EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 15 post(s)
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 10:57:00 - [1] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 25/07/2008 10:58:59 As I said in the thread about the translated version, this removes a blasterboats ability to get in range (MWD deactivation) and stay in range (Web nerf). I like the idea of reducing web effectiveness, and balancing speeds across the ship classes, that's a good idea. Don't kill blasterboats in the process though? - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 11:43:00 - [2] Originally by: Blog Thus, we urge you to log onto Singularity (our test server) this Monday, July 28TH to give them a spin and spare us no feedback or thoughts on these issues. We're allocating a long time (a month or more) to oversee the changes because we are open to further tweaks, based on your suggestions. Awesome, my sub will already have expired when the changes go through \o/. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 12:08:00 - [3] Originally by: Theo Samaritan > Its warp scramblers, not disruptors being changed and as blaster range is 5-8km even with a 10km disruptor simple momentum will push you the extra 2k. Range depends on the size of the blasters. The extra 5k or so will no longer be 5k since we will no longer have high effectiveness webs to pin them. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 12:11:00 - [4] Originally by: Cpt Branko It's completely fine: blaster-ships shouldn't melt faces completely from undersized targets. Webs won't affect their ability to hit targets of their own size properly, and double-webbing is always a good option. So, MWD, 2xWeb, and ask the target nicely not to warp away? Right. What you mention about frigates getting pwned by webbing MWDing cruisers/BCs could be fixed by making webbers sig-radius affected. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 12:14:00 - [5] Originally by: Cardice Makar Seriously though, these changes have not yet even been implemented on SISI. That, combined with the large yellow type-face at the begining saying "THESE CHANGES ARE A POSSIBILITY" rings to me that it certainly isn't final. This is why now is the time to whine. Not when the changes are purely speculative. Not when they have been deployed to TQ. When CCP say 'here are some concrete possible changes, comment please'. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 12:28:00 - [6] Originally by: Bellum Eternus Instead of all this complicated crap, all CCP needed to do was this: huge stacking penalty for speed mods, halve the performance of all speed related rigs, make all speed related rigs and mods negatively stack with each other regardless of what type of mod or rig it is (OD, Nano, Istab etc.). Problem solved. The ships that are going insanely fast due to massive stacking bonuses incured through fitting tons of speed mods are nerfed. No one else is changed. End of story. All other 'normal' ships remain untouched. The way things are going now, every ship in the game is going to be affected in a negative fashion and nano ships will still be at the top of the pile. Orgasmic levels of Truth. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 12:42:00 - [7] Originally by: Shadowsword Yet your suggested change doesn't do anything to make MWD and Webs less "must-have" modules. So screw over everyone who genuinely needs them just to make AB+Web+Scram the new must have for everyone else? - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 13:42:00 - [8] Originally by: Gypsio III nanoviolins I see what you did there. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 14:40:00 - [9] Originally by: Ikvar DO NOT RUIN BLASTER SHIPS! - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 14:42:00 - [10] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 25/07/2008 14:42:02 Originally by: Richard Angevian Which is my biggest objection in the proposed changes. That is WAY WAY too much power to give to a single module, it's so overpowered that you are going to see them literally every single engagement on every sort of ship. The irony is that part of this rebalance is supposed to be about getting rid of 'must have' modules. - DesuSigs

Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 14:59:00 - [11] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth You're not thinking outside the box. A warp scrambler will have zero effect on an afterburner. Propose that ABs get a small increase if you feel they're too slow. This is a joke. I can tell from some of the absurdity and from having seen a lot of jokes in my time. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 15:07:00 - [12] Originally by: CCP Nozh Close range tracking, blasters, webbies, etc. - Disabling the MWD + -60% speed reduction is far more effective than the old -90% webifier. This of course only applies to MWD targets. Afterburner targets will be less vulnerable to close range damage dealing ships, but that's part of the change, the verity. Smaller faster moving targets will have a better chance of evading death, but I'm sure drones on blaster boats will come in handy here. Is this supposed to be a reassurance regarding blasterboats? All it states is: Blasterboats can be stopped dead in the water. Other ships using MWDs can be too, but ships with ABs will happily stay out of range and kill you. That's just part of the change. Perhaps the drones on your blasterboat will be useful. So basically the situation for MWD boats is that there are going to be a group of targets which you can neither catch nor hold in place to kill, so they dictate range and can disengage at will. That sounds familiar... - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 15:12:00 - [13] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Yes it's a joke. However, since nano's were a bad joke, I think it's time to find some new material. Ok. But I reserve the right to whine, since I am blaster specced. Originally by: Astria Tiphareth True, but how about instead of complaining that they're fixing a game-wide problem, focus on the specific issues those fixes cause and how to address them. Of course blaster boats should remain viable. How about doing something constructive and suggesting how, because if you can't be bothered to do that, leave it to CCP because they clearly at least are prepared to think about EVE and its issues. Allow MWD boats (those with bonuses which allay the cap reduction for instance) to be exempt from the scrambler effect. Since these ships only use their speed to get close, their speed is brief and purposeful, as opposed to being a new means of tanking. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 15:44:00 - [14] Edited by: Crumplecorn on 25/07/2008 15:44:26 Originally by: Ikvar Originally by: Ikvar DO NOT RUIN BLASTER SHIPS! P.S. I wholly support the nano nerf, however the MWD disable thing is potentially death to blaster boats. To those of you who are saying 'Fit an afterburner' etc, you try flying a Blasterthron or something with an AB and tell me how that works out for you. This, basically. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 16:01:00 - [15] Originally by: CCP Dionysus The basic speeds in the 1k-3k/sec areas are basically untouched, in fact boosted in a few cases. O rly? Tell that to <everyone with an MWD>. Originally by: CCP Dionysus This weekend's knee-jerk comments will be taken with a large grain of salt. This was not a smart thing to say, as it sounds like you mean all comments this weekend are worthless, which was probably not your intention. Especially since there is, you know, this thread. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 16:12:00 - [16] Originally by: Astria Tiphareth Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 25/07/2008 15:37:06 Originally by: Xaen UI problems Your stuff? Actually I've got a lot of time for Xaen's complaints about the UI. That said, fixing gameplay problems probably does have to come above fixing usability issues, but not forever. His complaints are valid, his suggestions excellent, his attitude annoying as **** (for instance: complaining about the UI (again) in a thread specifically about the current dev blog). He should either quit or work for CCP, preferably the latter, but if the former really happens I want his stuff. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 17:15:00 - [17] Originally by: Cailais Blasterboats dont seem to have too many worries either - if fewer players fit MWDs then blaster boats will have an easier time getting in range - after all they couldnt hit fast targets anyway beyond web range. Now if say a deimos mwds and scrams another ship (and is scrammed back) they'll both effectively stop: good news for close range damage dealers. Anyone who fits an AB will be able to simply fly away from a scrammed blasterboat, assuming they even have to fly away given tracking issues. The combination of MWD scrambler and reduced web means that the blasterboat loses the ability to pin them down and the ability to chase. Against MWD fitted opponents, the problem is not as drastic, but since you will lose your MWD and be webbed as you approach, you will have to tank for a bit longer before you can return fire. This rebalance is supposed to avoid situations where the enemy can simply disengage at will, yet this is exactly the situation it will create for blasterboats. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 17:36:00 - [18] Originally by: Apertotes well, welcome to the world of non-consentual PVP. it goes both ways, you know? No, it doesn't. If you can leave combat at will, that means it is consensual. Duh. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 17:40:00 - [19] Originally by: Entelechia Originally by: Crumplecorn Originally by: Apertotes well, welcome to the world of non-consentual PVP. it goes both ways, you know? No, it doesn't. If you can leave combat at will, that means it is consensual. Duh. This whole argument is stupid. This isn't World of EVEcraft. You sign up for consensual PvP the second you log in to EVE. If you don't like it, go play something else, or hug a station. The second you enter space, you've just said "Okay, I am ready to PvP" whether you realize it or not. Well, people mean it in terms of individual incidents. A particular instance of combat can be unconsensual, while on a greater level you consent by undocking. - DesuSigs
Crumplecorn Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations	Posted - 2008.07.25 20:05:00 - [20] DO NOT WRECK BLASTER SHIPS Not enough of this in the last few pages tbh. Epic thread, 10/10, would read again. News of the change has reached german nanopilots. - DesuSigs

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.