons left after this will be minmatar ones tbh, while all the other Ewar ranges from "fair" to "meh". --- planetary interaction idea!
Cavtrooper Caldari Greenspring Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.20 03:04:00 - [11] Stupid question: Are the ships able to deploy as many drones as the bandwidth would allow? Say 7 medium drones for the vexor because it has 75 bit/s bandwidth... or is there still a limit of 5 drones regardless of the bandwidth available? Need a jumpclone? Tired of jumping 30 jumps to hang out with friends? Try our new Jump Clone Service!
Bardi MecAuldnis Amarr Heretic Army The Covenant Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 03:25:00 - [12] Originally by: Cavtrooper Stupid question: Are the ships able to deploy as many drones as the bandwidth would allow? Say 7 medium drones for the vexor because it has 75 bit/s bandwidth... or is there still a limit of 5 drones regardless of the bandwidth available? Last I checked, it's still a maximum of 5 drones. Kind of like a router. It's limited by the amount of bandwidth that can be sent through, and the number of ports limits the number of devices that can use said bandwidth...I think. --- Amarr/Caldari, and proud of it. Hey hey let's go kenka suru! Taisetsuna mono protect my balls! Boku ga warui so lets fighting! LET'S FIGHTING LOVE!!!
Lorette Gallente Grandma's WIth Guns	Posted - 2007.11.20 03:36:00 - [13] Edited by: Lorette on 20/11/2007 03:39:12 Only thing im not to happy about is that as stated in the blog, gall with have say ability to use 3 heavy but have a smaller drone bay than a ship that can 'only' use 5 mediums....dont know about anyone else but ive never used 3 heavy over 5 medium. Seems pretty silly, i get less space and zero benefit.
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.11.20 03:37:00 - [14] Thanks for the blawg. :) Overall, I'm liking the changes to bandwidth, and the addition of scripts. (Though like other people are saying, Tracking Disruptors, wut?) Originally by: CCP Fendahl The ARM script focuses the Warp Disruption Field on a single ship which becomes unable to warp or jump regardless of its warp core strength. The ARM script removes the afterburner and micro warp drive speed penalty, the signature radius penalty as well as the effective agility bonus, but the module still prevents friendly remote effects. Unlike unscripted Warp Disruption Field Generators, the use of Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec. Good news and bad news. The good news is that this will nicely accomplish the goal of making unsupported MS in losec much more vulnerable. The (maybe) bad news: An empire-legal, 30k, infinite strength warp disruptor on a cruiser sized ship with a BC-sized tank affects a lot more than capital ships. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to predict that these ships will gradually become common at losec camps, especially supported by -the New & Improved- Remote Sensor Boosters. I've never been a person to want to nerf camps, because I love that losec is dangerous. But I'm concerned that this will be another nail in the coffin of an area that's already overshadowed by 0.0's empire building, hisec's relative safety, and the vast riches available in both. It sounds as if this is final for now, but I also predict that Hactors and/or this script are Future Nerf Victims in the making. Guess we'll see. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Andargor theWise Collateral Damage Unlimited Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.20 03:40:00 - [15] Quote: Unlike unscripted Warp Disruption Field Generators, the use of Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec. - Stop the Feature Glut: Take the API to the Next Level
Br0wn 0ps	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:19:00 - [16] Now that you have drone bandwidth constraining drone damage output, how about un-nerfing the drone bay capacity, and head towards where you said (once upon a time) you wanted to go...where you imagined fleet battles where ships would spew multiple waves of drones during a single battle. The more drones that are stored in the bay, the more the pilots stand to lose...and in this case, that ain't a bad thing.
Idara Caldari Contraband Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:23:00 - [17] Edited by: Idara on 20/11/2007 04:22:58 Originally by: Br0wn 0ps Now that you have drone bandwidth constraining drone damage output, how about un-nerfing the drone bay capacity, and head towards where you said (once upon a time) you wanted to go...where you imagined fleet battles where ships would spew multiple waves of drones during a single battle. The more drones that are stored in the bay, the more the pilots stand to lose...and in this case, that ain't a bad thing. They're doing that. Amarr get to carry an extra medium or so and Gallente don't. Everyone wins... --- in EVE - Idara
Adam C 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:32:00 - [18] Edited by: Adam C on 20/11/2007 04:35:11 Quote: Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec. Most important thing in that thread - bubbles in low-sec? :pirate: - Or did i misread? :twisted:
Vladimir Norkoff Income Redistribution Service The Gurlstas Associates	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:50:00 - [19] Edited by: Vladimir Norkoff on 20/11/2007 04:51:26 Originally by: Dev Blog ...the use of Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec. So that's the brillant solution to lowsec Moms? Create one class of ship that immediately gets called primary? That's... brillant. At least it's a start I guess. As for ARM scripts, meh.. Looks like Gallente Recons are completely f'd.. Sucks for me since I fly them quite alot.. Maybe they will get some increased bonus of some sort? Not highly optimistic though.. Drone Bandwidth, meh.. Great idea, but the other drone changes that strangely seem not to get mentioned (ie. no drone shield recharge on scooping) kinda f-up the whole thing.. All told, not really looking forward to Rev3 so much.. Which kinda sucks because it's making me lose interest in the game more and more.. Taxman IV: Rogue Agent
Uuve Savisaalo Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:50:00 - [20] Originally by: Adam C Most important thing in that thread - bubbles in low-sec? :pirate: - Or did i misread? :twisted: you misread, adam. Loaded with script, the warp disruption effect of a heavy dictor is a super-point scram that ignores warp core strength of the target.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.20 04:52:00 - [21] So, the problem is that this dev blog seems to be wrong. Everyone is reporting that a scripted rigged max skilled Triple phased muon Arazu will have half of the dampening power of a T1 unrigged Thrasher now. Which is... ummm... ok? If the dev blog is right, they may need to examine both the bonuses on the Gallente/Amarr ewar ships and make sure that you really get the effect that they're expecting. I don't object (at all) to having to pick between lock range and lock speed - but ... as it stands now. Liang -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Gut Punch The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:00:00 - [22] /rant I'd like to thank CCP for introducing more micro management required during large fleet battles. Of course we didn't already have enough lag issues which develop because of the need to constantly adjust ammo and drones - we need more items to have to try and change during the lag that is 0.0 battles. Furthermore, the Script changes are a NERF, despite what the devblog tries to portray it as. No matter how you try and cut it, not having the second attribute is a serious setback. This is especially true for the Gallente and Amarr Recon pilots. This isn't "tactical" like the devblog said... In fact it screws cloaking recons because you can't adjust scripts while cloaked (as it stands on SiSi now). So on top of the delay to uncloak and target, we get to try and adjust our scripts depending on the different situations we run across. /end rant --- --- Brutally Clever Empire ---
Markius Proxim Timetravel Enterprises Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:04:00 - [23] Edited by: Markius Proxim on 20/11/2007 05:06:03 watches eve dying 1 nerf at a time We spend months training for something because it's good, and all you do is look for balance by nerfing. Instead just invent new ships/modules to counter what ever problems you face. Just respect out time, if it takes us 6 months to train for a drone specific cruiser, and you nerf it. You've flushed all that training time for us. I mean while your at it you might as well remove recons from the game and give us all a Skill Point credit for our time. PvP used to be more complex with EWAR and NOS and other cool toys. Now it's just a tackle/DPS fest.
Capt Comatose	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:06:00 - [24] Are there skill requirements for the ARMs?
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:14:00 - [25] What is happening to the Eos in Trinity? In my opinion it is indeed a very high damage ship at < 10km range and certainly needs its DPS cutting by a few percent. cough Will the new graphics reflect the correct number of turret hard points? As has been pointed out, the Heavy Interdictor's sound like fun ships. I'm looking forward to the bonus on my Elite Industrial 'Viator' +2 warp strength being worthless. Guess I'll have to train weeks for jump freighters and save up 6 billion ISK or so to spend on another completely defenseless ship to move my rat loot in. The fact that ratting earns me about 30 mil / hour means I'll only have to spend roughly 200 hours ratting to pay for a new 0.0 and low sec hauler. Regarding bandwidth I'm glad to know that the 'drone elite' Gallente with their Vexor and its 3 Heavy drones (or 5 Meds plus 2 spares) will now be facing Arbitrators with 5xECM-600's, 5xEV-600's and 5xMed damage drones at their disposal. Some cough interesting fights to come no doubt. Thanks for communicating these changes finally. They seem quite different from Oveur's blog some time back, and we had not heard anything proper from you Dev's while you were cooking all these changes up. I'd just like to know too if the feedback threads on the forum were used much for these 'balance' changes and a little more about your source data for the changes if possible. Thanks. Keep up the good work. - Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint! Please read my ideas
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:18:00 - [26] So......nerf everything? Even stuff that was not overpowered? -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Dr Cedric Caldari The Nietzian Way Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:21:00 - [27] These ARM things seem a bit all or nothing. Seems like you ought to be able to have several choices for how much you want of one thing and how much of the other. Why does it have to be all or none. How about a script that says +50% on one, and -50% on the other, +75%/-25%, that sort of thing. I know as a Caldari Railgun guy, I already have plenty of range, so I'll be happy w/ a bit of extra tracking, but it would be nice to get a few extra Kilometers without sacrificing ALL of my tracking speed. There is a gray area you know! Dr Cedric Dipolmatic Liason; Industrial Logistics Technician - The Nietzian Way -My opinions and ideas do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance-
phillie blunt Live And Let Die	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:22:00 - [28] so the ships that have bonus for td (amarr recons) you increased their bonus but not for gallentes recons? WHY?
Xaen Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:22:00 - [29] Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff Edited by: Vladimir Norkoff on 20/11/2007 04:51:26 Originally by: Dev Blog ...the use of Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec. So that's the brillant solution to lowsec Moms? Create one class of ship that immediately gets called primary? That's... brillant. At least it's a start I guess. As for ARM scripts, meh.. Looks like Gallente Recons are completely f'd.. Sucks for me since I fly them quite alot.. Maybe they will get some increased bonus of some sort? Not highly optimistic though.. Drone Bandwidth, meh.. Great idea, but the other drone changes that strangely seem not to get mentioned (ie. no drone shield recharge on scooping) kinda f-up the whole thing.. All told, not really looking forward to Rev3 so much.. Which kinda sucks because it's making me lose interest in the game more and more.. I guess the Minmatar recons are up for the nerfbat next. They got the Caldari, Amarr ones and the Gallente already... -- Support fixing the EVE UI \| Suggest Jita fixes
Kethry Avenger PALE RIDERS REBORN	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:33:00 - [30] I will wait and see on most things but the Super warp scrambler without any counter either in a ship or module seems insane. At the very least the blockade runners should be able to fit some new module that makes them immune to that or get a new bonus to help them run blockades with Heavy interdictors present.
Wonko 11 Thrones Of Thamiel Dark Taboo	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:42:00 - [31] Okay... My main concern, and what has been for a long time is most definately the Eos. I really really like the drone bandwidth idea, however, in the previous blog about trinity it said that drone boats would be getting a VERY MUCH NEEDED boost... however all i see is nerf, nerf, nerf, nerf, nerf.... Especially with the Eos... A Dedicated Drone boat Command Ship all of a sudden loses every bit of DPS it originally had... In fact, the astarte is more useful now with drones and guns whereas the Eos, even though its meant for fleet combat and warfare link modules, is now severely made more useless. I am fine with cutting down the drone bay size, i will admit (as a faithful gallente pilot) that it was slightly unbalanced DPS-wise, however please dear god, dont cut down the bandwidth. Thats what makes Creodron what it is... And when a cruiser can have bigger and better drones than a BC... somethings wrong =\ (however dont take that as a "take the ishtar not the eos" statement because I LOVE MY ISHTAR! TAKE IT AWAY AND FEEL MY WRATH!!!) Also... I cant say as im following this whole ARM thing... will we still be able to have the same bonuses as before if we dont use the ARM capabilities (such like Heat and its ability to overpower at a cost)? Or is this a permanent nerf on everything and now you have to choose? Please explain more! Finally, Can you give us a tenative release date on Trinity yet? I have heard rumors from other websites as the first week in December... is this true? =)
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:47:00 - [32] Edited by: Haniblecter Teg on 20/11/2007 05:47:46 Yea! Gallente drone ships are baised towards damage and amarr to spare drones! Like I had a frickin choice. EDIT: Wonk, you're soo behind in the whines man. We've beat the Eos nerf to death. And ofc the astarte is supposed to do better DPS you dumb ass. Dont you know the roles of the CS's? ----------------- Friends Forever Kill. BoB. Dead.
Josef Amerentev	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:48:00 - [33] imho it looks a little odd really gally r supposed to be with heavy drone use? besides why the pre-script Nerf... keep the scripts(or get rid of em), but lessen their effects for balance? as it seems, halving the capability of a sensor booster is nerf (without arm) and, they are completely destroyed as auxiliary mods(see below) y make these changes to soo many mods. this is not going to help anything (even caldari id say) remote sensor damps just got blasted(nerf). so did sensor boosters the point of the disrupt field gens(focus arm) is to hit lowsec supercaps? but seriously, it is too powerful when unlimited strength hav it disable jump? then it kills other caps too. sounds like an integrated exploit. ship w/ stabs gets hit by hactor all that nerf to fit stabs means nothing. aux mods, u stick em in because they offer some help consider the mega. it has four meds. pre trinity speed mod, cap mod, track comp, sensor booster after trinity track comp(track arm) track comp(range arm) sensor booster(res arm) sensor booster(range arm) make sense ? (hint, the two setups is to keep the same boost) oh yea, where are those named drones you guys mentioned? been on sisi, ive seen the drone components, but no new drones
Loli Killjoy	Posted - 2007.11.20 05:53:00 - [34] the scripting changes are poorly thought out. Micromanagement of scripts on top of heat, nos/neuts, speed, range, tracking is just plain stupid when lag in eve is a bigger factor than any other mmo on the market. I predict that trinity will be the worst patch for eve to date. We'll be talking with our wallets CCP. GL
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.20 06:00:00 - [35] I also request a review in to the ARM script for the warp disruptor. Blockade Runners are going to be hit hard by this, the Crane in particular has all of 1 low slot (the other housing a PG boosting mod for the MWD) to deal with the HACtor threat. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Tobias Sjodin Ore Mongers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2007.11.20 06:02:00 - [36] I really like the changes. Well done CCP. - Recruitment open again-
Paddlefoot Aeon Neogen Industries Daisho Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.20 06:08:00 - [37] Edited by: Paddlefoot Aeon on 20/11/2007 06:09:09 Scripts are just a waste of time. I like the idea of limiting the modules, but needing to carry all these new "things" around in your hold... not to mention stocking them on the markets, it just too much and is over complicated. Make the sensor booster, sensor damp, tracking disruptor, etc... be limited using a right click toggle menu. Again, I'm fine with the balancing to these modules, but having to buy scripts is just a pain in the ass. Now Recruiting. Click sig for details!
A Ingus	Posted - 2007.11.20 06:20:00 - [38] Rant incoming (and yeah caldari players flame away because this toon is gallente) So, all these turret specific mods essentially get their effectiveness cut in half, massive changes to drones on the whole reducing their damage, meanwhile torps get boosted for damage, and ecm boats get an ill thought out massive boost. And, defender missiles still don't work (except from rats in missions). Caldari Online to Gallente Online to Caldari Online. Haven't you heard of small steps toward ballance? The gyrations are making me dizzy. Additionally, where is a fix for lasers? You moved pretty damn quick on torps and ecm for caldari, but no changes for lasers? Amarr has been in deep trouble for a long while. How about just slightly reducing the fitting costs and base energy use on lasers? Is that too hard? Amarr needs some help, ffs. Do you look at the stats on character creation as well as ship types? How about population density of different empires? Amarr space is incredibly depopulated in some areas, can't you see that? All I see is a developing plague of caldari with your proposed changes, because there is less balance and achura don't waste attribute points on charisma. It will become a very boring game if everyone is the same. Sort of depressing looking at these changes and their likely effect.
Tareen Kashaar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.20 06:29:00 - [39] Nice. Contrary to most others, as an Amarr pilot I wholeheartedly approve of these changes! No longer will a single tracking disruptor totally gimp my Absolutions! Nor will damps, unless used smartly, or with ECM drones. Bandwidth is pretty nice as well, finally some replacement drones on our little ships! (Sentinel is a beast btw) --- WTS: Forum Signatures, price negotiable. Evemail me!
Tareen Kashaar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.20 06:30:00 - [40] Oh also: LOL at the scripts description on Sisi. "Fendahlian Society", eh? X-D --- WTS: Forum Signatures, price negotiable. Evemail me!
Redd Dredd	Posted - 2007.11.20 06:36:00 - [41] Nos nerf... TD nerf... remind me again why I trained for amarr recon. Honestly, the arbitrator is a better ship. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ See References below... Successful GTC Sale
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2007.11.20 07:36:00 - [42] What is the counter of the heavy interdictor with this focused warp disruptor beam? There should be always some counter for each ship. Since the warp disruptor beam gives no drawback (as far as i understood) people will just use this as the new warp scrambler. Sounds like a strange decision here, CCP. Still wanting to make low sec more attractive? The other things...well... shrugs I wouldn't have minded if you would have invested all the time for more bugfixing instead. But I understand that you have to produce 'new' content all the time.
ArmyOfMe hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.20 07:43:00 - [43] Originally by: Lorette Edited by: Lorette on 20/11/2007 03:39:12 Only thing im not to happy about is that as stated in the blog, gall with have say ability to use 3 heavy but have a smaller drone bay than a ship that can 'only' use 5 mediums....dont know about anyone else but ive never used 3 heavy over 5 medium. Seems pretty silly, i get less space and zero benefit. /signed, this is one of the things i find very bad.
Sprobe	Posted - 2007.11.20 07:53:00 - [44] I normally don't answer often, because I don't fell it necessary. But now it's getting ridiculous: The micro management of this game will become a serious issue. The game is getting more complex and a lot more complicated. The problem is, that it already is complicating enough. Just imagine: - new heat distribution: it actually matters where you place your modules how heat is mitigated. ok, now I need to move my modules while I am fighting or I need to think it up beforehand. - ARM scripts: up to now it was sufficient for me to know a lot of different modules to fit a sniper BS, a bait, whatever.. I do so in advance.. additionally I need to think about HOW my modules are going to be scripted... and of course I need to have the scripts, dozens more items in my item hangar.. - Bandwidth: Ok, I fire up my drones, tell them to attack a target, that's it.. damn man, I didn't even bother to read the part about Bandwidth in detail. All in all that means we have to learn again how to 'behave' in combat, and we need additional time fitting our ships, getting the right equipment, and need to spend more time during combat to think about essentially non-relevant issues which have just been made up by a developer so that it stays 'more interesting'. Dude, believe me, it won't get more interesting with these changes, just more difficult. Is that your ultimate goal which you wanna achieve with EVE? The world's most unaccessible MMO? Surely, some may be proud of it, but don't forget what's REALLY important, because that's having fun.
Komen Gallente Aliastra	Posted - 2007.11.20 07:58:00 - [45] Speaking as a gunship pilot, I'd like you, the game designers, to review, REALLY review, the whole scripts thing, and which modules are going to need them. And perhaps give us the split bonus thing that someone above posted, instead of all to one and none to the other attribute. That or give gunships one more midslot, because right now you're severely nerfing every ship that relies on turrets to deal damage. Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter. ___________________________________ Wielder of the Trout of Doom(tm)! ___________________________________ Redo the Domi hull for Trinity 2. Scrap the upside down shoe! Do it!
Max Hardcase Art of War	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:04:00 - [46] Originally by: Gnulpie What is the counter of the heavy interdictor with this focused warp disruptor beam? There should be always some counter for each ship. Since the warp disruptor beam gives no drawback (as far as i understood) people will just use this as the new warp scrambler. Sounds like a strange decision here, CCP. Still wanting to make low sec more attractive? The other things...well... shrugs I wouldn't have minded if you would have invested all the time for more bugfixing instead. But I understand that you have to produce 'new' content all the time. Friends with guns are the counter to Hactors.
Franga Caldari NQX Innovations Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:12:00 - [47] Love it all! Particularly the ARMS - the more customizable a module or at least the use of a module is the better, imvho. Good job. Keep 'em coming. I'm loving the look of this patch very much. _____________________________ Eldo spanked my sig but I can't be bothered changing it just now.
Nomme Mugen Shipyards	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:16:00 - [48] Well for low-sec couriers and industrialists,i'd like to see a covops blockade runner added,to dodge these new Heavy Interdicotrs. Also you need to give more of a bonus to the Gallente Recons Damping abilites,as it stands atm its a poor gang support ship,something along the lines of ECM would do. Drone changes,much needed but I dislike the shield regen facility. Nuff Said.
WeightedCompanionCube Aperture Science Enrichment Center	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:21:00 - [49] Quote: Tracking links and remote sensor boosters now give better bonuses than before, though ARM scripts are still needed to reach their full potential. The Scimitar and Oneiros, which get a bonus to tracking links, have had their bonus increased to 10% to compensate for the new mechanics. For both ships the bonus they give on one attribute with a script is less then the bonus they now give for both attributes. Is this bonus to be further increased or is this a nerf on a rarely used tactic ?
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:26:00 - [50] Why nerf hardly used modules like tracking disruptors (there is a reason they are hardly used, they suck donkey balls compared to normal ECM even on bonussed ships like the curse it's better (and will be better) to fit a damp or ECM)? Just for consistency? Well in order to maintain consistency I demand the following items to be scripted as well; -Damage mods (rof and damage bonus?! NERF) -EAM/invul fields (ZOMG 4 bonusses on 1 item?!! NERF) -DCU (ZOMGOMGWTFIMBA?! IT HAS LIEK 12 BONUSSES!!! NERFNERF!) -PDU (5 bonusses?!) So quite frankly nerfing TD's for consistency is stupid when there are so many items that will already defy the said rules. Also making stabs even more worthless as they currently are with the introduction of a HiC that can scramble no matter the ammount of stabs isn't the best of ideas I think. A change like this will only make low sec even more deserted (sure you can attack caps in lowsec then but quite frankly the risk/reward is going even futher down the drain for all players). --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Mrs M34N	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:37:00 - [51] Hm.... ARM scripting... hm.... another Button to klick in a Lagfest-Battle, that will realy help <g> SD nerf... blah the only "small" defense on a StealthBomber u have :-( NERF everything, remove all med & low slots, make it a simple space shooty pewpew game
Bentula	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:41:00 - [52] Originally by: Liang Nuren So, the problem is that this dev blog seems to be wrong. Everyone is reporting that a scripted rigged max skilled Triple phased muon Arazu will have half of the dampening power of a T1 unrigged Thrasher now. Liang Thats a strange attitude. If the test server doesnt match the what the devs want the devs are wrong? I would see it kinda the other way, its the testserver thats wrong and the devs are still trying to fix things on it to their liking.
Lady Ione	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:51:00 - [53] WARNING sarcasm post upcoming I like the changes CCP. Having just spent the better part of a year getting all 4 racial cruiser V, command ships V and recon V, you're nerfing ("balancing") the game so much that the cost/benefit of flying commandships/recons over battlecruisers/t1 ewar cruisers is negligable. The result being that CCP just inceased my buying power by 5-10x. Awesome! no more flying expensive t2 ships. Just expendable cheap t1 ships! END sarcasm post nono... wait, thats bad right? because with making invention easier you're trying to make t2 more accesable before t3 right? I'll say it simple. STOP NERFING. STOP CALLING NERFS "BOOSTS" (despite what you may think, the playerbase simply isn't that stupid). LISTEN to what where telling you on the forums every day! (the recent carrier debacle comes to mind)
Malen Nenokal Gallente Acheron Federation	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:56:00 - [54] Any chance of Mining Lasers getting something along these lines? Something to boost range versus efficiency and vise versa?
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2007.11.20 08:59:00 - [55] This blog is completely redundant. At least include something new with all of the stale info. More drone ships have been nerfed with this change than have been improved. I see the Onieros gets buffed to make sure that tracking links maintain their effectiveness. What about dedicated damp ships? Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y I I
Angelus Custos Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:11:00 - [56] Drone BW: I like. I see the potential of increasing all dronebaysizes for all ships for more waves without changing DPS. Even though you nerf my overpowered Myrmidion of near AFK killing. Damps: Nerf them more Sensor boosters: It will hit snipers, especially in empire where they already are close to useless. For everything else it's ok Tracking disruptors: Never was that good, but useful in many situations because of lower CPU compared to other EW. I can't really see myself using them at all after this. At least make them affect falloff as well... Tracking comps: ok
Sphynx Stormlord Gallente Anqara Tech	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:13:00 - [57] Well, a blog about two huge nerfs, which fails to address why it was thought that the nerfs are necessary, and fails to give any new information. This is going to be a disapointing expansion for drone users: +1 drone ship which is very hard to train for (Sin), -2 drone ships due to nerfing (Eos and Myrmidon). I dont understand why they are nerfing the drone bays so hard, instead of reducing the number of turrets. I cant be the only pilot who primarily looks for drone space (bandwidth) when choosing a ship, and considers turrets of secondary importantance.
Lord Rahvin	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:20:00 - [58] CCP, how about instead of spending/waisting so much time on things that don't need fixed. Or barely need fixed. And focus more on new and exciting ships or modules. Instead of nerfing and ****ing off loyal customers, try making some new things to make it different and exciting. Instead of nerfing things to make it easier for 1mil sp noobs not to suck. I'm a pure gallente pilot, but I'll try to be as objective as possible. Bandwidth - I understand the idea, but you are taking all skill away from the use of them. Now instead of having to worry about them you can just keep sending them out constantly. So now pilots that have skill in keeping their drones alive (thus giving a slight advantage for the work and effort of keeping them alive) don't need to do anything but sit there since it wont help them at all anyways. If someone takes the effort to keep their drones alive more than an enemy pilot, they should have something to show for it. (They have drones, enemy doesn't) Instead of nerfing drones, how about a turret module specificly designed to destroy drones? For whatever reason CCP obviously wants to turn drones into a type of background passive dps system. Personally i think its stupid. Main weapons should be Missiles, Turrets, Drones. How about creating "Carrier" type ships for the bc's and battle ships. Give them hardly no turrets but allow them to control more than 5 drones. So my 2 million sp's in drones don't go to waist. The only problem I can for see with this is that 100% of cap can be dedicated towards tanking. The split of cap between hybrid turrets and tanking is usually the limiting factor for gallente. But then i realized that caldari already dedicate 100% cap towards tanking since launchers dont need cap at all... (which doesn't make sense since something has to load the missiles into the missile tube..) I'm not amarr, but I know they suck because Amarr space is dead and I never see them in low sec. Theres a reason caldari space is 100x more crowded than amarr space...So please start focusing on improving things rather than nerfing them.
Lord Rahvin	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:25:00 - [59] P.S. Could we get some dam exact numbers on the band width for all the ships? you've been at it for months and seem to have no exact numbers... really stupid to be waiting this long and still only getting vauge refrences to a few ships for examples.
Gold Rogers Solitude Empires United Freemen Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:25:00 - [60] Will the Curse and Pilgrim also get a 150m3 drone bay for spares? ---------
Bentula	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:26:00 - [61] Originally by: Sphynx Stormlord Well, a blog about two huge nerfs, which fails to address why it was thought that the nerfs are necessary, and fails to give any new information. This is going to be a disapointing expansion for drone users: +1 drone ship which is very hard to train for (Sin), -2 drone ships due to nerfing (Eos and Myrmidon). I dont understand why they are nerfing the drone bays so hard, instead of reducing the number of turrets. I cant be the only pilot who primarily looks for drone space (bandwidth) when choosing a ship, and considers turrets of secondary importantance. You guys are hypocrits. The eos is a t2 ship with a single dronebonus and you call it a "dedicated"(not you but others) droneship. Yet that the sentinel is a completly new "droneship" you completly forget. So its more like +2 droneships -2 droneships. Also you completly forget that those of us who always used only medium drones on the myrmidon anyway are actually getting that ship boosted. They only nerfed a single fitting on the myrmidon, not the whole ship. P.S. With the changes to drone scooping it would be unviable to use heavy drones on the myrmidon anyway.
Morris Seycha	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:37:00 - [62] needs more scripts to counter falloff.
Kirja R.u.S.H. Red Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:37:00 - [63] Originally by: Liang Nuren So, the problem is that this dev blog seems to be wrong. Everyone is reporting that a scripted rigged max skilled Triple phased muon Arazu will have half of the dampening power of a T1 unrigged Thrasher now. This. So what is the point of flying 250+ million uninsurable paper thin Arazu that can dampen one hostile sensor boosted BS to 10 km locking range ... over, lets say, another BS? Arazu dead = you lose 250 millions, mega dead = you lose 30 million? Also it seems to me that people will be using low slot analogue of tracking computer in sniper fleets, since it isnt nerfed at all.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:38:00 - [64] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/11/2007 09:43:00 Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/11/2007 09:41:14 Some concerns (more detail and discussion in the test server forum section): - The focused HIC disrupter can scramble lowsec motherships. That's cool. But it can also scramble anything else, too, which means it can scramble a blockage runner or any other noncombat ship, no matter how many stabs it has. The broadsword is especially broken, since it can fit mids full of sensor boosters for frigate-level lock times, while still being able to tank sentries. This means that lowsec just got what it possibly the final nail in its coffin: there is no counter to this, other than MWD back to gate. For ships that can't reasonably fit MWD, this means going to lowsec is pointless. This means doing missions in lowsec just became even more pointless and suicidal than before. I'm not sure if killing off lowsec completely was a CCP design goal (it's pretty empty already), but that will be the result here. - Sensor damps were much more powerful than tracking disruptors; pretty much everyone was fitting damps but it was rare to see TDs. Now they are both getting nerfed the same amount, which is a "wtf?" moment. TDs need less nerf than damps, in orded to balance them with each other. - Sensor damp nerf in general is a good thing, it stops everyone fitting damps on every ship. However, it leaves damps very weak even on ships specialized to use them (Lachesis,Arazu). The best you can hope for now is to reduce one battleship to around 15km lock range... this at the same time the new boosted Scorp can easily keep multiple ships totally locked (with less cap use, since ECM module cap use was much reduced also). Result: ECM is in danger of becoming the only useful EW type, once again. The specialist damp ships need a boost to their damp bonus, in order to keep them useful. The same goes for the tracking disrupter bonus on Curse and Pilgrim. So to sum up: HIC "scramble anything" module is problematic wrt lowsec, makes risk vs reward stupidly bad. A Broadsword will be able to near-instalock and scramble anything, while tanking sentry fire. Tracking disrupters and damps look to be useless even on ships specialized to use them. Combined with the boost ECM just got, this leads to balance problems. Lachesis, Arazu, Curse and Pilgrim need a boost to their racial EW bonus.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:39:00 - [65] Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 20/11/2007 09:40:24 To avoid nerfing T2 transports... please consider putting a 3-4 second delay for activation of the new focused warp disruptor. That should be enough (hopefully) for those of us running BR's through low-sec and 0.0 camps from being popped when ever we meet a hactor at a gate.
Calmdown Minmatar BURN EDEN Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:39:00 - [66] Edited by: Calmdown on 20/11/2007 09:39:33 This is a totally ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. Any sniper that uses tracking computers is taking a hit. Particularly to Artillery users this is a massive nerf (to the point where flying a ship with 1400mm may now be unfeasible), but also to Railgun users. Lasers less so since their tracking is naturally good and Amarr don't have the midslots for it anyway, but now Amarr will never bother even trying to make room for a tracking computer. Sensor Boosters being nerfed is so unnecessary. It's a pre nerfed module by the virtue of the fact that it requires a mid slot. A MID SLOT. For a module that does nothing but facilitate other modules being used, this is plenty of tradeoff. In fact, there is only one module on that list that needed nerfing, and that was sensor dampeners. A simple nerf to their effectiveness rather than all of this silly script stuff would have been fine. Whilst I can appreciate that this brings more tactical options and gives a pilot more to think about (good), it's a game change but in the form of a nerf. Instead, we're seeing things being nerfed such as Tracking Disruptors; why on earth would a dev team, who know exactly how little these are used (dont tell us you dont, devs, there's more SQL admins in this community than you can shake a nerfbat at) even on ships with bonuses to them, even entertain the idea that they need to be reduced in effectiveness? Also, the brief few lines about drones show a total lack of understanding on CCP's part as to how drones work. Saying 'Gallente are biased towards firepower with less emphasis on spare drones' is idiotic. No Vexor with 75m3 should be running 3 heavy drones; they should be running 2x Heavy, 2x Med, 1x Light for max damage. Let's be straight; these nerfs are a nerf to everyone, but they're a nerf to snipers and people who want to fight at long range first and foremost. Although some people might not like this, it's still an integral part of eve and a valid way of fighting. These changes just push us even more towards close range, which pushes us even further into either nanogang supremacy or capital blobbing as the only viable combat solution. The last issue I'd like to raise is that these nerfs barely effect missile users at all. They may effect the periphery of missile use by virtue of the sensor booster nerf, but missiles are (as we all know) already superior to turrets in the majority of ways and when every long range turret ship is taking a Tracking Computer related hit, you're giving even more reason to fly nothing but Ravens at long range. This is not a whine because I'm biased to one race or another (hey, I'm in Burn Eden, I fly with a lot of Ravens...), but it's annoying because you're skewing the game's balance even more. What needs to be done is this: Preferably, scrap this whole project. It's an absolutely diabolical idea. You need to take it back to the drawing board and rethink it. Failing that, the modules that do not need nerfing (ie, everything but damps) should have scripts that give them MORE than their old 'base' value in one attribute. For example, if tracking computers previously gave 50% to both tracking and optimal range (simplified numbers), they should now give 25% to both but scripts should add 100% to their relative module. Instead of nerfing, offer people a chance to customise to keep similar bonuses, or possibly specialise to get better in one area at the cost of another. Yes, this would be a slight buff to those modules, and it would mean you could stack them higher in one attribute than you could before. And why? Because those modules needed a buff. (continued...) RIP Testy Mctest - You were truly a king among alts! Scrapheap Challenge Forums
Calmdown Minmatar BURN EDEN Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:39:00 - [67] There's a little bit of balancing and testing to be done in there - you dont want to end up with artillery that can track frigates at 25km, for example - but however it turns out, the modules should be no worse than they are now. Different, sure. Better, good. But nerfing modules that don't need it, and screwing up ships and balance across the board whilst doing it? Come on CCP. Let's be sensible now. RIP Testy Mctest - You were truly a king among alts! Scrapheap Challenge Forums
Rahvin Damodred The White Star Consortium Tenth Legion	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:40:00 - [68] The new script for the heavy dictors warp scramble ... i am biased about it. I like the fact that the Devs are at least trying to come up with a counter to the 'near' invulnerability of Supercaps in lowsec. I just hope they come to their senses and make it only usefull against said supercaps and dont make an entire shipclass (the Blockade Runners) useless in the process. Giving people toys that can instalock (with Signal Resolution scripts) and have an unbeatable warp scramble ... why not remove 0.1 to 0.4 space from the game completly ? Isn't it just a much easier solution to not allow Moms and Titans into lowsec at all and dont make this warp scramble script ? "Oh i don't PvP. I just shoot people who prevent me from carebearing"
Sphynx Stormlord Gallente Anqara Tech	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:42:00 - [69] Edited by: Sphynx Stormlord on 20/11/2007 09:42:30 Originally by: Bentula You guys are hypocrits. The eos is a t2 ship with a single dronebonus and you call it a "dedicated"(not you but others) droneship. Yet that the sentinel is a completly new "droneship" you completly forget. So its more like +2 droneships -2 droneships. Also you completly forget that those of us who always used only medium drones on the myrmidon anyway are actually getting that ship boosted. They only nerfed a single fitting on the myrmidon, not the whole ship. P.S. With the changes to drone scooping it would be unviable to use heavy drones on the myrmidon anyway. Hmm, I did forget the Sentinal, probably because it interested me briefly when I first saw it, untill I realised it was amarr. I'm not actually interested in heavy drones; I'm interested in sentry drones (which dont fit on the Sentinal, dispite the name similarity). Watching the progress as trinity developes has not been great: The gallente marauder had an adequate drone bay to start with, althoguh was disapointingly based on the megathron rather than the domi. That got reduced (which might be acceptable for balance reasons, but still disapointing that it was the drones which suffered). The Sin is something it will take a long long time to train for. And then the bandwidth nerfs result in two less ships which can be used with sentries. And the shield recharge nerf makes them less effective. I dont see why there is hypocracy in being anoyed that ones main play style is being reduced to less choices.
Ralitge boyter Minmatar	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:42:00 - [70] Dictors in empire... thats the only thing I worry about here, the drone changes well who cares. Drones for the most part of 4 years now have been failing or only working under very special conditions this should not change much. But having a dictor in empire space means that soon enough we will see gates with 5-10 heavy dictors behind them waiting for a silly miner or industrial to jump in. There are about 500 pilots that actualy fly super capittals, there are about 20 modules, and 20 skills dedicated to them. There is at least one ship dedicated to killing them and still CCP feels the need to add more to them. Sorry guys but this is getting a bit out of hand how many developers are needed to keep these few people happy and when will more structural things be resolved. Ammar ships need attention, the market and the stock market need attention. Invention and industry needs more options, archeology and hacking are under developed... when are you planning on getting these things working? ------------------------------------------- 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.
Pitypang	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:45:00 - [71] Hi kieron, As a low sec citizen I would like to bring to your attention one simple solution that can help us not-to-abandon low sec space after the introduction of low sec focused scripted heavy interdictors. As per todays situation if you are in a well fitted blockade runner you are able to go through, let say, 75% of the low sec camps. After the change, you won't. The heavy dictors are easy to learn and easy to use. With the focused script nothing will be able to jump through any camp containing these new kind of ships. I would like to suggest that the focused script should seriously decrease the tracking speed of any ship using this modul and script, just like cloaks do at the moment. In this way low sec super capitals / capitals are still subject to this great danger as their signature radius would still allow the heavy dictors to quickly tackle them, but any other ship, with their infinite warp disruptor strength. If you would add this negative modifier to the script itself that would help everyone in low sec. I am sorry to say, but my gut-feeling is, that without this small change, low sec industrial life would become: wait all-day-long till the pirates leave, than you might go in with your "Blockade runner" stuff, which is not the this game should turn to. As a consumer of this game I do not want to go back to the regular mission-running exercises in high sec empire space. Thank you in advance for your understanding. Pitypang
Lord Rahvin	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:46:00 - [72] Calmdown "but missiles are (as we all know) already superior to turrets in the majority of ways" Look at the populations in caldari space, then venture to the other parts of the universe.... you go from 800+ people in jita, 100+ in caldari mission systems, down to 10-20 in the most populated amarr systems... Theres a reason there are so many ravens flying around. They are extremly effective at horribly low Sp's compared to the other races.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:46:00 - [73] Originally by: Ralitge boyter But having a dictor in empire space means that soon enough we will see gates with 5-10 heavy dictors behind them waiting for a silly miner or industrial to jump in. You don't need 5-10, all you need is one. After that, the only thing the target can do is try to get back to the gate. Good luck doing that in any ship that can't fit an MWD and a tank... and that's assuming you don't get webbed also. This means that lowsec just became as dangerous as 0.0, with no rewards to compensate. Only suicidal idiots will transport goods or run missions there now. Lowsec is already pretty empty. It will be barren after this.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:51:00 - [74] and the marginalization and homogenizing of eve continues...... so much for the openness of the sandbox, I see it tricking down the drain one patch at a time. --
Minas Reul Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.20 09:56:00 - [75] I hope someone from CCP will se fit to read this thread: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=634038&page=3, where I and several others have put forward well-reasoned game balance arguments, with mathematical examples of why the bonuses for RSD and TDs on specialised ships need to be increased. At the moment, the ship bonus is simply too small to make them worth using for ewar, over a non-specced ship that has more firepower, tank, or both. ~ Increase the bonus on RSD specialised ships!
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:02:00 - [76] Massive unbalanced nerfs. Fail. Gallente drone ships: Current Ishkur: not overpowered at all - nerfed; Current Myrmi: Overpowered tank - drones get nerfed; current Ishtar: overpowered speed and quite high damage - no nerf at all; Eos: high damage low useless gangmods - nerfed into oblivion; Moros: Overpowered dronedamage - no nerf Gallente Recons: Nerfed HICs: Overpowered in low-sec. ARM-scripts in general: Mostly useless micromanagemant, only adds to lag. And the real problems (nano-HAC¦s, cloaking) are not addressed in any way. Fail.
Shadowsword COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:04:00 - [77] Imho, those are good changes, but the ARM warp disruption script for heavy interdictors should really get a -1 disrpution strenght. Those ships, with their uber tanks and cruiser-like locking time, will perma-tank very easily low-sec sentries; and become the standard of low-sec gate camps. Do pirates seriously need a boost? I tought you CCP considered low-sec as being already more dangerous that what you wanted. ------------------------------------------ What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs.
Harlequ1n FireTech Pure.	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:11:00 - [78] Of course the price of Arazu and Lachesis will crash nicely now, allowing them to be flown as disposable ships. Woot! no need to take a Celestis on that 'suicide' op, Lach all the way... ...that is if any one can be bothered inventing/producing them now
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:15:00 - [79] Originally by: phillie blunt so the ships that have bonus for td (amarr recons) you increased their bonus but not for gallentes recons? WHY? they said this where? they did say Originally by: dev blog Tracking links and remote sensor boosters now give better bonuses than before, though ARM scripts are still needed to reach their full potential. The Scimitar and Oneiros, which get a bonus to tracking links, have had their bonus increased to 10% to compensate for the new mechanics. oh yes the ~~amarr recon~~ errr minmatar and gallente logistics
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:23:00 - [80] as for the hactors catching blockade runners, how is that different from a remote repped/sensor boosted arazu with 8 points or so on it? oh yes you cant remote rep a hactor with active uberscrambly thing. although the hactor can withstand some gategun fire.... hell my 80% resistance zealot cant stay on the gate without a nice supply of cap boosters. (then again i could get that tank to perma run with rigs and lots of cap rechargers that wont matter because the scram is a high slot as long as you are being remote sensor boosted until you have a lock and then meh to remote sensor boosters you have the lock.) and the arazu, sorry i haven't tested it, but from what they said it sounds like you will be able to damp me down to that same 9km lock range, only i will have my normal lock on time under 9k, is that so bad?
Ishina Fel Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:26:00 - [81] This is a prime example of a cool-sounding idea gone completely wrong. The uncounterable, extra-long-range, infinte strength, high slots scramble one-man moving gate camp without penalties(tm) is going to break lowsec in unfathomably horrible ways. It'll also completely obsolete the entire HAC class, with the exception of maybe the Ishtar and the Vagabond for die-hard fans. The ARM scripts are nerfing one overpowered module a little bit too much, three balanced modules even more, and are trying to nerf two completely useless modules - but lo and behold, nobody ever wasted a slot to fit them anyway, so nobody is being nerfed. To reiterate what was said over and over before: the weakest style of fighting, namely long-range, is made even less usable, and everyone's forced into cap-injected nano slugfests at 15km. Unless its a fleet battle, in which the sheer amount of focus fire outweighs the fact that battleships are dealing t1 cruiser DPS. So yeah. See you everywhere but in lowsec.
Ishina Fel Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:29:00 - [82] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton as for the hactors catching blockade runners, how is that different from a remote repped/sensor boosted arazu with 8 points or so on it? The fact that that would require at least 3 people, two of them in highly specialized tech 2 ships (1 damage dealer, 1 arazu, 1 logistics cruiser).
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:38:00 - [83] Originally by: Paddlefoot Aeon Edited by: Paddlefoot Aeon on 20/11/2007 06:09:09 Scripts are just a waste of time. I like the idea of limiting the modules, but needing to carry all these new "things" around in your hold... not to mention stocking them on the markets, it just too much and is over complicated. Make the sensor booster, sensor damp, tracking disruptor, etc... be limited using a right click toggle menu. Again, I'm fine with the balancing to these modules, but having to buy scripts is just a pain in the ass. It was done to add a new isk sink I suppose.
Bentula	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:41:00 - [84] Originally by: Sphynx Stormlord Edited by: Sphynx Stormlord on 20/11/2007 09:42:30 Hmm, I did forget the Sentinal, probably because it interested me briefly when I first saw it, untill I realised it was amarr. I'm not actually interested in heavy drones; I'm interested in sentry drones (which dont fit on the Sentinal, dispite the name similarity). Watching the progress as trinity developes has not been great: The gallente marauder had an adequate drone bay to start with, althoguh was disapointingly based on the megathron rather than the domi. That got reduced (which might be acceptable for balance reasons, but still disapointing that it was the drones which suffered). The Sin is something it will take a long long time to train for. And then the bandwidth nerfs result in two less ships which can be used with sentries. And the shield recharge nerf makes them less effective. I dont see why there is hypocracy in being anoyed that ones main play style is being reduced to less choices. Its simply in the nature of a evolving game like this that the role you play will change over the years regardless of wether you want it or not. When i trained for hacs(on my first char) they where the end all be all of combat ships. I wanted to do nothing but fly HACs, but these days HACs are only mediocore combat ships between recons,BCs,CS and t2 ammo moving fleets 150km apart from each other. Sometimes you loose your role due to changes in the ships you fly, but more often your role gets obsoleted by new stuff coming out. The hypocrasy(yep i have no idea how to spell it and try a new spelling each time) lies in people purposely ignoring new content because it doesnt exactly fit their playstyle on the one hand, however on the other hand they pay very close attention to new stuff that might endanger their playstyle. This results in alot of people lobbying to defend the old stuff, and very few people actually advocating the new stuff because it doesnt have a lobby yet. Which gives the impression everything gets worse, cause if the forums complain it must be true. You complain about the marauder not being based on a drone design, yet if it was other people would complain about it not being based on the megas design. You simply cant appease everyone. And i as a droneuser am happy about newfound balance. Now there is a reason to fly a non nano ishtar over a myrm again, the eos is no longer the abomination of a droneship it was(no drone damage bonus and 7 turrets?). Also there are new droneships like the sentinel and the sin which add flavour to droneusers instead of being YADS(Yet Another DroneShip).
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:50:00 - [85] Edited by: Wu Jiun on 20/11/2007 10:54:44 Originally by: Alex Harumichi You don't need 5-10, all you need is one. After that, the only thing the target can do is try to get back to the gate. Good luck doing that in any ship that can't fit an MWD and a tank... and that's assuming you don't get webbed also. This means that lowsec just became as dangerous as 0.0, with no rewards to compensate. Only suicidal idiots will transport goods or run missions there now. Lowsec is already pretty empty. It will be barren after this. Thats nonsense. I run camps in lowsec all the time and that means a) i am part of gatecamps b) i am flying blockade runners through camps. a) We use a lachesis that gets remote sensor boosted and remote repaired. It has better locktime than any hic will ever have and it has enough points of scram to hold down any blockade runner no matter how many stabs he has. The actual problem is locking a blockade runner which brings me to: b) I fly a blockade runner (prorator) myself and i regularly pass gates. My blockade runner warps before said dual sensor boosted, remote sensor boosted lachesis can even lock it. Admittedly its an expensive piece of technology given the rigs and imps. But if you know your blockade runner and understand to tell what a specific camp you run in can and cannot() do you will not get caught in 99.9% of the time. The cloak + mwd also works wonder and yes please tweak the crane. (i.e. has it a huginn/lach? how much firepower - can you make reapproach? do they have inty for decloaking?) A hic will change nothing although its an interesting tool. However your blockade runners are as safe as before. Once in a time you might lose it but thats part of living in lowsec. If you can't live with that well stick to hisec. Your horror scenarios of depleted lowsec are rediculous for anyone who actually lives there. Lowsec has never been and will never be as dangerous as 0.0, unless you do not adapt to game mechanics. And its not that empty as proven by one of the recent devblogs just FYI.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:52:00 - [86] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton as for the hactors catching blockade runners, how is that different from a remote repped/sensor boosted arazu with 8 points or so on it? Quite different. - you only need one person in HIC, not a multiship setup - An Arazu with 8 points will need to use 2-pt scramblers and will be able to scramble with only about 16km range (18?), which is a lot worse than the 30km range of the new module. It's a critical difference, when camping a gate. If the Arazu wants range, it will need to use 1-pts, limiting it to 6 pts (and that's assuming it uses all mids for them, which is rare). - An Arazu can't fit many sensor boosters if it also wants to get lots of points. The Broadsword can fit all mids for of sensor boosers (resulting in frigate-level lock times), and still be able to scramble at 30km and tank. All those factors result in an Arazu gate camp being much, much more survivable than a Broadsword one. Quote: and the arazu, sorry i haven't tested it, but from what they said it sounds like you will be able to damp me down to that same 9km lock range, only i will have my normal lock on time under 9k, is that so bad? It is, when you consider that you'll need all of you EW capacity to achieve just that lock reduction. Compare to the Rook, which can lock down multiple ships with ease, and do it totally -- not just a lock time + range reduction. When in addition you realize that the new inties can now scramble at 30km range, and the new HIC module existing, this leaves the scramble bonus of the gallente recons also a lot less valuable than before.
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E	Posted - 2007.11.20 10:55:00 - [87] Edited by: Garia666 on 20/11/2007 10:56:42 Can any of CCP tell me if the have tested the target dirupter with and without scripts? Also if they have tested it with the amarr EW ships who recieve a bonus towards tracking disrubting. And if so what are your conclusions? I would like to get comment of ccp before posting my own. ->My Vids<-
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:05:00 - [88] Originally by: Wu Jiun Your horror scenarios of depleted lowsec are rediculous for anyone who actually lives there. Lowsec has never been and will never be as dangerous as 0.0, unless you do not adapt to game mechanics. And its not that empty as proven by one of the recent devblogs just FYI. It's empty enough (and I'm in lowsec a lot of the time, thankyouverymuch). Sure, there are more people in lowsec than 0.0, but that's just because 0.0 is mostly empty. Compare lowsec to higsec population figures. It's far from a ridiculous scenario. Sure, a well-organized gate camp with a remotely supported Lachesis can be deadly. Thing is, the Broadsword will be much better, and it will also be able to operate solo if needed. That's a big, big difference. "Adapt to game mechanics"? Sure, when available. Problem is, the new HIC module has precious few counters: - Try to warp out before you're locked. Only possible in very fast ships. - Get back to gate. This requires that you not get webbed (iffy), can tank (simply not possible in a large number of ships), and can fit MWD (also not possible in many ships). Result: simply not an option for lots of ships. - Cloak and hope for the best. So from now on, cloak is mandatory for all ships in lowsec. Hooray. I'm pretty sure this module will open a huge can of worms for CCP (and the players). What you don't seem to realize is that there only needs to exist a realistic threat of an uncounterable gate camp. Multiship Lachesis setups are pretty rare, since they need skills, people and setup. Now we get a one-ship one-stop solution to all your gate piracy problems. People are already (too) scared to go into lowsec. This will only make things worse. Scrambling motherships? Cool. We needed that. But this module, if unchanged, will have a lot of extra negative consequences.
julius tel'kash	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:05:00 - [89] ......welcome to NerfTlation III... a part of the french comunity is not happy of nerf's sensor booster and drone.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:12:00 - [90] Originally by: phillie blunt so the ships that have bonus for td (amarr recons) you increased their bonus but not for gallentes recons? WHY? They didn't increase the bonus on the amarr ships. Do you feel better now? Thats of course the last thing they'd do. Newsflash: This is a Fendahlian blog.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:41:00 - [91] Originally by: Alex Harumichi It's empty enough (and I'm in lowsec a lot of the time, thankyouverymuch). Sure, there are more people in lowsec than 0.0, but that's just because 0.0 is mostly empty. Compare lowsec to higsec population figures. Agreed 100%. Still if 0.0 is even emptier how much can we expect? Much too often (for my taste) lowsec is depicted as a deserted and unreal place where only mass murderers and indiana jones will take their chances. I am just saying such radical viewpoints aren't accurate and further building this image will only keep more people away from lowsec. You should keep that in mind if you are interested in prosperity of lowsec too. That of course wasn't meant to imply you don't know your stuff, sorry if it sounded like that. Originally by: Alex Harumichi It's far from a ridiculous scenario. Sure, a well-organized gate camp with a remotely supported Lachesis can be deadly. Thing is, the Broadsword will be much better, and it will also be able to operate solo if needed. That's a big, big difference. You are right that broadsword might even be deadlier than a lachesis in a good gang. I didn't run the maths on the scan resolutions so i can't tell atm. But a good organized team imo should be able to catch blockade runners. Originally by: Alex Harumichi - Try to warp out before you're locked. Only possible in very fast ships. If you count blockade runners as very fast ships that statement is accurate. I think my blockade runner needs 5 seconds to get into warp give or take. Given latency and human reaction times i doubt i'll ever be catched. However i am sure you agree that a situation where a blockade runner can always escape isn't nice either, right? As for other ships i don't really see the point as they aren't really made for running through gatecamps imo. Originally by: Alex Harumichi - Get back to gate. This requires that you not get webbed (iffy), can tank (simply not possible in a large number of ships), and can fit MWD (also not possible in many ships). Result: simply not an option for lots of ships. Yes, but well thats the nature of a gatecamp. Most people just park some sensor boosted bcs and bs in front of a gate and expect to catch people. Those camps (majority) are easily passed in a blockade runner or any cruiser or smaller ship with mwd. A good organized group will mean certain death for about anything that is not shuttle, frig or a blockade runner. Sometimes it will kill the blockade runner too. Imo this is how it should be. Originally by: Alex Harumichi - Cloak and hope for the best. So from now on, cloak is mandatory for all ships in lowsec. Hooray. Well smart hauler fit it anyway. Its an option, you can take your chances if you prefer. Its not like pirates can complain now how heavy dictors are "necessary" for good gatecamps. The otherway round - its an option. You cannot deny that a cloak is a good survivability option and not a liability. Originally by: Alex Harumichi I'm pretty sure this module will open a huge can of worms for CCP (and the players). What you don't seem to realize is that there only needs to exist a realistic threat of an uncounterable gate camp. Multiship Lachesis setups are pretty rare, since they need skills, people and setup. Now we get a one-ship one-stop solution to all your gate piracy problems. You will still need a huginn thats sure. You will not be able to tank sentries, get high enough scan resolution and a web all at the same time in a viable setup. Not even with the broadsword although its awesome. So solo camping yes but not "uncounterable". And my point about blockade runners stands. When i said we often cannot even lock them with 2 x sb + 1 x remote sb on a lach - that was firsthand experience and not some stupid talk. So uncounterable gatecamps are bad - but so are uncatchable haulers.
veremon	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:42:00 - [92] A nerf, then. The mechanics of ARM sounds fun, The way youve changed the modules abilities is aweful. ARM scripts should boost the selected atribute to more than what it was before. In reality the addition of ARM scripts is just reducing the effectiveness of one attribute and giving us nothing better than what weve already had before with the other. Rubbish.
Gragnor Ordos Humanitas Knights Of the Southerncross	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:43:00 - [93] Originally by: Calmdown Edited by: Calmdown on 20/11/2007 09:39:33 This is a totally ridiculous, to be perfectly honest. (continued...) You have reduced me to agreeing with Burn Eden!!!! Now that alpha strike is dead and nano ships are dead - what is the difference between races? NOTHING. Everyone fitted to tank and gank. You are reducing Eve to a lowest common denominator game where everyone is the same. You are willfully destroying diversity and your arrogance in totally ignoring your player base is breathtaking.
Revolution Rising Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.11.20 11:56:00 - [94] Love the idea and the new makeup of one of my favorite drone cruisers the Arbitrator. It allows people a lot more selections when it comes to drone versatility which is a really good thing. Nice work. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed dimensions of 400x120 pixels and filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected])
Darth Felin	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:04:00 - [95] Originally by: Xaen Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff All told, not really looking forward to Rev3 so much.. Which kinda sucks because it's making me lose interest in the game more and more.. I guess the Minmatar recons are up for the nerfbat next. They got the Caldari, Amarr ones and the Gallente already... Don't worry Caldari ECM will be boosted in Trinity and it seems that they will dominate again as super EWar, so they can be nerfed next patch again
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:17:00 - [96] Originally by: Wu Jiun I am just saying such radical viewpoints aren't accurate and further building this image will only keep more people away from lowsec. You should keep that in mind if you are interested in prosperity of lowsec too. That of course wasn't meant to imply you don't know your stuff, sorry if it sounded like that. No prob. And you're right, we shouldn't get too extreme here. Sure, lowsec is pretty empty comprated to highsec, but it's far from empty. I'd love to see more people in lowsec (and no, I'm not a pirate :), that's all. Quote: But a good organized team imo should be able to catch blockade runners. Sure. My concern is just that the HICs (or whatever you want to call them) may make this a bit too easy, and especially too easy to set up very deadly solo gatecamps. Solo gatecamps that are hard to evade don't seem good for the game, imho. Quote: Originally by: Alex Harumichi - Try to warp out before you're locked. Only possible in very fast ships. If you count blockade runners as very fast ships that statement is accurate. I think my blockade runner needs 5 seconds to get into warp give or take. Given latency and human reaction times i doubt i'll ever be catched. However i am sure you agree that a situation where a blockade runner can always escape isn't nice either, right? Sure, you need some danger -- but imho there is one, a Lachesis/Arazu can pack more scramble than most blockage runners can/will stab for, so the danger is already there. My blockade runner aligns and warps very fast, I'm not really worried about myself here. Quote: As for other ships i don't really see the point as they aren't really made for running through gatecamps imo. Well... yes and no. Sure, a proper gate camp should be able to drop your random non-blockade runner indy. But the thing is, we now have something that can kill pretty much any non blockade runner indy, with just one ship and solo setup. That's bad, as in very bad. Why? It will have a huge effect on all industrial ops in lowsec (including ours). If we can't move materials with at least some amount of safety from solo pirates, then lowsec industry becomes not worth the risk. So we move back to highsec, and as a result there's less things for sale in lowsec, and less people. Problem in nutshell: a solo HIC now becomes a "gatecamp" for haulers, and one that's near-guaranteed death (unless you get very lucky with cloak). Result: industrial ops in lowsec become not worth it. You don't want to haul high-volume goods in blockade runners, not enough cargo space. Quote: And my point about blockade runners stands. When i said we often cannot even lock them with 2 x sb + 1 x remote sb on a lach - that was firsthand experience and not some stupid talk. So uncounterable gatecamps are bad - but so are uncatchable haulers. Yeah, and I agree that blockade runners will probably stay in the "difficult to catch" category (though I am a bit worried about the Broadsowrd and its ability to fill mids with sensor enhancers). The main problem is everything else except blockade runners. If noncombat (or mission runner) ships now face near-guaranteed death at gates from a solo ship, the risk vs reward of lowsec -- which is already a bit iffy -- will get horrible. The few people who now live / operate in lowsec will have precious little reason to stay there. Hoping I'm wrong, here, of course.
Drackx	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:23:00 - [97] This whole thing is another micro management item on ships Module fitting Ammo Drones Rigs Heat ARM scripts Scripts Problem that I see is that Heat is not being as widely used as it was intended. Anyone using it in Empire, mission runners, traders, miners (0.0), mini professions, explorers, etc..., and why would anyone? What was the percentage of players in Empire? Quote: We found that 78% of all characters were located in high security areas (security status at 0.5 or higher), 13% were located in low security areas, and 9% were in 0.0 at the time the snapshot was taken Isn't that enough indication that Heat is not the way to go. But no, CCP is going to continue this way and will bring ARM scripts. Nice going for new players and your 78% Empire players. Eve is known to have a steep learning curve and this is going to even make it steeper. New players will not even bother and if they bother they will think, pfffff a lot of work for exactly what gain?? For other players, you will need another 10minutes before you can undock just to have the right scripts in the right place etc... You want to prevent blobbing but all nerfs on ranges indicate the opposite. These micro management additions are not the way to go and you should therefore review it, there are other areas to be creative, planetary interaction for example or something like Drone Hives where you can dock and they move from system to system... Just reconsider all micro management additions, it will not help to grow your customer base. Drackx
Ishina Fel Caldari Synergy. Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:25:00 - [98] Originally by: Gragnor Now that alpha strike is dead and nano ships are dead - what is the difference between races? NOTHING. Everyone fitted to tank and gank. You are reducing Eve to a lowest common denominator game where everyone is the same. Nano ships dead? When did that happen? Odd that I see exclusively nano-ships in in (non-fleet) gangs these days, when they are so dead. I even tried bringing a tank/gank ship to a "everything goes" gang and ended up hitting the fan together with the proverbial bleep because all my teammates had nano ships and all the enemies did, too. If anything, the above changes further increase the need to nano it up, since either tracking or range will be getting completely gimped on any given ship.
Miklas Laces A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:25:00 - [99] Tell me again why Sensor Booster and Tracking Computer need a nerf ? Please sack all game-designers and use the money to buy hardware and optimize code. Eve is fine as it is now, we only want less lag.
Intel Cylon	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:26:00 - [100] Great Balancing CCP One (many) more reason here to fly caldary ships.
Stitcher Caldari legion of qui Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:31:00 - [101] I have.... a few concerns about the ARM scripts. In principle, I like the idea of adding an extra layer of tactical flexibility and functionality to ship setups, but to me it looks like it's being balanced a little to vigorously. Quote: Scriptable modules have also been modified to accommodate the ARM scripts. For instance, a Sensor Booster II now has a 30% bonus to targeting range and a 30% bonus to scan resolution. The sensor booster can still be used without any ARM scripts, but with reduced effectiveness compared to the 60% bonuses it had before. The ARM scripts can then be used to boost one bonus at the expense of the other. For instance, the Targeting Range ARM script gives a 100% bonus to the targeting range bonus of the sensor booster and a 100% reduction in the scan resolution bonus in the module it's installed in. This means that a Sensor Booster II with a Targeting Range ARM script gives a 60% bonus to targeting range, but without any bonus to scan resolution. It's this bit specifically that has me worried. While I can see the logic behind it, I have to say that I think halving the bonus might be a little too heavy-handed. Let's do the maths as they stand at the moment, using the module listed above. simplified, the module at the moment gives two +60 bonuses. 60+60 = 120 the proposed changes reduce these bonuses to: 30+30 = 60 With an ARM fitted, the bonuses become: 60+0 = 60 While I appreciate that my model is rather simplistic relative to the actual state of affairs, the end result is that the module's overall effectiveness is halved, and nothing you can do will alter that fact.... meaning that this is effectively a flat-out multi-module nerf. Considering the fact that these modules have been balanced, re-balanced and balanced again for good measure pretty much since the day they were first thought up, I'm failing to see the necessity for this change - remember the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it". I'd be less uncertain about all of this if the effects weren't so drastic across the board. Instead of swinging to either the full existing bonus on one attribute, and no bonus whatsoever on the other, I'd prefer it to be a straight boost to slightly ABOVE the existing baseline for one attribute, and a drastic (but not complete) reduction for the other, and for the new baseline to be about 66% of the original. following this pattern, the new maths on our old friend the Sensor Booster II could be: base stats: 40+40 = 80 ARMed: (40+70%)+(40-70%) = 68+12 = 80 At this point, the implementation of ARMs actually serves to provide us with a tangible benefit for using them - by using them, we slightly improve the performance of our equipment in one attribute, relative to what we already had, at the expense of a big drop in the other. The system as proposed at the moment offers no reward for fitting ARMs, other than that you get to keep using ONE aspect of your modules at the same level as already exists. Like I said, I can see the logic behind ARMs, but I think EVE requires a more subtle touch when balancing, and as it stands this system is.... not subtle. - The game is not the problem. The problem is that you are not adapting to the game.
Slate Fistcrunch Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:31:00 - [102] Edited by: Slate Fistcrunch on 20/11/2007 12:35:10 I have to agree with the micro managing complaints. Combat is way too short and the interface way too clumsy to realistically allow so many tasks to be performed in a fight. Add in lag and you have people pulling their hair out, not shouting in joy that their quick and decisive use of scripts won the day. edit: To the poster right above me, you don't want the module giving two bonuses due to stacking. I'm hoping they have implemented this such that one sensor booster giving range and a second sensor booster giving speed won't be stacking nerfing each other.
Stitcher Caldari legion of qui Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:42:00 - [103] Edited by: Stitcher on 20/11/2007 12:45:53 Originally by: Slate Fistcrunch edit: To the poster right above me, you don't want the module giving two bonuses due to stacking. I'm hoping they have implemented this such that one sensor booster giving range and a second sensor booster giving speed won't be stacking nerfing each other. Even factoring in the stacking penalty, the system as proposed still works out worse cross the board. I don't know the specifics of the stacking penalty system, I'm afraid, but I know that if you fit two sensor booster IIs to your ship, the bonus you receive is greater than 60/60. The ARM system would reduce the bonus from fitting two of those sensor boosters to exactly 60/60. I fail to see the benefit of introducing a system that actually reduces the efficiency of existing setups without providing some benefit in return - especially when the system being introduced alters a section of the gameplay that was not, as far as I can tell, actually in any great need of attention. Like I said, I like the idea - but I think its implementation as proposed is too heavy-handed. This game's system is by now so intricate that a more delicate approach is needed. - The game is not the problem. The problem is that you are not adapting to the game.
Soyemia Minmatar Deathwatch Inc. Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:56:00 - [104] LoL theyr nerfing tracking disruptors. They clearly were overpowered
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:58:00 - [105] 2 questions: - +how much time does it take to switch scripts? - if i fit 2 tracking computers, one loaded with optimal script, the other with tracking script, the way the bonus and penalties work, means that i would loose both bonus making the 2 modules completely useless, right?
Seriya Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.20 12:59:00 - [106] Edited by: Seriya on 20/11/2007 12:59:12 I don't like +100%/-100% modification taking 30/30 boosts to 60/0, I think that's really harsh and overly nerfing. Base stats such as 40/40 on Sensor Boosters with a +50%/-50% modification would give 60/20 boosts and be much more palatable whilst having a similar effect.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.20 13:00:00 - [107] Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/11/2007 13:00:23 Originally by: Soyemia LoL theyr nerfing tracking disruptors. They clearly were overpowered Yeah, that's one "wtf?" moment right there. Any random player could have told the you that damps were a lot more powerful than disruptors, from which any random player might have figured out that disrupters need to be nerfed a lot less than sensor damps. Let's do a market check: - best named damp: 11 - 15 mil - best named TD: 500k - 1 mil Yeah, no difference there. No indication of anything. Apparently the devs aren't "any random player", and see no power difference between damps and TDs.
Mrs M34N	Posted - 2007.11.20 13:00:00 - [108] Still not sure what these ARM stuff is usefull for on a SensorBooster anyways. People always forget that there is a low slot SignalAmp too. Why don't just change the SensoBoost to a pure SensorRangeBooster, and change the SignalAmp to a pure SignalResAmp ? No further Minin-Professions, Fancystuffincargo and don't forgettoclickbeforefight needed
Mrs M34N	Posted - 2007.11.20 13:04:00 - [109] Hint: Why is everyone using Damps ? Cause ECM was nerfed some Patch ago.... so what will be next ? ...unforeseen consequences...
Grim86StonE Amarr The Black Sea Pirates	Posted - 2007.11.20 13:06:00 - [110] This is outrageous. How can you introduce a ship with infinite warp scrambling power? Unless you aren't in a cloaker or an interceptor, or nano-ship you will not be able to travel through lowsec, let alone 0.0 where again the bubble mode has infinite strenght. This is beyond stupidity and I can't understand what you are trying to achieve or "fix". But since I have been playing this game, I have seen that CCP's notion of fix actually means "mess up"(shame I can't use the f word). I urge you to reconsider what you are doing. There are small (1-10 players) corps that cannot afford to buy a jump freighter to fuel their small ratting POS in deep 0.0. You are also dealing a huge blow to industrialists and confine most of them to empire space. I don't want to get a 10 man escort everytime I need to go to empire to get a ship or some ammo. Again you are taking solo work from people who like to live alone or in very small numbers. As a proposed fix, the mobile bubble should not have more than 1 point scrambling power and the focused one should have 2 points of scrambling power(to be an improved version of the 7,5km 2 point scrambler). Also, dictor bubbles should also have finite power. The only bubbles with infinite power should be the anchorable ones. Please think about what you are doing and change this.

Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc Forum Moderator	Posted - 2007.11.20 14:02:00 - [111] have to admit the ship with infinite warp scrambling power worried me alot, as now it can just lock down anything it also doesnt get many penalties for doing it, though im sure it would be great fun for the person who is flying it (hell that might even be me :D ) its really going to kill the elite haulig classes and there is not much point fittign traveling fittings on a BS anymore. Why not give the script a negative bonus to sensor strenth so that when you have the uber focused scrambling beam loaded it takes you ages to lock something smaller than a mothership or titan? say it takes 20 seconds to lock down a mother ships which means it would take a very long time to lock down anything else? this would mean ships which have fast warp travel setups or fast to warp blockade runners will still have a chance to get through because the heavy inmterdictor will nto have time to lock them. - Thanks Hutch. ____ forum rules \| [email protected] ôWar is not the dreadful end to all things as mankind fears. Conflict brings balance to nature as it adapts, mutates, and transforms itself into something stronger than before. Mankind is the master of nature because we can choose those mutations on our own accord. We can accelerate the inevitable dominance of a species. Through war, we can make ourselves stronger at the time and place of our choosing. War is not hell, far from it. War is beautiful. War is divine.ö - Grand Admiral Mekioth Sarum, excerpt from a commencement speech to Paladin graduates of the Imperial Academy, 23215 AD

Exus PsyCorp Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.11.20 14:02:00 - [112] Bandwith and scripts both bad ideas. I dont argue, i just plus it. every good arguments are allready said. òò
Angel Syn	Posted - 2007.11.20 14:06:00 - [113] ..."tools that will allow players more flexibility when using certain modules and drones." Hmm. The way things are going it sounds like you'll soon have to be a f***ing engineer to play eve.. Scripts for modules?!? First comes heat & combat boosters which basically should add more exitement to fights.. yeah, right. I've never heard anyone actually using them. Then comes all the nerfs.. Specially with character trained to Amarr (and recons) I really think there's enough balancing issues needed to work with - without any new micro-managing-module-scripting-hell - which will soon need nerfing.
Stitcher Caldari legion of qui Terra Incognita.	Posted - 2007.11.20 14:12:00 - [114] My above notwithstanding, I have to say this entire thing looks like a case of the Devil making work for idle hands. While my above posts are a plea for subtlety in this change, the fact is that ideally the ARM scripts change in particular simply should not be implemented, as it is totally unnecessary. These things really aren't broken guys - there's no need to try and fix them. Or at least, if there is, this isn't the way to do it. - The game is not the problem. The problem is that you are not adapting to the game.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2007.11.20 14:21:00 - [115] Originally by: Stitcher I have.... a few concerns about the ARM scripts. In principle, I like the idea of adding an extra layer of tactical flexibility and functionality to ship setups, but to me it looks like it's being balanced a little to vigorously. Quote: Scriptable modules have also been modified to accommodate the ARM scripts. For instance, a Sensor Booster II now has a 30% bonus to targeting range and a 30% bonus to scan resolution. The sensor booster can still be used without any ARM scripts, but with reduced effectiveness compared to the 60% bonuses it had before. The ARM scripts can then be used to boost one bonus at the expense of the other. For instance, the Targeting Range ARM script gives a 100% bonus to the targeting range bonus of the sensor booster and a 100% reduction in the scan resolution bonus in the module it's installed in. This means that a Sensor Booster II with a Targeting Range ARM script gives a 60% bonus to targeting range, but without any bonus to scan resolution. It's this bit specifically that has me worried. While I can see the logic behind it, I have to say that I think halving the bonus might be a little too heavy-handed. Let's do the maths as they stand at the moment, using the module listed above. simplified, the module at the moment gives two +60 bonuses. 60+60 = 120 the proposed changes reduce these bonuses to: 30+30 = 60 With an ARM fitted, the bonuses become: 60+0 = 60 While I appreciate that my model is rather simplistic relative to the actual state of affairs, the end result is that the module's overall effectiveness is halved, and nothing you can do will alter that fact.... meaning that this is effectively a flat-out multi-module nerf. Considering the fact that these modules have been balanced, re-balanced and balanced again for good measure pretty much since the day they were first thought up, I'm failing to see the necessity for this change - remember the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it". I'd be less uncertain about all of this if the effects weren't so drastic across the board. Instead of swinging to either the full existing bonus on one attribute, and no bonus whatsoever on the other, I'd prefer it to be a straight boost to slightly ABOVE the existing baseline for one attribute, and a drastic (but not complete) reduction for the other, and for the new baseline to be about 66% of the original. following this pattern, the new maths on our old friend the Sensor Booster II could be: base stats: 40+40 = 80 ARMed: (40+70%)+(40-70%) = 68+12 = 80 At this point, the implementation of ARMs actually serves to provide us with a tangible benefit for using them - by using them, we slightly improve the performance of our equipment in one attribute, relative to what we already had, at the expense of a big drop in the other. The system as proposed at the moment offers no reward for fitting ARMs, other than that you get to keep using ONE aspect of your modules at the same level as already exists. Like I said, I can see the logic behind ARMs, but I think EVE requires a more subtle touch when balancing, and as it stands this system is.... not subtle. Employ this guy. This is how ARM scripts should work. Bandwith: why are you people so narrow minded ? ever seen a Vexor use 3 heavy drones ? Then it was a NEWB that failed his math class every time. Seems my training for amarr cruiser 5 (Khanid HAC) will have a secondary benefit of getting the Arbitrator too ... Oh and it is good being Caldari. Realy. I mean Moa and Eagle will actualy have a purpose now without getting boosted in any way. Even tho the desired change would be +1 turret on both. Originally by: Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
Trass	Posted - 2007.11.20 14:36:00 - [116] Edited by: Trass on 20/11/2007 14:40:18 TO CCP OWNER: NERF SALARY OF YOUR WORKERS. They have too much money, they dont fix bugs, only create more of work to do. Proof? http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/knownissues.asp after each patch list is longer and longer. But no: fixing problems is boring. Lets kill this game! Yeah and they do it.
J Valkor Blackguard Brigade	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:00:00 - [117] Edited by: J Valkor on 20/11/2007 15:04:01 Edited by: J Valkor on 20/11/2007 15:01:37 Good changes. Nerfing sensor disruptor's will make all other forms of ECM more widely used, or at least make combinations used instead of the current spam one one module. Instant locking ships at huge distances was nonsensical. Drone bandwidth, eh. EOS pilots will never stop complaining because they can't get it through their heads that their ship was broken. These comparisons so the DPS of an astarte only show how twisted their perspective is. Maybe more people will use, heaven forbid, utility drones.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:07:00 - [118] Originally by: J Valkor Edited by: J Valkor on 20/11/2007 15:01:37 Good changes. Nerfing sensor disruptor's will make all other forms of ECM more widely used, or at least make combinations used instead of the current spam one one module. Yeah a great boost for all "other" kinds of ECM I'm sure every minmatar and amarr pilot are thrilled with their great racial ECM being made usefull, I'm sure everyone will start fitting target painters and tracking disruptors. /sarcasm It will just result in everyone using ECM modules instead of damps. And if they as a result nerf the ECM AGAIN then eve will be 1 step closer to being pure gank/tank . I guess that that you don't consider everyone only fitting tank/gank on t1 ships to be more "varied" as the current system? --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Garat Mant Minmatar Moons of Pluto	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:17:00 - [119] Hi CCP Fendahl, Thanks for the blog, it's interesting to read about these new changes. I hope you can answer (or clarify) a question that a lot of comments have already posed, and will only be asked more as these changes become more widely known: Is it CCP's intention to frighten people away from low security space? As described, the Heavy Interdictor's ability to overcome all warp core stabilizers, appears to enable players to completely prevent travel through a jump gate. Is this the case? Will Blockade Runners still be able to, with correct fitting, overcome this anti-warp bubble? Have CCP's plans changed with regards to the general push to get people into low security space? As a miner/industrialist, my current reward for low security operations is generally better ores and more capable deployable stations. While the Heavy Interdictor's abilities doesn't prevent me or my friends from mining or using a POS, it does further add to our workload (with scouts even more valuable now, and the possibility of even a small pirate group being able to trap us in-system). That last paragraph sounds much like a whine; that's not the case, I greatly enjoy the risks and rewards of this game. However I do want to make it clear that, along with a lot of people in the comments in this thread, that I feel CCP is making EVE less of a game, and more of a job with every patch. Please reconsider the changes you are making in the light of player workload and enjoyment. -G -- CEO, Moons Of Pluto industrial corporation. Recruiting mature players!
Havok Pierce Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:20:00 - [120] Edited by: Havok Pierce on 20/11/2007 15:24:01 Originally by: CCP Fendahl The Amarr drone ships are biased towards spare drones, e.g. the Arbitrator has 50Mbit/s bandwidth (enough for 5 medium scout drones) and 150m3 drone bay (enough for 3 waves of medium scout drones). Isn't that supposed to be Amarr drone ship? Anyway, interesting flexibility change with ARMs; it'll only be a matter of time before the min/maxers figure it out again. Oh, and lowsec gank supercaps? Methinks your days are numbered. I, for one, welcome our new bickering shipfit overlords. Originally by: CCP Wrangler There's a Community petition category??
mastergamer Caldari Racketeers	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:44:00 - [121] Does the scripted heavy dictor disruptor work in highsec as an infinite-point scram too? Or is it just lowsec/0.0?
Zakgram Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:45:00 - [122] The script thing on modules is a bit of a pain. Unlike the existing module you have to deactivate the module, wait for it to finish it's cycle, change whatever it's doing, then re-activate. For things like the SB the cycle time is 10 secs for the T1 and 20 secs for the T2... Changing the scripts should be allowed while the module is active.
Liache Lempourage	Posted - 2007.11.20 15:49:00 - [123] Hello, thanks for the new dev blog, it is very interesting to see into what direction EVE is developing and how the devs work and think. There is however one part that concerns me: Quote: (...)the Gallente drone ships are biased towards firepower at the expense of spare drones. The Vexor, for instance, now has 75Mbit/s bandwidth (enough for 3 heavy drones)(...) If the dev blog is supposed to be written by devs, then I wonder if those devs are qualified for their job, since it is known that the maximum firepower with the vexor can be aquired by using 2 heavy, 2 medium and one light drones. Why do they then give the example with 3 heavy drones? Bigger = better? This has already been mentioned in the thread and but it should draw more attention. Still I am looking forward to the changes in gameplay that will occure with the new patch.
Cyberus Caldari Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.11.20 16:07:00 - [124] Edited by: Cyberus on 20/11/2007 16:08:06 Drones--> dont realy care about tbh. scripts--> seems as bull**** to me. (exept HIC script)
Matalino Gallente Datacore Harvesting	Posted - 2007.11.20 16:57:00 - [125] Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc Why not give the script a negative bonus to sensor strenth so that when you have the uber focused scrambling beam loaded it takes you ages to lock something smaller than a mothership or titan? say it takes 20 seconds to lock down a mother ships which means it would take a very long time to lock down anything else? This sounds like an excellent way to balance the power of the super-point scramble. I would recommend setting the balancing point such that a HIC with 2x SB/RSB needs 15-20 seconds to lock a battleship, or 10-15 seconds with 3x SB/RSB. That would allow travel fitted ships (particularly the Blockade Runners) a reasonable chance to get into warp before they can get locked down, but still allows the HIC to be useful as a secondary tackler. Quote: Under the old system the bonuses were applied to multipliers on the module, but with the new system the bonuses are instead applied to percentage bonuses on the module. To give an example, the Tracking Disruptor II has a base penalty to the optimal range of the targeted ship of -40.2% with an Optimal Range Disruption ARM script installed. The Weapon Disruption skill adds a 5% bonus per level to this penalty, so at level 5 the penalty would be -40.2% * 1.25 = -50.25%. By using this module on e.g. a Curse with Recon Ships level 5 the penalty would be increased to -40.2% * 1.25 * 1.25 = -62.8%. Rigs and warfare link bonuses are applied in a similar manner. You have provided a one sided explination of this change, but you have failed to provide a comparision to what the original effectiveness was. There is much fussing about how this has reduced the effectiveness of the E-war modules that now use scripts. Please provide us with the official comparision of Ewar effectiveness before and after, along with a explination/justification for that change. ************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO
Cardice Makar Caldari Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.20 17:01:00 - [126] Anything I could say has been said already, I'm afraid. I really like the theory, but pre-nerfing dedicated ships is dangerous... as an Amarr/Gallente Recon pilot, my concerns grow with this blog. I appreciate finally telling us what your intentions are, but I'd like some additional information saying something to the effect of "No, we don't want to leave you with your pants down and weeks of skill training on the line". The Damp nerf was needed... is needed and should be implemented... however, uber-nerfing them rips out the heart of Gallente recons too. Something NEEDS to be looked at there. Don't even get me started on the Pilgrim. More Gold bars please.
Mark Lucius Forbidden Lore	Posted - 2007.11.20 17:52:00 - [127] Edited by: Mark Lucius on 20/11/2007 17:55:19 Good to hear that the dual bonused modules (SB,TD,SD) are getting reduced! I am loving the option to focus their power already. I do hope that specialized ships (ie. recons) keep their significant bonus though. I do think that the focussed, infinite strength scrambler needs looking at with regards to T2 industrials too. ---
Caullus	Posted - 2007.11.20 17:56:00 - [128] While I agree that low-sec MOM's should be nerfed or at the very least they should have some risk associated with them, but the infinite point scramble is not the way to do this. People are right when they say this will BREAK gatecamping and blockade running. This change, if not carefully considered, will make WCS worthless for smugglers and make lowsec unaccessible to them. As for the ARM's.. it's a neat idea.. in theory, but most pilots are right when they say that no more micromanagement is needed. We don't need yet another parameter to watch and modify during PVP combat. This might work for PVE, but will only HURT PVP. Heat, rigs, and (possibly) boosters are more than enough variation in combat as it stands and more is not needed. Combat may not take enough time for the devs, but I promise, this is NOT the way to fix that particular problem.I could see something like ARMs for drones but for modules it's just TOO MUCH. Please reconsider adding FURTHER micromanagement to the system. As for the drone "nerf", and it is a nerf, albeit a smallish one, is not a bad idea to keep people from using 5 heavies on a ship with 25m3 drone bays, but the drones themselves need fixing too. The HORRIBLE AI and constant target switching MUST come to an end. And yet after almost a year of promises and hoping, very little, IF ANYTHING, is being said to address this particular issue. Not to mention the "firepower focus" of Gallente drone ships, this makes VERY little sense if any. Gallente drone ships were GREAT b/c if you needed an extra drone or 2 in the bay, gallente could accomidate, now you're switching this focus to Amarr (not that they didn't need the love). Increasing the bandwidth a little for Gall ships but NOT increasing their bays will mean that Gall drone bays will not be able to fight the long fight. They may hit hard, but will have v little if any staying power compared to the amarr ships. With so many bugs still left in the game I was REALLY looking forward to the large number of fixes that we were told would be coming along with this patch. I don't think it's a great idea to break what's working and NOT fix what is broken (even tho RSD's did need some sort of nerf). In closing: ARM's : Unneeded, extra micromanagement thumbs down Bandwidth : Ok, but consider it carefully, and fix the drones themselves too, not just the ships. Supercap jamming : needed, but not an infinite point scramble (try a MOM jammer, *****ble only to H-dictors) FIX THE BUGS AND THE DRONES, then give Amarr a little love (5-10% laser boost to damage and slightly lower fitting reqs). After BOTH of these are done, THEN maybe add something. All of this while nano-ships are still (for the most part) broken.
MTX PT New European Regiment Pax Atlantis	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:09:00 - [129] Originally by: Caullus Edited by: Caullus on 20/11/2007 18:02:25 ... As for the ARM's.. it's a neat idea.. in theory, but most pilots are right when they say that no more micromanagement is needed. We don't need yet another parameter to watch and modify during PVP combat. This might work for PVE, but will only HURT PVP. Heat, rigs, and (possibly) boosters are more than enough variation in combat as it stands and more is not needed. Combat may not take enough time for the devs, but I promise, this is NOT the way to fix that particular problem.I could see something like ARMs for drones but for modules it's just TOO MUCH. Please reconsider adding FURTHER micromanagement to the system. As for the drone "nerf", and it is a nerf, albeit a smallish one, is not a bad idea to keep people from using 5 heavies on a ship with 25m3 drone bays, but the drones themselves need fixing too. The HORRIBLE AI and constant target switching MUST come to an end. And yet after almost a year of promises and hoping, very little, IF ANYTHING, is being said to address this particular issue. Not to mention the "firepower focus" of Gallente drone ships, this makes VERY little sense if any. Gallente drone ships were GREAT b/c if you needed an extra drone or 2 in the bay, gallente could accomidate, now you're switching this focus to Amarr (not that they didn't need the love). Increasing the bandwidth a little for Gall ships but NOT increasing their bays will mean that Gall drone bays will not be able to fight the long fight. They may hit hard, but will have v little if any staying power compared to the amarr ships. With so many bugs still left in the game I was REALLY looking forward to the large number of fixes that we were told would be coming along with this patch. I don't think it's a great idea to break what's working and NOT fix what is broken (even tho RSD's did need some sort of nerf). .... I agree, no more micromanagement, it's enough.
Matalino Gallente Datacore Harvesting	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:19:00 - [130] Originally by: Caullus As for the ARM's.. it's a neat idea.. in theory, but most pilots are right when they say that no more micromanagement is needed. The alternative nerf is to make seperate modules for the different attributes. Atleast with scripts we will have the option to change which attribute gets a bonus without swapping modules. I don't expect that scripts will be changed often in combat, rather the desired script will be most often loaded ahead of time, or at most changed once during combat to match the need, one for close range, the other for long. ************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:20:00 - [131] Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc Why not give the script a negative bonus to sensor strenth so that when you have the uber focused scrambling beam loaded it takes you ages to lock something smaller than a mothership or titan? say it takes 20 seconds to lock down a mother ships which means it would take a very long time to lock down anything else? this would mean ships which have fast warp travel setups or fast to warp blockade runners will still have a chance to get through because the heavy inmterdictor will nto have time to lock them. That's a very elegant solution, in my opinion. They shouldn't have an impossible time locking sub-caps, it should just get very tricky without remote sensor boosting as the target gets smaller and more agile. It's a nice trade off for the extra range and unlimited strength. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:20:00 - [132] Originally by: Alex Harumichi Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/11/2007 11:06:00 Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton as for the hactors catching blockade runners, how is that different from a remote repped/sensor boosted arazu with 8 points or so on it? Quite different. - you only need one person in HIC, not a multiship setup - An Arazu with 8 points will need to use 2-pt scramblers and will be able to scramble with only about 16km range (18?), which is a lot worse than the 30km range of the new module. It's a critical difference, when camping a gate. If the Arazu wants range, it will need to use 1-pts, limiting it to 6 pts (and that's assuming it uses all mids for them, which is rare). - An Arazu can't fit many sensor boosters if it also wants to get lots of points. The Broadsword can fit all mids full of sensor boosters (resulting in frigate-level lock times), and still be able to scramble at 30km and tank. All those factors result in an Arazu gate camp being much, much more survivable than a Broadsword one. Quote: and the arazu, sorry i haven't tested it, but from what they said it sounds like you will be able to damp me down to that same 9km lock range, only i will have my normal lock on time under 9k, is that so bad? It is, when you consider that you'll need all of you EW capacity to achieve just that lock reduction. Compare to the Rook, which can lock down multiple ships with ease, and do it totally -- not just a lock time + range reduction. When in addition you realize that the new inties can now scramble at 30km range, and the new HIC module existing, this leaves the scramble bonus of the gallente recons also a lot less valuable than before. yes yes i know, thanks for clarifying though (5am posts ftl) facepalm. although i would like to point out that a 1 man hic camp should fall apart very quickly. 80ish% resist zealot tanks 350ish dps, people say gateguns do 300ish, thats what a frigs dps will blow up a hic under sentry fire? although the benefits of using a hic are and should be obvious to using a recon to tackle. its just that its possible to put a lot of points on one thing now. and yes that does suck for the arazu, although it took 3 damps to do that before. i was just commenting on how the range reduction should be the same before/after patch, i never said it was a good thing. i was just saying locking at point blank is about as bad as locking at point blank and taking forever to lock.
Natalie Jax Indecision Industries	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:24:00 - [133] CCP does not care what we think on this matter. They have failed yet again to address the concerns of their community. We are apparently just a bunch of ignorant children who cannot possibly voice a rational argument against their divine decisions. Moreso, we are apparently considered too stupid to understand their reasoning, therefore we are just told to trust them. You post your "proposed" changes on the Game Development forum then after nearly 200+ posts all we get are a pair of terse, defensive, and arrogant posts from a Dev saying "we don't see anything here that changes our minds" without providing even a remote shred of information as to why.
Natalie Jax Indecision Industries	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:29:00 - [134] Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton and yes that does suck for the arazu, although it took 3 damps to do that before. i was just commenting on how the range reduction should be the same before/after patch, i never said it was a good thing. i was just saying locking at point blank is about as bad as locking at point blank and taking forever to lock. Incorrect. There is an additional nerf on the strength of RSD modules independent of the ARM scripts. They are also halving the strength of the RSD boosting rig. You cannot achieve the same range reduction with an Arazu as you can today. Not even with rigs, implants, and max skills. Even adding a fourth RSD II doesn't get you there because of the massive 4th module stacking penalty.
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.20 18:38:00 - [135] The following movie shows scripts in use. Just take a look at the last 2 or 3 minutes, doesn't it look exciting to have to change your scripts like that!? --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Steppa Gallente Incognito Inc	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:09:00 - [136] Gallente drone ***** here. Pretty much the epitome of whoever at CCP thought of when they built drones into the game. Most of my offensive skill points are in drones on a character that has been around since the beginning of the game. POINT 1) This change is absolute crap. "biased toward firepower", so less spares...OMG. DRONE USERS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE GAME THAT CAN HAVE THEIR WEAPONS DESTROYED. We...NEED...spares. POINT 2) If you braniacs that meddle with this game are going to do this, you need to include a toggle to SHUT OFF bandwidth to ANY deployed/active drone. This would free up bandwidth to launch another drone. I consider this an absolute necessity if they're going through with this change. Why is that important? If you don't know, you don't use drones. If you don't use drones, why do you care?
Arcan Somez	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:17:00 - [137] Edited by: Arcan Somez on 20/11/2007 19:17:19 Needless micromanagement. Needless nerf.
VauXurne	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:21:00 - [138] Snipers are already vulnerable. Why nerf them? I can see the need to nerf sensor damps, but nerfing every sniper kit accross all races is a really bad idea. What is the justification for this? Who is responsible for the uber whining that resulted in CCP wanting to nerf snipers? They are an integral part of fleet, and fleet warefare is currently very balanced. Leave it alone.
Mrs M34N	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:25:00 - [139] muhaww that interview was fun... best was the part bout bombs for stealthbombers: "we have improved them so they go with a FORWARD trajectory, making it easier to go away after launch before bomb goes boom" arghh +#/%º BACKWARD trajectory !!!!!!! I want to go AWAY* after bomb launch, so I will be aligned !! so the bloody bomb needs to be launched BACKWARDS !!! nerf narf
Marc Vestabule Minmatar Amnion Partners	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:26:00 - [140] Another drive by dev blog. Why bother having comments if its not going to be a two way process? I assume we are in feature freeze so there is nothing anyone could say to make any changes. The dev blog does not address its impact on specific ships or explain its intention other than someone thought it would be a neat idea to introduce scripts. I can only assume that if you protest enough all you are doing is placing the ship/ module into the nerf firing line. Those who posted on the ships and modules for a boost for the Eagle must be kicking themselves in offering the ship up for further kicking.
Anwylyd Al'Vos Minmatar LightSpeed Industries	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:30:00 - [141] /me has just decided to take a second look at heavy dictors... very nice _ . - Justice, Mercy, and Faith My soul has horizons further away than those of early mornings, deeper darkness than the night
Maraq Caldari Radikus Industries	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:38:00 - [142] I like the idea of drone bandwidth. It is a great idea. That said, I can not understand why you are nerfing the myrm. It is a drone carrier. It has NO gun bonuses. There is no reason at all for it to have less than 125m3 bandwidth. If you think the myrm does too much damage (lol) reduce the number of turrets it gets. As a drone-centric ship it is sad that CCP would even consider nerfing its drone use.
Trent Nichols Di-Tron Heavy Industries Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:49:00 - [143] Drone bandwidth is a fantastic and long overdue feature that looked like it would add a (good) new dimension to drone ships. Then CCP turned it into yet another horrible/unbalanced nerf. Scripts could be a great new feature adding a new depth to combat but their unbelievably poor execution turns them into yet another horrible/unbalanced nerf. Yes, I know I'm not being constructive but there are plenty of constructive posts, some by me, in this and other threads addressing these issues if CCP would only pay attention to them.
Hugh Ruka Caldari Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:50:00 - [144] Originally by: Shevar The following movie shows scripts in use. Just take a look at the last 2 or 3 minutes, doesn't it look exciting to have to change your scripts like that!? You are telling us that you can change the scripts ONLINE, while the module is active and it will change in the next cycle according to the loaded script ? So you don't need to deactivate the module, reload the script and then activate the module ? Be cause what I saw in the video was just offline loading of scripts. Originally by: Aravel Thon Originally by: Nith Batoxxx Hi my alt just leanred to fly the ferox............... I am so so terribly sorry...
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.11.20 19:54:00 - [145] Yes lets just nerf more stuff!!! CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
Alz Shado Ever Flow DeStInY.	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:09:00 - [146] Windows 3.1 called, they want Drag N Drop back. And some guy named Fitts called you dumb and slow.
Kodiak31415 An Eye For An Eye Rule of Three	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:24:00 - [147] Originally by: Dev Blog As a general rule, the Gallente drone ships are biased towards firepower at the expense of spare drones. Right...because 'reducing' the drone bandwidth of the ishkur eos and myrmidon from pre bandwidth levels really sounds like a bias towared firepower at the expense of spare drones. I don't care too much about the nerfs but could CCP please stop putting out bogus info like this in its devblogs? Trinity is coming out on november 27th right. I read it in a recent dev blog, must be true. Also carriers are getting limited to 5 drones at a time, read it in a dev blog. Please proofread this stuff before publishing it to the playerbase..... _______________________________ Pleese exucse any seplling erorr's in tihs psot
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:26:00 - [148] When are you going to "balance" the game breakingly powerful nanos and speed rigs? Why is it so wrong a Command ship feilding five heavy drones yet a Cruiser doing 10K km/s is perfectly acceptable in your eyes? Are you going to provide turrets with the tracking needed and missiles the speed needed in order to counter the so-called "Speed tank", presently the most broken and ridiculously overpowered setup in Eve? Make a Difference
Shevar Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:32:00 - [149] Originally by: Hugh Ruka Originally by: Shevar The following movie shows scripts in use. Just take a look at the last 2 or 3 minutes, doesn't it look exciting to have to change your scripts like that!? You are telling us that you can change the scripts ONLINE, while the module is active and it will change in the next cycle according to the loaded script ? So you don't need to deactivate the module, reload the script and then activate the module ? Be cause what I saw in the video was just offline loading of scripts. From what I can see it's a lot like switching crystals in lasers, the modules weren't active while changing. Just as you can't change crystals while pewpew'ing. So the modules weren't off line in the vid just not activated. --- -The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:48:00 - [150] Bandwidth. Much needed mechanic, but the numbers and available options limit some ships too much. I hope that this is temporary, and that options for customizing bandwidth--for a cost, of course--are coming soon. Hopefully, sooner than SoonÖ. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Thargor II Amarr Real Nice And Laidback Corporation Interstellar Starbase Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.20 20:53:00 - [151] I like the changes. I haven't really gotten to see them in action but the "nerfs" are needed. The Heavy Dictor being able to crush all that come through a gate is going to be awesome. The days of low sec motherships are at an end. Drone bandwidth I agree with and can't really understand why a ship will now not have a huge drone bay. I think every ship that can field drones should have a large enough drone bay to launch at least 3 waves. I don't really know of any situation I have been in in PvP that I launched more than 1 wave of drones before warping off or killing the enemy. These ARMs and Scripts are just stupid tbh. I don't think there really is a need to change that particular part of game play. Either that or allow us to set up key binds that instantly change ammo to a preset configuration w/o needlessly clicking on every damn box. Why can't I just hit a key bind that makes all of my guns and ARMS switch from 150k setup to 20k? I mean this would be great in any combat even in low lag. Just hit the key and deal with the lag 1 time as opposed to 14 times for all of your modules that will now require ammo.
Tara'Quoya Rax Black-Sun	Posted - 2007.11.20 21:04:00 - [152] Poor newbies... I love all the changes. But I do think the warp disruptor field generator shouldn't be permitted in low sec. It will probably make the low-sec population decrease significantly. But motherships and titans shouldn't be permitted in low sec either.
Leigh Goslin	Posted - 2007.11.20 21:19:00 - [153] oh my god why does CCP hate us so much... so lets see now my sensor boosters need some sort of ammo..warpdisruption feilds...can hit low sec, and your making recons the most useless things in the game.. you already nerfed amarr recons.. yes, they now suck, now your gonna nerf them again along with the rest. is there some sort of new Dev team that is just bent on making this game the most annoying, unbearable, stupidly balanced 50/50 chance of winning at all, game. who hired these people? and please dear god say they are volunteers, and we are not paying them to massacre 'our' game like this. /whinemode[OFF] LG Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Pang Grohl Gallente Sudo Corp	Posted - 2007.11.20 21:54:00 - [154] This thread contains way too much Chicken Little... Sensor Boosting change is bad for snipers. Well yes, but insta-lock at max range is bad for everyone. So, now you solo a few less shuttles, frigates, and destroyers. If you've got friends along you can overcome the lost bonuses. Sensor Damper change is bad for Gallente e-war pilots. Is it really that bad? You were fitting them with one of the two effects in mind, and therefore the other was overkill anyway. You can still effectively remove an opponent from a fight. Now you have to decide how best to do that. Tracking Disruptor change is unnecessary on a limited use module. Like Sensor Dampers you're using them for one effect or the other, not both at the same time. In other words, the tracking debuff doesn't really have the same effect as the range debuff against a long range fit opponent, and vice versa for short range fit opponents. Tracking Comp/Link change is another nerf against snipers. Like Sensor Damps and TD's you're using these to get the benefit of one effect or the other, with the unintended benefit being unnecessary. Do you really need more optimal when you're firing blasters at someone from <1000m? Warp Disruption Focus is too powerful and makes solo low-sec gate camps sure death for everyone. Not really. The Broadsword has the potential to fit a mild tank while sensor boosted to the gills, but minimal cap support. Unsupported this ship will have low combat effectiveness, and probably only suited to engaging un-escorted industrial ships. Your hauler isn't as vulnerable as you think. They have lots of CPU, cap, and mid-slots, use them, and you'll see that you have a much higher rate of survival. If you're aim is to get away from the gate, fit e-war (ECM, sensor damps). If you want to be able to get back to the other side fit a tank and some speed. Drone bandwidth means more flavor for drone users. The changes mentioned specifically here make sense. The Arbitrator is far more dependent on it's drones for damage output than the Vexor is. The changes to other droneships especially the up and coming T2 additions is worthy of a separate discussion entirely. *** Si non adjuvas, noces (If you're not helping, you're hurting) Improve Share Transfers
Perry Amarr The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2007.11.20 22:10:00 - [155] This Topic needs more Falloff Disruption Script.
Liang Nuren The Avalon Foundation Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.20 22:12:00 - [156] Edited by: Liang Nuren on 20/11/2007 22:12:52 CCP Zulupark says that the modules are fine, stfu and stop whining: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=631272&page=14#412 Liang Ed: linky -- Retired forum *****. Plz tell me to STFU. Yarr?
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2007.11.20 22:17:00 - [157] I stand by my statments, I DO NOT like these scripts. combat is becomming too complecated, and I predict CCP will start to lose players. If anyone wanted to make the comment, that ccp is rewritting the rules by which combat in this game is done, here it is. A nerf here or there is one thing, these scripts are a totally nother story. As a sniper pilot, I must fly a 200 to 300 million isk ship. Now you wish to make these snipers basicly become worth less. heres how. I spend about 30 seconds changing ammo and locking hostiles, oh wait I must now change scripts too, as i must target faster, or i need to track better.... 30 more seconds pass, my support are being ripped appart by the short ranged hostiles. now I have my targets, but they are too close. I now lose my ship. to make a long story short, this will be the big problem you WILL see in fleet battles. the idea of scripts is nice perhaps for real life where your ship captain spent twenty years leaning the ropes, and you can get the experance to know what scripts you would need. but this is a game, ment for enjoyment, too much realisem kills that enjoyment.
John McCreedy Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.20 22:34:00 - [158] Something else just occured to me. The ARMs: You say they're like ammo? Does that mean they run out like ammo? Do we need to make them or are they to be sold on the NPC market? This, yet again, contains little to no real information and yet again, CCP doesn't listen to the player base by increasing micro management (didn't we go over this in the Carrier thread enough times?). Is it any wonder people's cynacism is growing? Make a Difference
Bishop 5 Gallente The Flying Tigers STELLAR LEGION	Posted - 2007.11.20 23:19:00 - [159] Originally by: John McCreedy When are you going to "balance" the game breakingly powerful nanos and speed rigs? Why is it so wrong a Command ship feilding five heavy drones yet a Cruiser doing 10K km/s is perfectly acceptable in your eyes? Are you going to provide turrets with the tracking needed and missiles the speed needed in order to counter the so-called "Speed tank", presently the most broken and ridiculously overpowered setup in Eve? - This. - Don't nerf Gallante Recons. - Don't nerf Gallante Drone Boats. ------------- meh
Agillious Gallente Inner Circle Helter-Skelter	Posted - 2007.11.20 23:19:00 - [160] Originally by: John McCreedy Something else just occured to me. The ARMs: You say they're like ammo? Does that mean they run out like ammo? Do we need to make them or are they to be sold on the NPC market? This, yet again, contains little to no real information and yet again, CCP doesn't listen to the player base by increasing micro management (didn't we go over this in the Carrier thread enough times?). Is it any wonder people's cynacism is growing? Um... how about rolling your eyes at yourself, John. Reading comprehension. It should be a requirement for this game... From the DevBlog, 2nd Full Paragraph: Quote: Attribute Reassignment Modifier (ARM) Scripts are non-consumable charges that modify the attributes of modules they are installed in. They are installed or uninstalled just like loading and unloading ammo. MORE SHINY, PLEASE!!!
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2007.11.20 23:57:00 - [161] Edited by: Reto on 20/11/2007 23:59:21 Dronebandwidth changes: is it just me or is the gain of 50 dps not worth the loss of 50m¦ dronebay if u compare the arbi and the vexor? sure i can use 3 heavies but heavy drones have more than double the sig of med drones and are easier to kill with medium sized weapons while scoring only a moderate gain in dps. whereas the arbitraitor has more overall versitality and can provide its dps over a longer period of time and at longer ranges due to the higher speeds of medium drones while losing only a moderate amout of dps compared to the vexor. whats the comon droneboat pilot's opinion on that matter ? Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Louis DelaBlanche Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat	Posted - 2007.11.21 00:22:00 - [162] mixed thoughts about whats in this devblog, as with all the others about trinity. Quote: use of Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec. Theyll also be able to scramble anything else, & with the right setup theyll be able to tank sentries id imagine for quite a length of time, certainly enough for it or others to pop a hauler. Low-sec might be taking another step to becoming nothing more then an annoyance between highsec & 0.0 entrences. Bandwidth? Good & bad, I dont really get the logic of making vexor want to use 3 heavies over 5 mediums. Personally I carry 5 mediums & 5 lights in a vexors bay, not 3 heavies. ARMS...I already struggle to keep up with all the different things I have to watch in PvP. Micromanaging drones, modules, & now these things may mean I have less time to watch the fight itself then I already do . Trinity graphics wont count for much if im busy focusing on my modules & not the battle. Is watching & enjoying the glorious explosions & graphics that come with fighting other players just something that can only be done with Fraps & a spare 10mins?
Natalie Jax Indecision Industries	Posted - 2007.11.21 00:35:00 - [163] I don't think scripts are going to add to the micromanagement of combat. Mainly because switching scripts during battle will be rather useless. Rather it's just one more thing to worry about having on hand at whatever station you're fitting your ship at. It's one more thing to fetch, one more thing to remember, one more thing to be missing when you're looking at the available modules in station. It's not the micromanagement that gets my knickers in a twist, it's the added logistics. Maybe at some point down the line they'll add some scripts that make things more interesting, but I'm not optimistic. All I see is another level of complexity, and a massive addition to an already un-fun portion of the game.
Lobster Man Murder-Death-Kill	Posted - 2007.11.21 00:37:00 - [164] revelations 3...more like nerfelations 3
Tareen Kashaar Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2007.11.21 01:08:00 - [165] Originally by: Michael McNeil I stand by my statments, I DO NOT like these scripts. combat is becomming too complecated, and I predict CCP will start to lose players. I predict that the probability that the sky is falling will increase by 20% from 0 to 0. --- WTS: Forum Signatures, price negotiable. Evemail me!
Cerzi	Posted - 2007.11.21 01:22:00 - [166] Originally by: Pang Grohl This thread contains way too much Chicken Little... Sensor Boosting change is bad for snipers. Well yes, but insta-lock at max range is bad for everyone. So, now you solo a few less shuttles, frigates, and destroyers. If you've got friends along you can overcome the lost bonuses. Sensor Damper change is bad for Gallente e-war pilots. Is it really that bad? You were fitting them with one of the two effects in mind, and therefore the other was overkill anyway. You can still effectively remove an opponent from a fight. Now you have to decide how best to do that. Tracking Disruptor change is unnecessary on a limited use module. Like Sensor Dampers you're using them for one effect or the other, not both at the same time. In other words, the tracking debuff doesn't really have the same effect as the range debuff against a long range fit opponent, and vice versa for short range fit opponents. Tracking Comp/Link change is another nerf against snipers. Like Sensor Damps and TD's you're using these to get the benefit of one effect or the other, with the unintended benefit being unnecessary. Do you really need more optimal when you're firing blasters at someone from <1000m? Warp Disruption Focus is too powerful and makes solo low-sec gate camps sure death for everyone. Not really. The Broadsword has the potential to fit a mild tank while sensor boosted to the gills, but minimal cap support. Unsupported this ship will have low combat effectiveness, and probably only suited to engaging un-escorted industrial ships. Your hauler isn't as vulnerable as you think. They have lots of CPU, cap, and mid-slots, use them, and you'll see that you have a much higher rate of survival. If you're aim is to get away from the gate, fit e-war (ECM, sensor damps). If you want to be able to get back to the other side fit a tank and some speed. Drone bandwidth means more flavor for drone users. The changes mentioned specifically here make sense. The Arbitrator is far more dependent on it's drones for damage output than the Vexor is. The changes to other droneships especially the up and coming T2 additions is worthy of a separate discussion entirely. Such a shame that the majority of EVE players these days are completely unable to look at changes in that kind of objective manner. It's bad enough that so many people put their e-peens before depth of gameplay (there are plenty of games out there which cater for that prioritization), but the way people attack CCP as a result is just shameful. It's just hundreds of people having pathetic knee-jerk reactions to changes that do nothing but diversify and deepen gameplay, and personally I'm glad the devs aren't acknowleding the whines. In a few months time, once people are used to the new rules, maybe they'll finally realize the game was actually improved.
Chainsaw Plankton IDLE GUNS	Posted - 2007.11.21 02:20:00 - [167] Originally by: Natalie Jax Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton and yes that does suck for the arazu, although it took 3 damps to do that before. i was just commenting on how the range reduction should be the same before/after patch, i never said it was a good thing. i was just saying locking at point blank is about as bad as locking at point blank and taking forever to lock. Incorrect. There is an additional nerf on the strength of RSD modules independent of the ARM scripts. They are also halving the strength of the RSD boosting rig. You cannot achieve the same range reduction with an Arazu as you can today. Not even with rigs, implants, and max skills. Even adding a fourth RSD II doesn't get you there because of the massive 4th module stacking penalty. right, sounds like that only applies to the sensor booster being as effective on 1 stat before and after, sounds like dams gettin a nerv then. yay for the dev blog only posting 1 set of numbers,
Havlentia Castigatrix The Avalon Foundation	Posted - 2007.11.21 02:34:00 - [168] Originally by: Louis DelaBlanche Bandwidth? Good & bad, I dont really get the logic of making vexor want to use 3 heavies over 5 mediums. Personally I carry 5 mediums & 5 lights in a vexors bay, not 3 heavies. As do the vast majority of Vexor pilots, which does beg the question as to whether this has actually been tested by someone, or a lunchtime conversation has set Gallentean policy to putting all your eggs in one slow moving, large sig-radiused target rather than the relatively more flexible and wise multi-wave format. Apparently the Amarr, they of the inadvisable drugs policy, are of the 'rainy day' persuasion. OTOH, I've not been that bothered by the Myrm drone 'nerf' for the same reasons, but it's high time that there was some kind of 'official' statement of the design ethos and direction of the different races rather than the wobbly plank of Devs deciding that balancing requires everything being thrown off-kilter for a few months. Of course, they're probably tearing around at 4km/s in missile-lobbing cruisers. ----- This space left intentionally blank
Mik Nostrebor Minmatar Archaic Rage	Posted - 2007.11.21 04:33:00 - [169] Not adding anything new to the debate. Just thought I would mention it. I believe that solo, a heavy interdictor should be able to tank gate guns in many low sec systems. Does this mean that the incredible stream of itties and shuttles pilotted by isk farmers doing the high reward low-sec cargo agents (eg Ingunn) are going to get a lot more vulnerable? Not being able to just or warp and getting attacked by a t2 cruiser. Heh. It will really hurt the feelings of the ISK sellers methinks. On another note, I was saddened that my blockade runner was badly effected by the series of nerfs (ie the 'indy's didnt get the hitpoint boost nerf of revelations fame; the nano-nerf made us choose between turning speed or MWD speed.) So yeah, what was the bloackade runner supposed to do again? Surely not hauling? I seriously thought you were working towards forcing people into specific ship classes for specific jobs. Here we have a ship that is being forced out of its role and becoming a somewhat ineffective small hauler. Mik AUSSIE AND KIWI EVE Fansite
Kalda Centauri Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.21 05:01:00 - [170] After reading this dev blog, I have developed a new opinion about EvE... EvE is like a pinata, where it hangs looking nice, just waiting until a blindfolded dev wacks it with a nerf bat. Originally by: Eidolon Ra Insanity is the gift of immortality without morality.
Kransthow AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2007.11.21 05:26:00 - [171]
Led Thespo Gallente FREE GATES ACADEMY	Posted - 2007.11.21 06:05:00 - [172] Originally by: Breyghun Drones ... CCP's "Need for speed" in action. Reducing drone numbers at any one time will reduce server load. If you don't like the "bandwidth solution" suggest an alternative way of achieving this end. Using more than one servers for a given solar system? Using a real OS other than Windows? Using real tools other than python stackless? I like python and all, but if they can't write fast enough code then this is a no brainer, go deeper, use more C++.. Originally by: Pang Grohl This thread contains way too much Chicken Little... Drone bandwidth means more flavor for drone users. The changes mentioned specifically here make sense. The Arbitrator is far more dependent on it's drones for damage output than the Vexor is. The changes to other droneships especially the up and coming T2 additions is worthy of a separate discussion entirely. Sure, a lots of very disgusting and bitter flavors. Sweet :C Originally by: Steppa Gallente drone *** here. Pretty much the epitome of whoever at CCP thought of when they built drones into the game. Most of my offensive skill points are in drones on a character that has been around since the beginning of the game. POINT 1) This change is absolute crap. "biased toward firepower", so less spares...OMG. DRONE USERS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE GAME THAT CAN HAVE THEIR WEAPONS DESTROYED. We...NEED...spares. POINT 2) If you braniacs that meddle with this game are going to do this, you need to include a toggle to SHUT OFF bandwidth to ANY deployed/active drone. This would free up bandwidth to launch another drone. I consider this an absolute necessity if they're going through with this change. Why is that important? If you don't know, you don't use drones. If you don't use drones, why do you care? And finally. Same here. I've started Gallente, I've read their description, and well, that said they're the big drone dudes in the figgin' galaxy. And now they're , after all, aren't. That's a very interesting story change, but very unfortunate, so to say. Originally by:** Kalda Centauri After reading this dev blog, I have developed a new opinion about EvE... EvE is like a pinata, where it hangs looking nice, just waiting until a blindfolded dev wacks it with a nerf bat. Some post-thoughts. EVE looks marvelous and indeed it is, but not for the newbies. With so many micromanagement and with so many skills there is clearly the only choice is to buy it and train for a few months. Why bother playing? Agents are fun, yeah, but if you want to live more than 2 seconds outside of Empire, you need at least a fully-tanked BS, nothing less will be sufficent nowadays... and the changes are not really encouraging social play. And the base/starter corps are nothing fancy :/ Hi. I like big pew-pew ships, alas I'm still a newbie, my old character has evaporated together with my bank account :)
Unscrew Pewlous	Posted - 2007.11.21 06:51:00 - [173] An interesting universe, where all technology devolves and survives. That is putting Darwinism in its place. TBH, this seems to be CCP's solution to their closed end experiment called EVE. As it stands, virtually, anyone starting the game now is perpetually sunk into 2nd class status. There won't be a time in the next 3 years for 99% of the new accounts to have a serious impact on events. Who wants to wait that long to be able to compete meaningfully? A 40 to 60 million sp deficit is very difficult to overcome. So what does CCP do? They try to annoy enough older players to get them to leave so CCP can attract new players to the game? Seems to be the current theme of most of the last few devblogs.
Moraguth Amarr Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.11.21 07:15:00 - [174] And of course... I can't log in to sisi right now just to see how bad it really is. Scripts, honestly should have only been added in this way to RSD's not the rest. Bandwidth, I'd like to see someone show a chart of ships with their drone capacity before/after type of drones launched before/after instead of all this wild speculation and doomsaying (which I would love to do, but can't get sisi to connect -_-) Hactors are cool, but i really need to test out the speed tank on them. If they can go fast enough, and orbit at say 25 kms, they could feasibly tank sentries and/or an escort fleet long enough to pop that indy. Hmmmmmm. Also for hactors, i see them being the new isk farming raven hunting ship of DOOoooooooom out in 0.0 where I live. This will be AWESOME. good game
Garia666 Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E	Posted - 2007.11.21 08:55:00 - [175] Originally by: Michael McNeil I stand by my statments, I DO NOT like these scripts. combat is becomming too complecated, and I predict CCP will start to lose players. If anyone wanted to make the comment, that ccp is rewritting the rules by which combat in this game is done, here it is. A nerf here or there is one thing, these scripts are a totally nother story. As a sniper pilot, I must fly a 200 to 300 million isk ship. Now you wish to make these snipers basicly become worth less. heres how. I spend about 30 seconds changing ammo and locking hostiles, oh wait I must now change scripts too, as i must target faster, or i need to track better.... 30 more seconds pass, my support are being ripped appart by the short ranged hostiles. now I have my targets, but they are too close. I now lose my ship. to make a long story short, this will be the big problem you WILL see in fleet battles. the idea of scripts is nice perhaps for real life where your ship captain spent twenty years leaning the ropes, and you can get the experance to know what scripts you would need. but this is a game, ment for enjoyment, too much realisem kills that enjoyment. not to mention that the 180km range is at a minimal to dodge interceptors or vagabonds.. With the range now even shorter means that solo sniping isnt doable anymore even not with fly by bm`s ->My Vids<-
Helevorn Feanaro	Posted - 2007.11.21 09:23:00 - [176] Drones: Good changes. Looking forward to it. BUT I really hope you fixed the drone bugs. Scripts: Fantastic changes. Choice = Good. To the micromanagement whiners: You don't have to manage anything. They still work just as before, but with lower bonusses. Yes, its a nerf. Get over it. If you want more bang, it's your choice, but you have to work for it by fitting scripts. Lo-sec will become more dangerous, but as has been pointed out above, you can fit to tank and run, or fit e-war. Yes, some skill will be needed. If you make a mistake, you die. This is all good.
Alex Harumichi Gallente Gradient Electus Matari	Posted - 2007.11.21 11:58:00 - [177] Originally by: Helevorn Feanaro Lo-sec will become more dangerous, but as has been pointed out above, you can fit to tank and run, or fit e-war. Yes, some skill will be needed. If you make a mistake, you die. This is all good. No, actually, it's not. Lowsec becoming more dangerous, while keeping the current (low) rewards, will simply mean that it will become even more empty. Currently only about 17% of the population is in lowsec, with the risk vs reward becoming even worse it's a given that that percent will drop even more. I fail to see how that's in any way a good thing. Lowsec is already largely not worth it, this just makes things worse. Since industrial ops cannot haul goods without massive risk, they will simply move to highsec. Mission runners get podded at gate, they also move to highsec. Result: lots of empty space, with frustrated and bored pirates wondering why nobody ever comes to pay a visit.
Freyya Under the Wings of Fury Atrocitas	Posted - 2007.11.21 12:11:00 - [178] I'm lolling hard at CCP right now... liek srsly dood! Arbi - vexor; WTF!!?? Vexor (Gallente droneboat, Gallente who invented drones you know) gets a 75 m3 space and the arbi gets 150 m3? Are you serious? Gallente are supposed to be the dronerace ffs..now it gets 3 heavies + 1 spare or 5 meds and a couple spare while a race which should be beneath Gallente drone tech gets more versatility? Really a stupid design choice. Furthermore; I really begin to suspect that CCP is losing track of their own game..you're introducing this and that with keeping 30% of things which relate to the introduction into account while forgetting the 70% that also gets affected by it (Hictor in lowsec anyone?) Think before you introduce please because this is just really rubbish. Ohh and thanks for the arazu whipeout btw ___________ NOW COLLECTING ISD AND CCP AUTOGRAPHS It'll be worth something someday. -Rauth Tnhx Rauth, apparantly the rest feel to good for it already..free beer anyone?
Craleo Caldari Brotherhood Cartel	Posted - 2007.11.21 12:27:00 - [179] I was all upset with the nerfs, specially about the Information warfare modules and Eos. Then about the scripts. Then I realised these nerfs effect EVERYBODY. It might gimp my playstyle, but so will everybody elses. So who really cares? In a month or 2 from now noone will even remember why we were all so upset about it, and we will still be playing. Remember the MWD nerf 2 years ago?
a51 duke1406 Order Of The Sentinel	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:17:00 - [180] I love this, I really do, I cant wait for the first few replys from the devs, Will it explain to us what we need to know? Nope, as always it will be a reply to some random post asking about an ishkurs drone bay or something. Rather then addressing anybodies real concerns, do hics work in low sec, what about the shield recharge on drones etc. It always makes me laugh to see what they reply to. Anyway people keep it up, I think after we got them on the carrier changes, we might only need 200 pages + to get them on a few of these issues, Im not sure when it happened, but this game now makes me feel like Im in prsion, its us against the screws
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:27:00 - [181] on that the 180km range is at a minimal to dodge interceptors or vagabonds.. With the range now even shorter means that solo sniping isnt doable anymore even not with fly by bm`s Ive never liked solo snipping, but its easy enough to get away from. as for the comment about the 180km your right, this will only encurage much larger gangs to fight in if using bs's resulting in more lag or a battle inwhich noone shows up for.
Vyger The first genesis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:38:00 - [182] I assume the ARM scripts apply to all types of the modules listed in the blog, T1, T2 and faction. Correct? But why make them 'charges'. I know they are not consumable but aren't you just filling your database, and my cargo hold, with even more stuff unnecessarily? Why not just make them part of the module itself? i.e. you get all of the functionality built in automatically and you can switch via the right click menu on the module.
Keitaro Baka Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises Babylon Project	Posted - 2007.11.21 13:57:00 - [183] Drone bandwidth + no shield recharge on re-deploy = you might wanna train amarr for drones.. At least you get to 'drop' drones in space, to relaunch new ones, how useful this is on gallente remains to be seen in pvp. I suspect to see more stationary domi's just dropping 12 t2 sentries and scoop/dropping them to avoid them being killed too easily.. Drones should get a hp bonus .. oh well, when drones didn't get attention they were bugged, now they will most likely be silly and more complex, time consuming and difficult to use.. I'll wait to see how much will reach TQ before I burn the devs on drone abuse even more / again... All the stuff above does not necessarily reflect my corp, my alliance or even me.. Drone guide..
Darth Felin	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:11:00 - [184] Originally by: Pang Grohl Sensor Damper change is bad for Gallente e-war pilots. Is it really that bad? You were fitting them with one of the two effects in mind, and therefore the other was overkill anyway. You can still effectively remove an opponent from a fight. Now you have to decide how best to do that. Really??? Do you know that even against only one attribute Rigged Arazu with perfect pilot will have much less than half of its former effectiveness/
Darth Felin	Posted - 2007.11.21 14:14:00 - [185] Originally by: Reto Edited by: Reto on 20/11/2007 23:59:21 Dronebandwidth changes: is it just me or is the gain of 50 dps not worth the loss of 50m¦ dronebay if u compare the arbi and the vexor? whats the comon droneboat pilot's opinion on that matter ? I will prefer Arbi dronebay at my Vexor.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.11.21 17:00:00 - [186] I really like these two changes and where they will be taking the game. CCP is hit or miss as always, but recently its been a lot more hit than miss.
Veng3ance Prophets Of a Damned Universe	Posted - 2007.11.21 18:00:00 - [187] Edited by: Veng3ance on 21/11/2007 18:00:35 Wow a dev blog. Finally. Let me just paraphrase everything I said in game development forum. **** SCRIPTS!
Haniblecter Teg F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.11.21 18:31:00 - [188] I think alot of people see the need for the nerfings, but man, do they sting. Damps have become a stable of pvp fits for years now. Carrier pilots abound. Drones have been a surefire thing for ages, now, the drone ships are really getting taken down a notch. Its a whole lot of sting, for the good im sure, but man, does it hurt. Stagger these nerfs next time. ----------------- Friends Forever Kill. BoB. Dead.
Hatch Minmatar Cloak and Daggers Knights Of Syndicate	Posted - 2007.11.21 18:44:00 - [189] Edited by: Hatch on 21/11/2007 18:47:21 Edited by: Hatch on 21/11/2007 18:45:36 Ok, so, for the last 5 years of the game, all of these mods have been fine and dandy, and now they are all of a sudden over powerfull?!?!?! Where is the logic in fixing what isn't broke... So the modules have dual purpose, every single gun in the game has multiple purpose of range and damage modifiers. Are they going to be split nerfed as well? This does not make anything more flexible when you cut something in half and give it the ability to make up for it with a "script". what now takes 3 modules to achieve a certain effect will take 6, all in the name of not being able to pop a tech 1 frigate as easily with a battleship. I fail to see how this is a problem. Should the people who have trained battleships to a level where this can be acomplished be held to the complaints of newb pilots that want everything handed to them on a silver platter? I'm not against the idea of scripts. I'm against the manner in which it is implemented. We already have a stacking nerf on them and as it stands now, i have a 2.5 second lock time on a frigate, with 3 t2 sensor boosters. This is way more than enough time for an intelegent pilot to get up transversal speed and evade my fire. Cutting the attibutes in half, only to have to double the modules on the ship to make a default level is a slap in the face to the old guard, who have long trained for a sniping capable ships. Script can be implemented with out cutting the current attributes in half first. keep the 60% effectiveness and allow it to be built on, but with a price, the drop in effectiveness of the other attribute. But don't drop it to 0. take it down 50% and give the bonus of an additional 20-30% effectiveness to the gaining attribute. IE sensor booster 60%-60% ---> 30%-75% This could be fit into a story line by advancements in technology modification allowing power to be shifted from one attribute to another of the same module, but at a steap energy cost. You could even take it down by 75% instead of 50 and only give a 10% increase. It give an edge to current technology, but doesn't kill it all together. Also, this doesn't nerf the mods in question, it gives them the flexibility to choose where they want their attributes increased a small amount with out sacrificing the other attribute all together.
Steppa Gallente Incognito Inc	Posted - 2007.11.21 19:19:00 - [190] Edited by: Steppa on 21/11/2007 19:20:33 Why in the world would we be worried about bandwidth when such stupid things as carrier pilots not being able to ACCESS THEIR OWN HOLDS without director-level access have existed since RMR? How hard can that be to fix? Let me rephrase...how hard can that be to fix compared to the huge task of implementing a new and, seemingly, unpopular drone update? Give me my skill points back. I want to put everything into Minmatar, since Gallente drone-users are getting the ol' screwball.
Cordial Ripper Minmatar g guild	Posted - 2007.11.21 19:50:00 - [191] hmm i've read the dev blog sevral times, with the drone changes i see a cicle, u removed the swarm of drones in rmr so u can introducce it available only for carrier pilots - reasonable here and verry true but now with these changes what do we have ? more drone power (in cargo) but outside we have ... 40% drone power used ... ok we dont want cruisers ejectign 5 heavy drones .... but let's not forget that there is a race specialized in drones ...(/me points out -> direct nerf to a race = big unbalance in game) i'll let u guys see what i am talking about after it gets in game. let's move on to the sensor booster changes. so now if i want to target at longe range i will have to wait 30 seconds to lock an inty in sniping fiting. hmm that kinda kills the fun in using sniping ships and kinda makes u wonder waht' the point having alot of optimal if u cant use that advantage. ok let's watch the artilery, the railguns and beams ... they are suposed to be long range... ok long range.. sniping ... what do i fit for tank ? answer: snipers don't use tank they are crazy suiciders basicly. ok that's a big hit if a frigate get's u scramed. now if i have crapy locking time sniping is dead. if i have good locking tiem but no range at all what's the point ? realy guys think this again. nerfign does mods actualy interfeers with game mecanics. the changes are they are now will make players ask what are long range guns for ? what ever reasonable answer i will get taht this is for the best ... i realy doubt it... not to mention complicating even more the game will make the live for new players a living hell and will result in making them quit. i think the guys geting new ideeas for the game should realy think twice before changing stuff that isnt broken. if u guys are changing the game in such maner that hiting at great distance is imposible or more likely to hard and troublesome pls consider on doing this : change the calss guns remove lets say the autocanons and artilery and introduce the "projectile gun": autocanons range, artilery falloff, autocanons rof, artilery damage mod and tracking somewhere combined.At elast u wont have to bother about changing the ammo after. P.S.: the sensor booster was just an example. i could doo a lecture about every mod changed but that would take to loooong.
Alteris Domond	Posted - 2007.11.21 20:31:00 - [192] I don't know if it's been asked or answered... but I fly a Ishtar, which really is meant for drones and using them as primary dps. Is this ship's Bandwith, which SHOULD be on par with a bs, going to balanced as with a BS because they rely so heavily on heavies and on their drones in general to function??
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2007.11.21 21:59:00 - [193] Originally by: Freyya Arbi - vexor; WTF!!?? Vexor (Gallente droneboat, Gallente who invented drones you know) gets a 75 m3 space and the arbi gets 150 m3? Get your facts straight. Its 75mb BANDWIDTH not dronespace. Vexor keeps its ability to field max dmg drone combo (i.e.2 x heavy, 2 x med, 1 x light) and gets a bigger dronebay for spares. Not as big as the arbis dronebay, but arbi has only 50mb bandwidth so its pretty balanced. Vexor has always been more the dmg ship. Its not a tank and its not an ewar boat, so this pretty much hits the nail on the head.
Sosik	Posted - 2007.11.21 22:15:00 - [194] Edited by: Sosik on 21/11/2007 22:16:04 I for one would like to thank CCP for having the brilliant idea to nerf tracking disruptors. They were clearly overpowered and being abused so much that even gallente recons were fitting them because they were heaps better than the useless sensor boosters. I mean, you can get a best named tracking disruptor for under 4 million isk in empire. Compare that to the sensor booster which is 10mil? Yeah, nobody would want to buy a module thats 10mil. Supply and demand would have nothing to do with that. Thanks to CCP for another amarr nerf. I see you cleverly managed to avoid nerfing caldari ECM too, because lets face it, caldari are already too underpowered as it is, right? You can see theyre rarely used by the fact that only ~40% of the population flys them. Compared to the much flown (~15%) amarr ships, its obvious that by nerfing tracking disruptors, more people will flock to the now superior amarr electronic warfare ships and start flying them in the masses. Yet another nail in the coffin for amarr recons. I wonder if anyone will ever bother to fly these new ewar frigates? Oh of course they will. The caldari one hasnt been pre-nerfed!
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.11.22 01:38:00 - [195] Originally by: me The (maybe) bad news: An empire-legal, 30k, infinite strength warp disruptor on a cruiser sized ship with a BC-sized tank affects a lot more than capital ships. It doesn't take a lot of foresight to predict that these ships will gradually become common at losec camps, especially supported by -the New & Improved- Remote Sensor Boosters. I've never been a person to want to nerf camps, because I love that losec is dangerous. But I'm concerned that this will be another nail in the coffin of an area that's already overshadowed by 0.0's empire building, hisec's relative safety, and the vast riches available in both. It sounds as if this is final for now, but I also predict that Hactors and/or this script are Future Nerf Victims in the making. Guess we'll see. People may have already pointed this out, but there's one big inaccuracy in what I wrote. I thought that the WD module just prevented remote repping effects, but it actually prevents all remote friendly effects. So Remote Sensor Boosting these ships isn't going to happen. Anyway, I have the same general concerns, but it's not nearly as bad as I thought. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Hoshi Blackguard Brigade Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 01:55:00 - [196] Originally by: Tsanse Kinske People may have already pointed this out, but there's one big inaccuracy in what I wrote. I thought that the WD module just prevented remote repping effects, but it actually prevents all remote friendly effects. So Remote Sensor Boosting these ships isn't going to happen. Anyway, I have the same general concerns, but it's not nearly as bad as I thought. No inaccuracy, the remote boosting prevention is only active while the mod is active. You can remote sensor boost it up until the point where it locks the target and activate the mod on it, then the target is already locked the boosting turns off. So for all practical purposes remote sensor boosting is still possible. ---------------------------------------- A Guide to Scan Probing in Revelations
Tsanse Kinske WeMeanYouKnowHarm	Posted - 2007.11.22 03:48:00 - [197] Originally by: Hoshi Originally by: Tsanse Kinske People may have already pointed this out, but there's one big inaccuracy in what I wrote. I thought that the WD module just prevented remote repping effects, but it actually prevents all remote friendly effects. So Remote Sensor Boosting these ships isn't going to happen. Anyway, I have the same general concerns, but it's not nearly as bad as I thought. No inaccuracy, the remote boosting prevention is only active while the mod is active. You can remote sensor boost it up until the point where it locks the target and activate the mod on it, then the target is already locked the boosting turns off. So for all practical purposes remote sensor boosting is still possible. Le sigh. Ok, thanks for the correction of the correction, Hoshi. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move. -Douglas Adams, writing about EVE
Cyan Nuevo Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships	Posted - 2007.11.22 07:17:00 - [198] Drone bandwidth is all good. I like the concept of scripts, but have a few issues with the affected modules. For example, you're totally killing tracking computers. If they're only going to affect one attribute, can that bonus at least be a little better? Or can the modifier be maybe +100% on one and just -50% on the other so we get some bonus? And don't have to fit double the amount of modules just to get the same effects? --- Proud Amarr pilot.
Vergil 577 Gallente MAIDS Antesignani Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 07:43:00 - [199] Edited by: Vergil 577 on 22/11/2007 07:43:41 I have a suggestion about the Ishkur (Gallente Assault Ship)... With the fact it is a drone boat why does it have a useless gun bonus such as lets say... "Assault Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to Small Hybrid Turret optimal range" What if that were replaced for a something like uhh "Assault Ships Skill Bonus: 10% bonus to drone hitpoints and damage per skill level." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mathias Zealot MAIDS Antesignani Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 09:59:00 - [200] Quote: The ARM script focuses the Warp Disruption Field on a single ship which becomes unable to warp or jump regardless of its warp core strength. The ARM script removes the afterburner and micro warp drive speed penalty, the signature radius penalty as well as the effective agility bonus, but the module still prevents friendly remote effects. Target Single Ship That's a penalty, if you had more than one target Infinite Strength That's a major bonus, no mount of WCS can stop it Removes AB/MWD speed penalty Again, a bonus. Removes Signature Radius Penalty Bonus Removes Agility Penalty Bonus Still no remote effects No change Can now be used in empire massive bonus Just so I have this straight: It converts it from a super bubble with a plethora of drawbacks to compensate, into a scrambler with all the advantages but almost none of the drawbacks? This seems a tiny bit overpowered to me. --- "Come back with your shield, or on it." Originally by: soulkiller3 Can you keep posting pics i need a better FPS
Loli Killjoy	Posted - 2007.11.22 11:21:00 - [201] good job writing a blog and then ignoring all feedback, Hurray!
Mnengli Noiliffe	Posted - 2007.11.22 12:58:00 - [202] worst blog ever, just a statement of things people know already, absolutely no info on the reasons for the changes, which are basically nerfs. first they told they want to boost some ships that have too little drone bays, so they introduce bandwidth to increase their drone bays. the result? they nerfed most of the drone ships while giving small boost to two of three other ships, no reasons for the nerfs are specified in blog. failure and lie. now the scripts. they say hey we like current EW but let's split the effects so that we don't have universal mods that do 2 ew functions at a time. result? they indeded split functions, but unlike what they promised, they nerf the effects to about 50% so even 2 mods now are not as good as 1 pre-nerf mod was. and again - lies and lack of intent or reasons specified anywhere - absolutely utter fail! now on to hactors. out of the blue now comes along the new mod that obsoletes the whole game system, consisting of two, no three, module types - wcs, disruptors and scramblers. these modules were nerfed to uselessnes without any consultations or explanations, justifications, ramifications, adjustments, anything. could just remove them from the game with the same effect. because now you have a hactor that ignores any wcs you have, thus no one now needs those useless disruptors. very good job, keep it up! next remove scan strength attribute by introducing the ship that 100% scrambles anything it can target, remove need for tank by introducing a ship that 100% destroys any ship it can target with one shot. this will be really fun ship I proimise! I hope we don't have to wait too much for this great new invention of mr fendahl and his buddies! gb im outta here already as it's not fun when devs don't know what and why are they doing nowadays.
Quinter Servarosius The Flying Dutchmen Antesignani Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 14:37:00 - [203] Are there gooing to be rig's to increase your drone bandwidth?? ^see this^ sign here --> http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=619601
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.22 15:56:00 - [204] Edited by: Apertotes on 22/11/2007 15:57:23 i have already posted this concern, but if i understand correctly how bonus works, scripts bonus means that we wont be able to boost both atributtes on any way. lets take tracking computers. i fit 2 of them because i want to boost both tracking and optimal range. so i load different scripts on either module. and then, what happens? ------------------ FIRST SCRIPT ----------- SECOND SCRIPT -------- FINAL BONUS ------ tracking bonus: 0.3 + 100% = 0.6 -------> 0.6 - 100% = 0 --------> 0% optimal bonus: 0.3 - 100% = 0 -------> 0 + 100% = 0 --------> 0% so, if i have understood how bonus stack on EVE, we well never be able to boost both stats again (or screw both atributes with EW) tell me that my math is wrong, please
Cyan Nuevo Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships	Posted - 2007.11.22 16:55:00 - [205] @Apertotes: I don't quite understand your math, but this is how tracking computers work now. Their base bonuses have been halved, which can independently be brought back to their pre-nerf level with the appropriate script. This means that one TC w/ optimal range script and one TC w/ tracking script will have the same effect as one pre-nerf TC. Or, two TCs w/ optimal range scripts will have the effects of two pre-nerf TCs, but only for optimal range and will have no effect on tracking. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
Wu Jiun	Posted - 2007.11.22 17:32:00 - [206] Isn't it funny how they buried this blog under 2 pretty irrelevant (i.e. not game balance) ones? The last fendahl blog didn't get one dev response either as far as i remember. Obviously they want to forget about it asap. I am not sure if the playerbase will grant this wish.
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.22 17:57:00 - [207] Originally by: Cyan Nuevo @Apertotes: I don't quite understand your math, but this is how tracking computers work now. Their base bonuses have been halved, which can independently be brought back to their pre-nerf level with the appropriate script. This means that one TC w/ optimal range script and one TC w/ tracking script will have the same effect as one pre-nerf TC. Or, two TCs w/ optimal range scripts will have the effects of two pre-nerf TCs, but only for optimal range and will have no effect on tracking. what i was trying to say is: scripts give bonuses to one atribute bonus. in fact, what it does is to double the bonus. so, if after the changes, one tracking computer gives a 30% bonus to tracking, with a tracking script the bonus would be double, it is, 60%. but what happens to the other attribute? it gets nulified by a -100%. so when a tracking script is loaded, the tracking computer gives a 0% bonus to optimal range. so, with one tracking comp + 1 tracking script we have a 60% bonus to tracking a 0% bonus to optimal range. new, if we fit another tracking comp., but this time we load an optimal script, what happens is, first, the optimal bonus gets doubled. but since the optimal bonus is 0% (because of the tracking script), the double is still 0%. and what is worse, the tracking bonus we had achieved with the previus tracking comp + tracking script gets nullified by the -100% penalty of the optimal script. i am sorry, but English is not my native language, so i cant explain it any other way. i hope you understand why i was trying to say.
Michael McNeil	Posted - 2007.11.22 19:26:00 - [208] Originally by: Apertotes Originally by: Cyan Nuevo @Apertotes: I don't quite understand your math, but this is how tracking computers work now. Their base bonuses have been halved, which can independently be brought back to their pre-nerf level with the appropriate script. This means that one TC w/ optimal range script and one TC w/ tracking script will have the same effect as one pre-nerf TC. Or, two TCs w/ optimal range scripts will have the effects of two pre-nerf TCs, but only for optimal range and will have no effect on tracking. what i was trying to say is: scripts give bonuses to one atribute bonus. in fact, what it does is to double the bonus. so, if after the changes, one tracking computer gives a 30% bonus to tracking, with a tracking script the bonus would be double, it is, 60%. but what happens to the other attribute? it gets nulified by a -100%. so when a tracking script is loaded, the tracking computer gives a 0% bonus to optimal range. so, with one tracking comp + 1 tracking script we have a 60% bonus to tracking a 0% bonus to optimal range. new, if we fit another tracking comp., but this time we load an optimal script, what happens is, first, the optimal bonus gets doubled. but since the optimal bonus is 0% (because of the tracking script), the double is still 0%. and what is worse, the tracking bonus we had achieved with the previus tracking comp + tracking script gets nullified by the -100% penalty of the optimal script. i am sorry, but English is not my native language, so i cant explain it any other way. i hope you understand why i was trying to say. If i read your post right, your saying that if you load two of the same mods, then load one script that boost a diffent attrabut to each mod, that you have a result of complet canclation? sounds like the two 50k ton freight train collieding math problem, (i never really got those) where both trains traveling at the same volocity cancel each other out.
Matalino Gallente Datacore Harvesting	Posted - 2007.11.22 20:48:00 - [209] Originally by: Apertotes what i was trying to say is: scripts give bonuses to one atribute bonus. in fact, what it does is to double the bonus. so, if after the changes, one tracking computer gives a 30% bonus to tracking, with a tracking script the bonus would be double, it is, 60%. but what happens to the other attribute? it gets nulified by a -100%. so when a tracking script is loaded, the tracking computer gives a 0% bonus to optimal range. so, with one tracking comp + 1 tracking script we have a 60% bonus to tracking a 0% bonus to optimal range. new, if we fit another tracking comp., but this time we load an optimal script, what happens is, first, the optimal bonus gets doubled. but since the optimal bonus is 0% (because of the tracking script), the double is still 0%. and what is worse, the tracking bonus we had achieved with the previus tracking comp + tracking script gets nullified by the -100% penalty of the optimal script. i am sorry, but English is not my native language, so i cant explain it any other way. i hope you understand why i was trying to say. Not quite. The script only affects the module that it is load into. So with 2 tracking computers, one with tracking script, one with optimal script you would get +60% to each attribute. This still a nerf in that you need two modules to do what you used to do with just one, but you can still get the bonus you want to each attribute. ************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.22 21:02:00 - [210] Originally by: Matalino Originally by: Apertotes what i was trying to say is: scripts give bonuses to one atribute bonus. in fact, what it does is to double the bonus. so, if after the changes, one tracking computer gives a 30% bonus to tracking, with a tracking script the bonus would be double, it is, 60%. but what happens to the other attribute? it gets nulified by a -100%. so when a tracking script is loaded, the tracking computer gives a 0% bonus to optimal range. so, with one tracking comp + 1 tracking script we have a 60% bonus to tracking a 0% bonus to optimal range. new, if we fit another tracking comp., but this time we load an optimal script, what happens is, first, the optimal bonus gets doubled. but since the optimal bonus is 0% (because of the tracking script), the double is still 0%. and what is worse, the tracking bonus we had achieved with the previus tracking comp + tracking script gets nullified by the -100% penalty of the optimal script. i am sorry, but English is not my native language, so i cant explain it any other way. i hope you understand why i was trying to say. Not quite. The script only affects the module that it is load into. So with 2 tracking computers, one with tracking script, one with optimal script you would get +60% to each attribute. This still a nerf in that you need two modules to do what you used to do with just one, but you can still get the bonus you want to each attribute. i hope you are right
Mashie Saldana Minmatar Hooligans Of War Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.22 21:56:00 - [211] Have you deployed the new way gang mods have their bonuses calculated on SiSi yet? I just wonder as I don't see any difference compared to TQ and would expect the numbers to be reduced (if I understood the change correct that is). Also, thanks for cutting the capcitor need in half for the gang mods, only need 7.5cap/s to run three mods now instead of the previous 15cap/s.
Zorok Tactical Precision	Posted - 2007.11.22 21:58:00 - [212] Edited by: Zorok on 22/11/2007 21:59:48 The ARM scripts in themselves are a good idea. HOWEVER and this is a big "however"- the way in which CCP is going about implementing this is totally wrong. The problem I see with this implementation with regards to EW modules is that it penalizes all the EW weapons EXCEPT ECM which will make ECM the PvP module of choice. This is how I believe that the ARM scripts should be implemented. Keep all modules just the way they are, but should someone want a faster locking time at a penalty of their target distance, they can use these scripts to do just that. These scripts should not be used as a way to nerf existing modules and basically give the player a choice- either use this script to boost one attribute of a module to the prenerf conditions at the complete expense of the other attribute. In this case, it shouldn't be (pick one or the other or settle for crappy attributes on both modules). I think that the script should also allow for varying degrees of tweaking. Maybe you don't need a 4 sec faster lock time and you want to lock only maybe 2 seconds faster for example. Allow the scripts to tailor the modules in this fashion. Make them easily adjustable and then you can place the various setups you have for them in your cargo hold. As it stands right now, I would say this idea is a no-go because with some ship setups you need both attributes to function. A sniper may need a somewhat fast lock time and distance boost. Making them settle for a nerfed mod or a mod that only does one thing but not the other is not going to allow the sniper to make that quick kill. Their prey will have escaped before they have time to even fire. About this focused field script. It's not balanced for several reasons. If you created this module to trap jump drive ships and other ships from ever warping, in order to allow catching freighters, this argument is bullocks. As far as I know freighters can't even carry any modules- let alone a warp core stabilizer- so why create a script that allows these ships to give infinite scrambling capability in low-sec space? This will basically make all gate camps that use the heavy interdictor a turkey shoot. If an industrial happens to pass through they are toast. It also makes WCS useless as well as pushes those who aren't pirates back to empire space. I'm a miner and that's where I plan to go if you give this kind of power to the pirates. Pirates can already overpower WCS by all loading up on scramblers. I've seen it done. How is an industrial player supposed to even have a fighting chance to get away from a camp of just a handful of ships now? One other thing is that ships that carry WCS suffer a penalty to their targeting distance and time which is fair I believe. For making such a tradeoff, a transport ship should get some kind of use from the modules and this Heavy Interdictor ARM script nullifies all of that. Pirates may be lauding the use of such weapons but they will find even less industrials flying in low-sec space due to the ease in which they can trap their ships and hold them indefinitely. I for one will need to consider moving back to empire where you can still make a good living and no danger of losing your ship to cheap gate camps.
Venatoris Portucalis Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2007.11.22 22:16:00 - [213] I just want to add to the general consensus that the infinite warp scam point is low sec, would basically mean that haulers will be banned from low-sec. For what I have seen the idea of CCP was to get more people into low-sec, not the opposite. With no way to contra-act the infinite point, you basically allow a single-target warp bubble in low sec! :O Has a result you just make a new ôyou-winö button that will have to be nerfed in the future! Also relating to drones bandwidth, you might want to consider lowering the bandwidth requirements on logistics drones and sentry drones. Amarr drone boat arbiter gets the worst hit, before he could deploy 3 sentry drones, now it is limited to 2 sentry drones, basically making it useless. And by the way can I get the time I used to train heavy drones back? With this new system, I have no use for heavy drones anymoreà :) Vena The views expressed here are my personal views, and in no way represent my corporation views.
El Mauru Amarr A Black Knight Corp FREGE Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.22 22:34:00 - [214] I really like the changes. HAC-dictor: I can see a couple of problems there with choke-points from lowsec to 0.0 especially. Somebody suggested an activation delay, which sounds like a good possible fix, but I'll wait for it to go live until I fully judge this one. Overall an excellent addition which makes traveling around in lowsec more interesting again. Drone Bandwith: Much needed IMHO. Now you can finally bring several waves of different drones (at least on most ships), and can switch damage types. Also, recalling drones for insta-repair was kinda stupid. ARM scripts: I really like the script changes since it might introduce new tactical opportunities. Also, it might break the reign of Sniper BSs in large fleet-combat which I like a lot. The only problems are IMHO with the fact that nano-gangs are even more feasable now and that decreasing the power of mods like damps and disruptors EVEN with speciality scripts was kind of uncalled for (like somebody said: If you can't take 2 ships out of a fight with a specialized e-war ship you might just as well bring another damage dealer). - Recruiting! Convo ingame for details
Cyan Nuevo Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships	Posted - 2007.11.23 00:38:00 - [215] @Apertotes: It works as I explained it. The two different modules do not cancel each other out. --- Proud Amarr pilot.
Rimhawk Caldari Vengeance 8 Interceptors	Posted - 2007.11.23 09:01:00 - [216] I like the drone changes and don't even mind the nerfs (I adapt), but two things stand out bigtime: - ARM scripts... Oh god not more stuff to click on and/or forget to do during lagfest battles. And please don't make it so you have to carry those in your hold as well... - The Hactor scrambles: Can't you just make it so it only scrambles ships of certain sizes? Blockade runners should at the very least have some kind of defense against this... .
Apertotes Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.23 09:42:00 - [217] will there be T2 ARM scripts? that could be a nice way to un-nerf all affected modules
Franga Caldari NQX Innovations Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.23 16:08:00 - [218] Originally by: Apertotes will there be T2 ARM scripts? that could be a nice way to un-nerf all affected modules Are their going to be any t2 ARM nerf scripts? Also - Celine Dion annoys me. Like alot. _____________________________ Eldo spanked my sig but I can't be bothered changing it just now.
Grapuzano	Posted - 2007.11.23 16:14:00 - [219] What an as*hole invented a bandwidth? Reimburse my drone & myrmydon SP then. Stupid nerf.
Ab Tallen The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc. Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2007.11.23 18:47:00 - [220] Edited by: Ab Tallen on 23/11/2007 18:47:35 So, how do stacking penalties work with ARM scripts? If I have, say, two sensor boosters with targeting range and two with scan resolution scripts loaded, will the four sensor boosters be penalized, or will there be no stacking effect as different stats are affected?
000Hunter000 Gallente Magners Marauders	Posted - 2007.11.23 18:48:00 - [221] OK it just occured to me, if u now have to script mods to either use 1 attribute or another to it's fullest, then what about drones? don't damp drones do the same thing as the damp mod? will those drones remain as they are or need to be scripted as well to use one of the attributes to it's fullest? Not sure if this has come up or not or if it matters a whole lot, just thought i'd bring it up. CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!! Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
Matalino Gallente Datacore Harvesting	Posted - 2007.11.23 22:05:00 - [222] Originally by: Ab Tallen Edited by: Ab Tallen on 23/11/2007 18:47:35 So, how do stacking penalties work with ARM scripts? If I have, say, two sensor boosters with targeting range and two with scan resolution scripts loaded, will the four sensor boosters be penalized, or will there be no stacking effect as different stats are affected? I expect that they would work the same way that they do now. The effect from the strongest module is applied first, without a penalty. The second strongest is applied with a 0.8708860 multiplier, and so on. As such only the effects that aren't doing anything would be nerf'ed hardest by the stacking penalty. Does it really matter if you get a 0% bonus or a 0.5705831 x 0% bonus? ************************** Datacore Harvesting IPO
Krytie Minmatar Galactic Builders Inc.	Posted - 2007.11.24 11:46:00 - [223] Ok, I have not read this whole post... I actually like all the changes, except for the bandwidth. Now, I do agree with the basic idea. But, I would hope that the EOS being a cruiser class will have bonuses to its bandwidth. Having a huge drone bay of 250m3 and being able to throw out like 3 heavy dones is a bit bad. I am a Gallente Pilot and almost at the point of using the EOS as that is the drone boat I wanted and went after for the past 60 days. But, if these will be nerfed to a point of only being able to use medium drones, then I might as well just give up and go for the BS. Having that many medium drones would be fun to watch in the bay of the EOS, but a bit annoying as the ship is a designed drone boat. I hope that there will be some specifics on bandwidth released so that I dont need to waste my time on training for something that I wont really be using.
Ummon Mu Troublemakers	Posted - 2007.11.24 16:09:00 - [224] Edited by: Ummon Mu on 24/11/2007 16:13:24 I see where all this is leading to: CCP giving us pre-fitted ships with no chance to customization (because at one point every module will have been nerfed to hell and back, all ships will have useless bonuses and the same amount of high mid and lowslots and all the same attributes). Then they will tell us how to fight, which tactics to use etc. Shouldn't the players be the ones that decide how and in which situation they use this ship with this fitting, this modules and not some CCP-Dev that has no experience in fleet battles, low-sec pirating, roaming gangs and countless counters to each tactic? Where is the sandbox princible they always talk so proudly of?! Each time someone finds a way to build a large sandcastle (i.e. finds a new fancy way to combine modules, skills, bonuses and stuff) some CCP guy comes along and levels it out to ZERO again!?! Where is the sense in it all? Why are nerfs the only way CCP sees to balance the game out? I mean, people skill months for a certain module, weapon or ship because they KNOW "then, at this day, I can use this wtfspecialcombinationyeehaa". Every nerf done so far is against diversity in this game. The sheer number and experience of players will always find the special combination that will be a bit more useful, will be better than every other combination. And then? CCP wil come and nerf it? Until when? Until everything is the same? Please, CCP, think of all the different playstyles out there. Stop this madness for the sake of this game. edit: some clarifications
Leigh Goslin	Posted - 2007.11.24 18:31:00 - [225] im with this guy ^ why nto limit the game to one ship...with one slot...and only one module available in the game...with one type of ammo...and then let us loose? Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Alteris Domond	Posted - 2007.11.24 19:24:00 - [226] Edited by: Alteris Domond on 24/11/2007 19:24:03 Okay so people stop screaming and whining. Lets see how the changes hit. I noticed that there are about 200k accounts..... and about 10 people complaining here. Now granted prolly reflects 40-50 accounts at most. Seriously i don't see most of the eve universe complaining. And even with complaints, your going about it totally wrong. You whine and cry and moan and yell. This is wat happened to WoW 18 months ago. Blizz started nerfing and balancing and moving and shifting until it all worked. And yes when i played I was mad. But you know, I waited and worked and you know wat? It turned into 1 of the best balanced games. So I say quit crying and screaming, and yelling and hating. If your going to ASK CCP to make a change or not to change something...Well by God ASK THEM. They work hard to provide us a unique gameplay and graphical realm, and we walk all over them. Seriously, if your gonna critisize Devs, at least do it constructivly and not treat them liek 5 year olds who spilled milk.
Zorok Tactical Precision	Posted - 2007.11.24 23:08:00 - [227] BTW I played on the test server. You'll have to buy the scripts on the market. All the modules mentioned lose about 50% effectiveness in Trinity. Take any modules counterpart from Rev 2.2 and divide it's effectiveness in half. This is what you get with Trinity. All I can say is thank you CCP for discussing this with your player-base first before. A dev was on the test server and I mentioned what I didn't like about the changes. He pretended he didn't hear me so I repeated myself and he didn't even give me an acknowledgment even after I took the time to retype my issues with this ARM system. People don't take this turd disguised as candy- it's a serious nerf. The people who will suffer the most are those who use tacking disruptors. They now must choose to disrupt either weapon effective range or tracking. You no longer can do both which sucks for you because your EW is only effective against turrets as it is. Funny thing with my Lach, the biggest gripe people have with dampners won't be fixed. Who cares about target time when you can't target beyond 3 meters of your ship. I didn't think you guys did either. Funny- I'll just be loading the ARM scripts to focus the damps ability to reduce sensor range. CCP, your nerf is only going to hurt the ones who complained about the damps because now their sensor boosters are even more worthless smiles. This sums up my opinion of this dumb nerf. Quote from Trojanman190 Quote: This is just awful. The problem was with damps and how nothing could properly counter them, their solution to this is to make both damps and their weak counter, sensor boosters, even weaker? And why would a tracking computer have to choose between range or accuracy? Won't this add tons of lag that was removed int he need for speed initiative? Quote: This has to get shot down on sisi... this totally changes the game in way more ways than we ever asked for. It isn't a new "this is fun feature" its a nerf that nobody asked for. Why are they doing that?
Lil Mule	Posted - 2007.11.25 07:04:00 - [228] YAE!!! Nerf everything FTW CCP! NERF NERF NERF NERF NERF. Now that I have that out of my system... The scripts - Im not impressed. It doesnt really add a challenge to combat, its just another annoyance to be concerned about - which script you have loaded. And btw - thanks for nerfing my Sniping Rokh with this awesome addition to the game (I hope you can hear the sarcasm). With Scrips for Tracking computers, Sensor boosters etc - what the **** will be left of my sniping ship with its expensive guns, expensive tracking computers and sensor boosters? Not much thankyouverymuch. Its fragile enough as it is, but again, thanks for the nerf. Now I have to choose whether it actually can lock something within 20 seconds, or whether it can lock something at the range in which it was designed to. SUper. As for the EWAR nerfs, clearly, as someone stated above, CCP only now endorses ECM warfare. I think the Curse is an excellent example of that. Not only did CCP nerf the NOS on it, which is its primary functionality, but also they are now nerfing the tracking disruptors, which were only effective against a very limited number of ships to begin with. Seriously, Im starting to really dislike Trinity. Yes it has pretty new graphics, but thats about all it has, everything else is a Nerf. Apparently when CCP cant solve a problem, their first reaction is to grab the nerf bat. Signed, Unhappy Camper.
Lil Mule	Posted - 2007.11.25 07:25:00 - [229] Not to double post here but.. The reason why they are making these changes is so that large scale fleet combats at 200 + KM's can no longer happen (Look at the nerf to the Raven). The servers cannot support the 200+ man fleet battles at range. They have tried everything they can think of in order to squeeze more performance out of the hardware and the software they have. The problem is - they are running one environment with 30 000 + people, and the hardware and software cannot keep up with the demand placed on it by large scale fleet combats. So what do they decide to do? Nerf it. Thats great for all of us who have spent months and months training for.....Large scale PVP Fleet Combats with sniping ships.. They want smaller, tighter combat. The scripts will help them achieve this so its not possible to have huge ranged fleet battles any longer. It seems to me however that CCP has a very very bad history of not accurately anticipating, or thinking through the repurcissions additions to the game will have. This is why at this point, they are forced to nerf so many things. Even though we as customers, and players of the game, have done nothing wrong, and operate within the mechanics of the game, and how the game was presented to us to be played, we are being penalized, and effectively, having our time wasted. I am considering cancelling my accounts post Trinity. However, I doubt it will have any effect, as they will get a flood of new players due to the 'pretty graphics'. Maybe thats all the more reason to cancel
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2007.11.25 14:50:00 - [230] I find it very disheartening that not a single post from any Dev since this thread was started +5days ago. Do they not care about the player base at all, did Fendhal take a vacation? I understand that some post are so venom filled as to not warrent a response, but there are still plenty of quality constructive post here in this thread. Yet no response. CCP is it your intention to actually alienate the player base thats is represented here in this thread? --
Armadaus Baldwin Combat and Mining Utility Inc. Brotherhood Of Steel	Posted - 2007.11.26 06:28:00 - [231] The honest answer... CCP is just trying to screw Gallente in every way possible. Looks like I need to finish cross training for Caldari!
Lexiana Del'Amore Gallente Nouvelle Rouvenor	Posted - 2007.11.26 07:12:00 - [232] Welcome to Nerf Online
Vitaki Rens 911	Posted - 2007.11.26 09:24:00 - [233] I am about to be critical about these changes. "close range ships will likely fit scripts reducing scan resolution and increasing lock time and tracking", has you ever even flown a ship in eve before? Who fits any kind of tracking mod on a close range ship? Answer: someone who doesn't know anything about ship fitting. (hint fit webs instead) The only thing that was possibly imbalanced was damps but no one I know was shoehorning damps onto anything they could (hint: that means they were probably balanced). And this fix doesn't really balance them very well if that was the aim. Nerfing tracking/range mods is terrible they don't deserve this treatment. If you don't see this as a flat out nerf and think you are just forcing additional choice, then you don't understand your own game. The drone changes just seem like pure insanity. Boosting a bunch of ships and then at the same time nerfing a bunch of gallente ships? It's insanity and there is no method to the madness.
Solomunio Kzenig Amarr Ordo Ministorum MERCURY RISING.	Posted - 2007.11.26 13:14:00 - [234] Drone Bandwidth : Meh, i fly Gal ships and i'm not sure regarding this. HIC's : Good idea but Infinite Warp scram strength?? welcome to empty low sec space. As has been mentioned multiple times before, CCP just killed both Low Sec and Transports. ARM Scripts : More unnecessary complexity which in addition kills all the other EW modules except ECM, which is a shame as it was only damps that were in need of gentle nerf. One Empire, One Emperor, One People, Forever under Heaven. Amarr Aeternus.
Grath Telkin Amarr STK Scientific Black-Out	Posted - 2007.11.26 20:10:00 - [235] So, when will you simply remove Amarr from the game? You've basically eliminated the Curse and Pilgrim as viable ships now, and the rest of our ships were generally lacking in certain areas....oh wait, thats right..you gave us missiles... You've already admitted the problem with Amarr is that all the other races ships can simply tank us with two resists, and yet instead of boosting us, you weaken TD's, to go with the weakened NOS...way to bring Amarr up to snuff. This should do wonders to add to the population of Amarr pilots. It seems the devs may be a bit partial to Minnie ships atm, as they seem to be king of the battlefield in most instances. They seem to be getting the fewest affecting nerf's from all the races, though the ARM's do affect them as well, the larger number of their ships are remaining unaffected through the nerf storm of 07.(please note this is biased opinion, as i havent looked too deeply at the facts, just off the top of my head). Seriously, Galant and Amarr recons just got raped, while Minnie and Caldari recons just got stronger. I dont mind the changes, and alot of them i hear the lager player base complaining about amounts to little or nothing, but you are killing the playability of Amarr, and soon, there will be very few of us left in game, as people sell, trade, or biomass their now neutered Amarr alts.
Tekeran The Hull Miners Union The Red Skull	Posted - 2007.11.26 20:45:00 - [236] WTS Gallante/Caldari pvp pilot, 40mil SP, can fly Eos, Ishtar and Rokh. ... ..... No buyers? Figures... Text based space game!
Ephemeral Waves The Nine Gates	Posted - 2007.11.26 21:12:00 - [237] My only concern with the ARM scripts is having to carry another charge - and having to get that charge from Jita out to wherever I happen to be living. Why not make it a right-click option like the manual/auto on the reppers? It's bad enough already: AM/Ld/Iron, Faction AM, Spike, Javelin, Cap800s, and now....range/res scripts and Tracking/Range scripts? Eph. I make sigs
Elantte Racketeers	Posted - 2007.11.27 04:52:00 - [238] my 2cents on the new stuff... the ARM nerf: my question is why? CCP you have made the modules that use these soooooo awful that at their current level they are laughable... why in God's name would I ever want to fit a RSD in Trinity or even fly a Keres or any of the new EAS's other than the caldari one. Why would anyone want a ship like this in a gang when one can get a ECM boat and be exponentially better? My understanding was that the NOS nerf gave people a reason to use energy neutrilizers. So CCP please give pilots a reason to use the other forms of EWAR other than ECM! HICs: My opinion is that the infini-point should stay. Logic follows that some form of EWAR will eventually counter WCS, but there should also be a counter for the infini-point. My suggestion would be some kind of low slot active module that cancels out the effect. The only thing would be that WCS will be obsolete so perhaps the module only cancels out the strongest active point on the ship meaning that bubbles will still catch the ship and that if any other point is placed on the ship it can still be caught (don't want an infini-stab). Also putting a limit of one module per ship and allow only transport ships to use multiple modules at a time (perhaps a limit of 3?). drone changes: drones from my understanding are feable little RC-ships that are used to supplement your ship's primary DPS (aka turrets and missles) while some ships rely on them as primary DPS. Seeing drone spam in action on TQ is impressive and is one crazy lag fest (reduction in ROF and an increase in damage might help). However with the drone changes they won't last very long and this is a problem. I am on board with the idea of a sig radius reduction (seems obvious to me, these are ment to be stored inside the ship so they should be small) or an HP buff. Perhaps give AF's a sig resolution and eplosion radius bonuses to allow them to hit drones for them to have a role other than "better than T1"
mallina Caldari Core Contingency	Posted - 2007.11.27 10:09:00 - [239] Wow, I've never seen so many babies in an EVE-O thread to date, not even from the Goons "OMG NERF ONLINE etc.." I like the Drone Bandwidth changes, they were a much needed element required to balance certain ships (such as the Myrm) and the scripts are a nice concept, although they could have been implemented better (changing from one script to another takes ages as the activation time on the mods is far too long) Heavy dictors are awesome too. For those complaining that the 'infinate point' will suddenly make low-sec off-limits to haulers, I don't really think much is going to change. You can pop most T1 haulers with a single sensor-boosted Zealot before they're able to warp anyway and BRs will simply be able to warp before they're even locked, plus always has that MWD in the unlikely event they'd get scrambled (a BR that relies 100% on warp strength deserves to die). That, and it's already possible to fit multiple points to a ship specifically to counter stab****s. The main reason people stay out of low-sec is the lack of reward there, rather than the risk. It's barely risky at all if you know what you're doing. Obviously risk is a factor, but is seriously blown out of proportion by the 1-week old trials who autopilot there to pick up some Ammo, get killed at the first gatecamp and never even try* to go back, saying it's far too risky etc. The only way to stop that happening would be to make low-sec completely safe, or somehow stop such people venturing there until they learn how to survive. ---
Lil Mule	Posted - 2007.11.27 14:25:00 - [240] Originally by: mallina Heavy dictors are awesome too. For those complaining that the 'infinate point' will suddenly make low-sec off-limits to haulers, I don't really think much is going to change. You can pop most T1 haulers with a single sensor-boosted Zealot before they're able to warp anyway and BRs will simply be able to warp before they're even locked, plus always has that MWD in the unlikely event they'd get scrambled (a BR that relies 100% on warp strength deserves to die). That, and it's already possible to fit multiple points to a ship specifically to counter stab*****s. 1) I dont think anyone is complaining about T1 haulers. T1 haulers are supposed to be weak, they are T1, and well, haulers. However, I will not be running my Blockade runner down through Lowsec, nosec with the HIC's roaming around. The risk was already high with Interdictors, couple that with the HIC's, no thanks. 2) Putting stabs on your blockade runner wont do crap with all of the bubbles floating around space. You've got dictors, HIC's, and then of course the warp scramblers too. The only option my poor little blockade runner has is to cloak when coming through a gate on which there is a bubble. And you can bet, that they will drop their drones and start sweeping space to find my slow moving hauler..and POP. Therefore I do think there will be an impact on low-sec haulage. Perhaps however that's what CCP wants. Perhaps they want manufacturing to take place more in 0.0 instead, and to limit hauling because: a) Limit the amount of traffic flowing up and down the pipe (lessens server strain) and b) If there is a supply of items in no sec, more pilots are likely to stay there, and others may join, especially if there are items manufactured in no sec that may not be available in high sec. Creating a viable market in no-sec may be an important goal to CCP. I'd need to see some more statistics regarding player travel, and purchase of goods to determine if that would be a feasible strategy. LM
Vitaki Rens 911	Posted - 2007.11.27 16:49:00 - [241] Originally by: Lil Mule Not to double post here but.. The reason why they are making these changes is so that large scale fleet combats at 200 + KM's can no longer happen (Look at the nerf to the Raven). The servers cannot support the 200+ man fleet battles at range. They have tried everything they can think of in order to squeeze more performance out of the hardware and the software they have. The problem is - they are running one environment with 30 000 + people, and the hardware and software cannot keep up with the demand placed on it by large scale fleet combats. So what do they decide to do? Nerf it. That's great for all of us who have spent months and months training for.....Large scale PVP Fleet Combats with sniping ships.. They want smaller, tighter combat. The scripts will help them achieve this so its not possible to have huge ranged fleet battles any longer. If you think this stops blobbing then you are completely wrong. All it does is make combats shorter range. Everyone will still blob the hell out of each other with this change. Just at 100km instead of 150-200. If they want to stop blobbing then you have to implement something that screws things up when there are too many people on the same grid. Something like a ECM storm that stops anyone but 5 people from targeting anyone when there are too many people on grid or something.
Elantte Racketeers	Posted - 2007.11.27 17:20:00 - [242] Originally by: Vitaki Originally by: Lil Mule Not to double post here but.. The reason why they are making these changes is so that large scale fleet combats at 200 + KM's can no longer happen (Look at the nerf to the Raven). The servers cannot support the 200+ man fleet battles at range. They have tried everything they can think of in order to squeeze more performance out of the hardware and the software they have. The problem is - they are running one environment with 30 000 + people, and the hardware and software cannot keep up with the demand placed on it by large scale fleet combats. So what do they decide to do? Nerf it. That's great for all of us who have spent months and months training for.....Large scale PVP Fleet Combats with sniping ships.. They want smaller, tighter combat. The scripts will help them achieve this so its not possible to have huge ranged fleet battles any longer. If you think this stops blobbing then you are completely wrong. All it does is make combats shorter range. Everyone will still blob the hell out of each other with this change. Just at 100km instead of 150-200. If they want to stop blobbing then you have to implement something that screws things up when there are too many people on the same grid. Something like a ECM storm that stops anyone but 5 people from targeting anyone when there are too many people on grid or something. QFT I see no practical way to completely get rid of blobs. And a word on blobs... if your corp or alliance is doing an op of some kind and you are on and available then you should do your part and join the gang or fleet. However, I do agree that sometimes this can get a little crazy and you might have a fleet engagement of 200 vs 20... that just seems like unnecessary over-kill doesn't it?
Vitaki Rens 911	Posted - 2007.11.27 18:26:00 - [243] Originally by: Elantte QFT I see no practical way to completely get rid of blobs. And a word on blobs... if your corp or alliance is doing an op of some kind and you are on and available then you should do your part and join the gang or fleet. However, I do agree that sometimes this can get a little crazy and you might have a fleet engagement of 200 vs 20... that just seems like unnecessary over-kill doesn't it? Defending space is an act of prevention. You want to show that you are so strong that no one would want to come through and try to gank your farmers. So if any time a gang of 10 or 20 people shows up you swarm your space with 200 combat pilots maybe that same gang will decide to go somewhere easier to get ganks. The only way I can see that you would get rid of blobs would be that ECM storm I was talking about. Jam everyone except for 50 people in system when it gets over 200 pilots. And then every minute or two it randomly reassigns the unjammed people.
Elantte Racketeers	Posted - 2007.11.27 18:42:00 - [244] Originally by: Vitaki Originally by: Elantte QFT I see no practical way to completely get rid of blobs. And a word on blobs... if your corp or alliance is doing an op of some kind and you are on and available then you should do your part and join the gang or fleet. However, I do agree that sometimes this can get a little crazy and you might have a fleet engagement of 200 vs 20... that just seems like unnecessary over-kill doesn't it? Defending space is an act of prevention. You want to show that you are so strong that no one would want to come through and try to gank your farmers. So if any time a gang of 10 or 20 people shows up you swarm your space with 200 combat pilots maybe that same gang will decide to go somewhere easier to get ganks. The only way I can see that you would get rid of blobs would be that ECM storm I was talking about. Jam everyone except for 50 people in system when it gets over 200 pilots. And then every minute or two it randomly reassigns the unjammed people. That ECM storm does sound interesting but I have a few questions on how it would work. Will motherships and titans be uneffected because of their resistance to EWAR? Will it only be in 0.0 space or will it also be in Empire (love to see how it would work in Jita )? Will it effect all ships in system including people who are not engaged or just a portion of the members of a gang if their numbers exceed a certain limit? Will the ECM storm have a certain strengh that some ships can try to overcome or will it not matter and if it cycles to a certain ship will it be a 100% chance of success?
CEO Saffron	Posted - 2007.11.28 02:04:00 - [245] The drone changes make sence although i think the EOS has been butchered when perhaphs changing the hybrid bonus to optimal range with a slight reduction in badwidth would have been better as it would serve its function as a fleet ship better while not being able to have the incredible dps it currently enjoys. The values given on the scripts are bad plain and simple although i like the idea. If im going to sacrifice my targetting range bonus on a module i expect the module to at least perform SLIGHTLY BETTER than the existing t2 stats for locking time! These scripts as they are represent a massive nerf to sensor boosters and tracking enhancers....... I thought the point of eve was simplicity now we have heat and scripts to manage these changes will increase complexity. Hows about tweaking the scripts and giving us something we actually want like the ability to change all our crystals / ammo in one go [something thats been asked for year after year]. Or telling us why you wont make this change. Finally the scrambling module on the hy interdictor, its good from the super cap point of view im also assuming that the same penalties apply on that module as in its bubble mode meaning that a blockade runner should be able to outrun that ship solo and you certainly shouldnt be able to get away if he has buddies there to web you. [queue the flames]
MrTripps Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.28 15:40:00 - [246] After training for Gal PVP for about two years I'm so happy that CCP has made the only two non-suck Gal ships the Ishtar and the Domi. Does Tabula Rasa have a free trial? Certainty of death...small chance of success...what are we waiting for? - Gimli
goomba freehand Polaris Project Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.29 00:52:00 - [247] and once again the devs have destroyed the game of eve. Why not just put us all in noob ships cause everytime i train for something you nerf it and what was wrong with the drones every ship that could carry the dornes BS and under didnt have a gun bonus so now a myrmidon is going to go pop in no time. Then lets nerf damps so now my recon is crap so there goes that ship. Oh and now my hauler is crap since the ehavy dictors can scram it. So for gallente it is a BS or noob ship way to go ccp whats next lets nerf blasters cause they are too strong compared to rockets and while we are at it nerf armor rep cause it is unfair that i can repair my armor
Ummon Mu Troublemakers	Posted - 2007.11.30 10:09:00 - [248] Oh and one thing: If you really feel the urgent need to put these ARM scripts into use, then please make it module intern, without another thing clogging my cargo and making it more cluttered. I already have to carry 4 different ammo types, cap boosters, i have to make sure i have the right drones with me... ok, thats managable, but now you want me to carry 4-6 or more scripts with me, (more things to forget and to say "sh-t" when camping a gate) and then imagine how funny it would be if you have to change 8 highslots and 6 medslots because you changed position on the battlefield and everything is already lagged out and you get wonderful sideeffects like modules not stopping reloading or not loading anything. wow. not everything has to be implemented just because its there.
Roy Gordon Caldari The Star Wolves Aunni Ti Tsuun Consortium	Posted - 2007.11.30 15:49:00 - [249] What were the reasons behind not only these changes, but all the other major changes coming in the new patch? Was it people petitioning CCP, the number of pages of posts clamouring for a particular nerf or change? If it was based on players themselves demanding these changes, exactly how many players demanded them? 10, 100, 1000, 2000? I would suggest that had even if 2000 players had been very vocal on the forums demanding changes, that is only 1%, yes, 1% of the 200,000 CCP is claiming have subscriptions to EvE. In that case, what about the other 198,000 players who obviously had no problem with the game and wanted it left alone? That which does not kill us makes us stronger. The Universe is ruled by three basic principles- Matter, Energy and Enlightened Self-Interest!
Lincoln Armm	Posted - 2007.11.30 17:57:00 - [250] While the idea of tuning modules for a specific purpose has possibilities. I don't understand why they started with a group of modules that even with two bonuses are pretty underpowered. An obvious problem with EV's game design is that as the number of posssible modules goes up over time, the exclusionary cost of equiping a module increases. This means that marginal modules see less and less use. In order to counter this Rigs were introduced in ordeer to ease up some o f the pressure. Multi-use modules are another way to address this issue. Potentially a single module could replace severla less popular ones. THis implementation doesn't do that . In fact it applies preassure the other way since these modules no longer do two jobs effectivly. I guess it does reduce module exclusionary cost some by effectivly removing several modules from the game but I hardly think thats what CCP has in mind.
Big Bit	Posted - 2007.11.30 20:36:00 - [251] Why the T2 cruise (Ishtar) have bandwidth for heavy drones 125 Mbit/s but T2 battlecruiser (Eos) don't? It's little odd. BC it should be better than cruiser!
Vivian Porter	Posted - 2007.12.01 14:13:00 - [252] OK ... am I the only one who's noticed this: "Unlike unscripted Warp Disruption Field Generators, the use of Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in *empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec." The Dev used lowsec as an example of where these new devices might be used but he said they would work in Empire Space. Which according to this: Attacks in Empire Space Includes High Sec as well. (Yes, if they are sloppy and stupid Concord will get them but then ... if they are NOT sloppy and stupid there are all kinds of ways they can already get you in High Sec, note the original purpose of that link ...). I haven't been playing all that long ... but the more I have played ... the more I've gotten the feeling that EVE was created by pirates for pirates ... with the rest of us just there to provide someone to rob and kill ... (can't be a pirate unless you've got someone to rob and kill ...). Anyone with a brain is going to see right away - that this change is NOT going to be used in the method described, (except of course once in a blue moon), and will NOT be used mainly to bring down those oh so elusive Blockade Runners. This setup will be used primarily on normal ships that have until now relied on using stabs to get around without getting ganked. Yes ... I hear all the pirates out there just drooling over these things denegrating the people protesting this change. The Pirates are making fun of them because they know that the people protesting are right* - which is just why the pirates want these things. For those of you who haven't noticed ... pirates aren't real big on balance and fair play ... Sir GankaLot (forgive me if that is really someone's name ...) protests his innocence but is not to be believed ...
Zorok Tactical Precision	Posted - 2007.12.01 20:06:00 - [253] Originally by: Vivian Porter Edited by: Vivian Porter on 01/12/2007 14:25:59 "Unlike unscripted Warp Disruption Field Generators, the use of Warp Disruption Field Generators loaded with Focused Warp Disruption ARM scripts is permitted in *empire space. This enables them to tackle super capitals in lowsec." ... I haven't been playing all that long ... but the more I have played ... the more I've gotten the feeling that EVE was created by pirates for pirates ... with the rest of us just there to provide someone to rob and kill ... (can't be a pirate unless you've got someone to rob and kill ...). ... Yes ... I hear all the pirates out there just drooling over these things denegrating the people protesting this change. The Pirates are making fun of them because they know that the people protesting are right* - which is just why the pirates want these things. Actually Vivian, you are correct in your assumptions about CCP. My friend had told me a story about how Eve came to be the "Happy Pirate Game TM" that it is today. According to his story, Eve started out mainly as a mining and ratting game with a few missions thrown in. The game was developed originally on CD-ROM and distributed. The lead game director wanted to keep the focus on this aspect of the game however some of the other devs disagreed because the game was so boring. What happened is that CCP took over development of the game and bought it from the publisher. With the original head developer out of the picture, the other devs could now shape the game into a PvP game. The heart of the problem is the fact that the engine was never really designed for PvP and was designed more as an industrial/economic based game. As few examples of this are how the game engine doesn't model actual physics in spaces. In real life, there would be no optimal range for guns that use ammo. Bullets in space will travel forever. Also, in the game, weapons from the ship will go right through asteroids and hit ships that are behind them. There is no collision detection for weapons. The same goes for ships that are behind other ships in the line of fire- the shots of an enemy can pass through other ships in way of it's line of fire and magically hit ships behind it. These are a few *****s in the system. With that being said however, this MMO is probably the best you'll find on the market to date if you are looking for in-depth gameplay. I don't always agree with these devs decisions but it seems they are trying to keep the game interesting and fresh and not letting the game rot. With that being said, I believe that some things, such as the nerf to sensor damps even with usage of these scripts, is not exactly the right direction. Personally, I plan to try to put ECM on my Lachesis and use the low-slot ECM boosters and use cap booster modules to provide the power to run the systems while eventually training for an ECM based EW ship. With ECM, if you have a high enough strength, you can defeat another ship's ability to target no matter what. With damps, if a ship can get close enough to you, your damps are useless and from what I've read, Damps won't even allow a Lach to get within web range of an unboosted Raven now even with usage of these scripts. Hopefully CCP will start listening to the majority of the players here and stop making toys to give them that pirate edge while they are camping gates (Yes CCP love to PvP and a good deal of them pirate). What I gather is that they have this knee-jerk reaction to how players defeat them and then they change the rules because they didn't imagine a module could be used in that manner such as WCS allowing industrial players to escape from gate camps. CCP didn't like the fact that industrials were so hard to catch so they created this new ship class and gave it an I-Win button vs. haulers. Anyhow guess we'll see what CCP does with this in the future. Maybe they'll make T2 ARM scripts perhaps.
Alteris Domond	Posted - 2007.12.01 20:11:00 - [254] Originally by: Big Bit Why the T2 cruise (Ishtar) have bandwidth for heavy drones 125 Mbit/s but T2 battlecruiser (Eos) don't? It's little odd. BC it should be better than cruiser! The ishtar?? have u taken a look at the ship at all??? read it's specs. It's a DRONE PLATFORM. it boosts drones over even normal weapons. It's only way to dps is to use them. plus being a HAC, it's essentially a pocket battleship so.....
Colette Reynard Gallente Black Lotus Foundation	Posted - 2007.12.02 04:39:00 - [255] Scripting - BAD idea, terrible idea, no way we need any more stuff to micro-manage during a lagfest battle. Bandwidth - Horrible idea, a savage nerf of the Gallente. You render months of our training time worthless in one fell swoop. HIC - Horrid, awful, evil idea. The infinite warp jam strength is just totally wrong. Everything in Eve has always been about numbers, and now you give one ship an automatic "I Win" button, that bypasses all the numbers?
Vivian Porter	Posted - 2007.12.02 07:48:00 - [256] Zorok, thanks for confirming my suspicions. I guess the sad thing for me ... is that what I came here for ... was factional warfare. I come from Planetside - where the whole basis of the game was factional conflict between three empires. I saw EVE had 4 and thought ... OK ... that's cool ... no more of the two against one battles that PS had degenerated into. I did however get a warning from Aura when she welcomed me to the world of Piracy & Capitalism ... and I gradually realized that all the concern evidenced by my NPC Agents that "the [insert faction name here] were reving up their war machine" was just window dressing. I guess I find Corporate Warfare ... essentially ... petty bickering and the existence of Pirates evidence of factional weakness - as no strong faction would permit it within their own space by their own people against their own people. Letters of Marque - yes. Going out and pirating the enemies ships - yes. But to have your industrialists greatest enemies being your own people ... is absurd. But with a 15 minute statute of limitations on theft ... and no interference by the police against it ... more experienced players are allowed to bully their less experienced faction mates with impunity. Yes, they could go to 0.0 space and have it out but why bother with going through all those jump gates when they are free to wreak havoc close to home? I saw some brief discussion of factional warfare a month or so ago. But ... the dev's were going to start out limiting it to 0.0 space and have it something people could opt in or out of. The end result of that is that the same pirates who are to lazy to travel to 0.0 to find a fair fight will keep right on bullying new people in their own space. If they went to 0.0 ... well ... they might just end up in a fair fight ... Pirates ... don't want a fair fight. So ... it's odd ... that the real appeal of this game ... is all the intricate economics that you say it was developed for in the first place where as the PVP that we have because it's what the Dev's wanted ... is actually ... just silly squabbling compared to real factional warfare. The odd thing about PS ... was that even though it was supposed to be a game about strategic conflict on a planetary scale ... all the Dev's wanted to do in the end was duel ... and so that's what the game degenerated into ... The one's who'd created it and cared about the strategy elements had all left as it was gutted by SOE ... Oh well. It's been an interesting experience and I've got nothing better on the horizon ... so I'll stick around for a while ... but my hopes for a game of factional warfare are not what they were ... Of course ... from what I've seen of the numbers involved ... The Gallente could trounce all three of the other factions combined. If that's an incorrect conclusion ... or if anyone's got a list that displays comparative factional populations that would be interesting to see. I guess the really sad thing here is ... that I believe that the dev's know exactly what is going to happen because of these things and were just covering up their own drooling ambitions to get their hands on them themselves. Must be nice to play a game where you can tweak it to your own advantage however you happen to like it. shrug
Big Bit	Posted - 2007.12.02 14:19:00 - [257] Originally by: Alteris Domond Originally by: Big Bit Why the T2 cruise (Ishtar) have bandwidth for heavy drones 125 Mbit/s but T2 battlecruiser (Eos) don't? It's little odd. BC it should be better than cruiser! The ishtar?? have u taken a look at the ship at all??? read it's specs. It's a DRONE PLATFORM. it boosts drones over even normal weapons. It's only way to dps is to use them. plus being a HAC, it's essentially a pocket battleship so..... Then make Eos DRONE PLATFORM too. lol! If you donÆt want use drones switch to Astarte. What is purpose of whole ship class that canÆt use the strongest point of race?
Valadeya uthanaras Killjoy.	Posted - 2007.12.03 21:53:00 - [258] Edited by: Valadeya uthanaras on 03/12/2007 21:53:51 you clueless eos whiner, do you actually tought the eos was balanced to be cunstructive, if those gallente whiner really want a drone boat: 3 high slot, no turret slot/no missile slot 125 drone bandwith same low and med powergrid to fit dual MAR, MWD, med injector only!!! and of course, a 5% drone domage bonus instead of the bonus to turrets still gonna be a bit over the other in term of dps, but is information warfare and tank is a bit lower. of course capacitor will need to be locked at(no more cap used by turret) and should be lowered a bit balanced for EWAR pls refrain from nerfing TD, if anything all they need a boost hence , introduce script as a way to boost them same stat as they have on TQ put script as they are they will be really effective agaisnt any turret ship, but dont affect: drone, tank, lockability ,ewar , speed, missile imo that would put the so crappy TD(trinity release) in line with the other EWAR
Alteris Domond	Posted - 2007.12.04 01:00:00 - [259] Originally by: Big Bit Originally by: Alteris Domond Originally by: Big Bit Why the T2 cruise (Ishtar) have bandwidth for heavy drones 125 Mbit/s but T2 battlecruiser (Eos) don't? It's little odd. BC it should be better than cruiser! The ishtar?? have u taken a look at the ship at all??? read it's specs. It's a DRONE PLATFORM. it boosts drones over even normal weapons. It's only way to dps is to use them. plus being a HAC, it's essentially a pocket battleship so..... Then make Eos DRONE PLATFORM too. lol! If you donÆt want use drones switch to Astarte. What is purpose of whole ship class that canÆt use the strongest point of race? the Eos is command, fleet flavor. So it's major point is to fly out and command. If your general is shooting and dpsin' in a fleet battle, or your flying that ship as part of a solo ratting fun time..... well lrn to fly nub. Your Domi or Myrm is a much better gallente ship to mission/rat/drone in.
Colette Reynard Gallente Black Lotus Foundation	Posted - 2007.12.04 17:31:00 - [260] Plainly nobody is listening here. I think they just create these threads to keep us from posting on the forums, where our discontent would be obvious to the outside world. No dev answers anything here, no dev reads anything here, nobody cares. Oh we might, if we're lucky, get another of those snippy, snotty little "nothing we've read here changes our minds" notes. But CCP is obviously determined to ram this up our collective ass, regardless of what we think, do, or say. This game is rapidly going the way of Anarchy Online, where the fun is all nerfed out of the game for anybody who isn't a hardcore PVP'er.
Osric Wuscfrea Gallente Icarus' Wings Daedalus Hegemony	Posted - 2007.12.08 12:01:00 - [261] Scripting essentially nerfs mission running ships. You now make me fit two identical modules to get the same effect. You might as well simply have made a tracking module and a range one. Pointless... -- Rgds Mike Dead-Fish, Deep Sea Daddies...
SnakeByte86	Posted - 2007.12.09 00:01:00 - [262] Originally by: Osric Wuscfrea Scripting essentially nerfs mission running ships. You now make me fit two identical modules to get the same effect. You might as well simply have made a tracking module and a range one. Pointless... Entire thread of people telling ccp they are wrong, ccp goes ahead release trinity anyway, breaks 1000 things, makes it on front page of gaming websites as worst patch of all time, and still no answer from devs. Bravo.
Exteerminator	Posted - 2007.12.11 00:16:00 - [263] CCP probably trying to gradually make the game more intolerable to the player base in the long run so they'll jump to the next mmorpg these goons release...
Vic Sunshine	Posted - 2007.12.22 11:39:00 - [264] With cycle times of 30 seconds, the tracking computer is a perfect example of why scripts are bad for this game. In a fleet fight the situation can change in a heartbeat. Now, if you want to adapt to a changed situation, you better do it at a safe spot because you might have to wait half a minute until you can change your script. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate a challenge. Nerfing modules, giving ships stronger bonuses to modules, all fair game imho. But Scripts need to die. Unless you reduce the cycle time of all modules scripts are used with to 5 seconds and even then they will be annoying because either way, instead of reloading 6 to 8 guns in a fleetfight, you now also need to reload 4 modules... which is not really something adding fun to this game.
killmore	Posted - 2007.12.27 00:06:00 - [265] In response to the nerf I suggest to the player base that is unhappy including my self go to eve 2.0 yes jump gate evolution I have signed up for beta and my god can you imagine if they do a decent job and actually attempt to solve real problems not imaginary!!! I'm going to give the beta a go be funnier then hell when eve membership goes to 10000 and lets watch the nerf bat hit ccp employee's they'll be in the food bank thinking maybe I should have payed attention to those who payed my salary rember we choose to pay them they can't tax us!!!

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: [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.