EVE Search - Titan changes

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Titan changes - update

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 70 post(s)
Mike deVoid Doctrine. FEARLESS. 8	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:05:00 - [541] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: pmchem wrote: Greyscale, Please consider special-casing XL turrets and implementing a signature radius based solution. If you modify chancetohit (from http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Turret_damage ) by adding a sigrad based falloff function, but restrict the implementation just to XL turrets, it could be done very quickly. In time for the April escalation release, if not earlier. Plus, special-casing XL would mean subcap v subcap gameplay is not affected and nobody would really care if XL turrets were "special" with respect to sigrad effects. I think if you locked yourself, Masterplan, and Soundwave in a room this could be done in a matter of hours. I don't entirely understand what you're suggesting here - the hit chance is already scaled based on a comparison of the signature resolution and the target's signature radius. My math is rusty, please explain further. I've started a proposal thread on FHC that does just this: http://failheap-challenge.com/showthread.php?6245-The-Great-Tracking-Nerf-v0-1
Bouh Revetoile The Rough Riders Ares Protectiva 4	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:19:00 - [542] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: I think I understand what you're saying here, but I'm not 100% sure :/ I'll try to make it simpler. With missiles, we cap damages with a direct signature and velocity comparison, and that's why damages don't scale down with turret size (when turret size increase, damage to smaller target reduce a lot). With turret, we cap damages with chances to hit and a multiplier (I forgot it last time ; I will go back to it later), and that's why damages scale down pretty well with turret size (when size of turret increase, damage to smaller target do not reduce too much). That is because with missiles, being small is enough to reduce incoming damages, and speed reduce them further. While with turret, your size only affect how easy you will manage to outtrack the turret, and it is actually your piloting only (by increasing your transversal velocity) which decrease the chances to hit and the damages. Turret damage formula is made with two members : tracking member (where sig ratio is used with transversal velocity) and range member (where we check if target is in optimal range, and reduce chances to hit when it's not). You can cap turret damage directly if you want without modifying the turret damage formula, but that would be a coarse way of doing it because it would go against the idea of the turret damage formula and it would make turret more like missiles but without the advantages of missiles. So you have two ways of doing it : by modifying the turret damage formula, or by tweaking the damage modifier. I already explained how to tweak the turret formula to affect hit chances, which will affect the raw dps of turrets : if you want signature to directly affect hit chances, you need to add a member next to the tracking and range members (X = A + B + C with A the tracking member, B the range member and C the new sig member) ; this will make hit chances, and hence dps, to be directly affected by signature regardless of any other factor. Then follow an explanation of the damage modifier of turret, because I didn't realized that you can directly modify the damage output of turret the way you like with no difference. I didn't realized there was the other way until tonight. Damages on turret are affected by the quality of hit. I will not consider wrecking hit to make it simpler. Infact, when you shoot with your turret, a random number between 0 and 1 is drawn, we call it X. The formula determine the higher value X can take to hit the target. Look at the evelopedia for more explanations. In brief, turret damage number is multiplied by X+0.5. So if your turret can hit the target, it will do at least 50% of its damage and at most 150% (provided it's not a wrecking hit). So a quick and dirty fix to cap XL turret damages could be made here. Multiply this ratio with the damage modifier by the sig ratio and you're done. Damage modifier look something like F = D * (X+0.5) (F = final damage number, D = damage of turret (after all its bonuses), X = the random number drawn to determine the hit). Make it like F' = D * (X+0.5) * (target sig radius / turret sig resolution) Which can also be F' = F * (target sig radius / turret sig resolution) and you have something missile like. But then, you will see a lot more Leviathan... maybe... So you can actually modify damage of turrets directly with sig, but that would make them a lot more similar to missiles without their advantages (though 20m/s explosion velocity is still a very limiting factor for capital missiles and balance that a bit; but that's not true for lower classes of missiles).
I'm Down North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 48	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:26:00 - [543] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: OK, so the approach we're currently considering is: - Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted - Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this - Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC) - Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right. Stopping mid-fight refitting is a "cute" solution that may or may not end up contributing to this in practice, but it's not behavior we want to support anyway so removing it now seems reasonable. The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out. The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think. Criticisms? I do not like the damage scaling with unmodified sig. Titans should always be able to do full damage under perfect conditions. You just need the ability to make perfect conditions much much harder. Ultimately, a 3x webbed ship at 60km should be moving fast enough to avoid tracking if the sig penalty was in place properly rather than the horrible current mechanics. Just fix the mechanic, leave the potential to get a hit if some stupid pilot has 0 transversal or speed. It just seems like you're implementing a horribly fixed mechanic that does not address the problem at all just to escape the huge titan damage. It's not addressing the problem of ability to hit and therefore should not be implemented as a system that can break future fixes and tie up CCP resources. The whole point is that both sides should be rewarded for doing the correct things. The offensive side should be rewarded for bringing smaller ships to help with smaller targets. The defensive side should be rewarded for properly piloting ships and determining ideal ranges to reduce incoming damage. The offensive side should not be penalized simply because the defensive side brought a small ship and sat it at 0 speed. That's the fault of the defender, not the offensive player. The issues, as i've stated so many times is that range is offsetting the defender's skills too much because of the huge growth in tracking as range increases. So address the range by addressing the mechanic... not implementing some new jerry rigged mechanic that has no realistic values or place in this game.
Magnifikus Erzverwirrer Endstati0n Raiden. 13	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:32:00 - [544] - Quote is the bridge bug also on your fuck1ng list or does your log show nothing as usual? ...
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 629	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:35:00 - [545] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: - Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC) I think you should look into making distance modify sig radius, since the further away you are from the other target, the smaller it is relatively, and the harder it should be to hit. I don't think falloff really simulates that properly as it is today.
Lord Maldoror Fairlight Corp Rooks and Kings 242	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:37:00 - [546] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: Criticisms? I feel the general drive here is wrong, in that it makes Eve into a lower skill game. Right now the tracking formula is rather esoteric but it works. A move toward "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" reduces operational versatility on the field and encourages simply X countered by Y countered by Z. If you're in one-sized ship and you get jumped by different sig ships, you should be able to use your assets, armed with painters and webs, to kill those who have ambushed you. And, in turn, if jumping you with larger ships, they should have the same options to employ those to hit you. Whilst I'm sure that would still be possible after the proposed changes, "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" is a step against it,. Unmodified is a bad word in an open-world sandbox game. There should always be opportunity to modify variables to respond to a situation. Otherwise, we increasingly move to a rock, paper, scissors game with no fleet wanting to jump in first, lest the next fleet bring the perfect sig counter. A game like Eve does not stand still. As the game grows, so does the collective knowledge of the people who play it. In 2007, people would jump into camps they would never dream about now - it was a lot easier to find a fight. This is not because people lack courage now. It's simply because people have come to learn what it means when they see falcons at range, or a given number of logistics or the speed of a 100mn AB Tengu, or the firepower of a super-capital or whatever else. People have learnt what counters what. As a result, the mystery of a game, and the heart of the game, now lies in how people can adapt to given situations. The esoteric turret formula is a major part of that. If you see a bunch of battleships hitting a tower, you should never know - unless you ship scan them - whether they'll be able to hit your frigates or not. While on the subject, let me also say I'm concerned that the tracking formula is not seen within CCP as a monument of Eve and a pillar of their mechanics. I remember talking to Agent Xer0 and Lord Zap many times late at night after fleet, and listening to stories of m0o in the dawn of Eve back when I was still wasting my time on de_dust2. The introduction of tracking and sig had a monumental impact on the initial Wild West that they describe. You might even say that 'modern' Eve was born at that point. And whereas much mystery has been dispelled in the collective growth of Eve knowledge, tracking and sig have remained esoteric to many people. Note, for example, the continual 're-discovery' of these mechanics. Every so often (e.g. AHACS, Afs, rifters, etc. ) a lower sig class of ship becomes vogue, catches on and is finally countered en masse by painters and webs. Gradually those counters themselves fall out of vogue and history repeats itself. People should never have an answer to the question 'will they hit me?' before they take the fight. These last frontiers need to be enshrined and protected within the Eve code. The tracking formula and its relation to both speed and sig is one of Eve's finest technical accomplishments. Ultimately, I don't feel the statement GÇ£scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radiusGÇ¥ is congruent with the finest aspects of Eve's game design or a full analysis of its history.
Mara Rinn Cosmic Industrial Complex Cosmic Consortium 1174	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:39:00 - [547] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons Doesn't turret sig res already do this? Why is XL sig res 1000 instead of 10000m? CCP Greyscale wrote: - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted Stop all ships using their own fitting facility, introduce a short delay of say 10-20s between installing a module and the module being onlined. Don't stop people being creative in the field. You don't want to support it? Talk to CSM. Also, introduce combat refitting system and new (T2?) carriers that provide the service, accessible to caps and sub caps. I.e: combat tender. CCP Greyscale wrote: - Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this Keep it, make siege module boost tracking by factor of two, reduce sig res by 80% or so. Wanna blap? use siege! CCP Greyscale wrote: - Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list Remove EWAR immunity. Boost warp core stability. Thus enemy can stop you blapping by using tracking disruption. Boost EAS bonuses so they get better EWAR bonuses than recons or BOBS. Hero Keres fleet should be able to kill dumb Titan fleet.
DelightSucker Perkone Caldari State 50	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:40:00 - [548] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: OK, so the approach we're currently considering is: - Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted - Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this - Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC) - Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right. Stopping mid-fight refitting is a "cute" solution that may or may not end up contributing to this in practice, but it's not behavior we want to support anyway so removing it now seems reasonable. The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out. The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think. Criticisms? this is now the third different changes since you announced the first one. and we havent even seen a change yet. I rly think you need to gather a team sit back and do this right instead of this flipping back and forth every second week. atm it looks like no one have any idea of where they wanna go whit Titans in the long run.
steave435 Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 56	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:43:00 - [549] - Quote If you do end up changing the refitting in space mechanics, could you do a Little Thing while you're messing in it anyway and remove the need for the other ship to be configured for it? If you're in a fleet with the other guy, it's safe to assume you're willing to let him use your refitting service.
Zeekar Spricer Raiden. 2	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:51:00 - [550] - Quote #double post whoopsie
Zeekar Spricer Raiden. 2	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:51:00 - [551] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: OK, so the approach we're currently considering is: - Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted - Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this - Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC) - Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right. Stopping mid-fight refitting is a "cute" solution that may or may not end up contributing to this in practice, but it's not behavior we want to support anyway so removing it now seems reasonable. The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out. The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think. Criticisms? I very rarely post on this forum because the signal to noise ratio is usually beyond horrible, but seeing this post i had to respond since i cant say i find any of these changes very thought out. - Why would you do something just based on principle aka keeping the max locked target count at 3? Do it if it has merit don't do it if it doesn't . - mid fight reffiting is a significant nerf to smaller groups that use capitals on a regular basis and is one of the things that actually can give a decent group the needed advantage when fighting outnumbered and honestly we do not need any more nerfs in that regard. For any group it will remove the ability to adapt to a situation, like a triage carrier reffiting mid fight when he becomes primary while giving nothing to the game except dumbing it down, regardless of how cute you think it is. - Revisiting EW immunity. What exactly are you trying to do with that? The current supercarrier in its form is nothing else but a glorified dread, with shittier tracking i might add, and with rr ability. Which can not dock. Has to be built in a CSAA with a 3 week build time and requires a larger skill, implant and fitting investment for it to be actually considered deploying. And even then it barely out preforms a dread. - If you implemented an attribute to turrets that would cause a damage reduction based on signature why not implement it on all turrets? Or you only consider 1000m sig resolution XL turrets shooting a 500m sig battleship broken in that regard and a 400m sig resolution 1400mm arty tracking an ahac with 90m sig without a problem as intended game mechanic? The difference in rations is actually in advantage to the XL turrets just to give you a hand with the math. - The tracking adjustment shouldnt even occur but you would have to remove the titan combat role and actually give them a proper alliance based role. Shadoo wrote a nice post about it and i have to say i mostly agreed with him. - Revisiting the tracking formula is the only thing i can wholeheartedly agree. And that needs to be done sooner rather then later since the current mechanic boils down to pretty much bring the biggest gun you can and blap away.
Hugo Adama Palmetto Galactic 0	Posted - 2012.04.03 22:56:00 - [552] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: OK, so the approach we're currently considering is: - Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted - Possibly revert the tracking adjustment, we're still considering this - Put "revisit tracking formula" on our to-look-at list, and particularly consider revising how sig radius and sig res are treated (either make this comparison more prominent or pull it out and use the damage scaling on all turrets, possibly with some additional adjustments TBC) - Put "revisit supercap EW immunity" on our to-look-at list The damage scaling guarantees that we solve the problem we're trying to solve, which is why we're currently favoring that approach. It also stops people from ratting in titans so effectively, which is considered a significant plus. Finally, it's likely laying the groundwork for a more comprehensive tracking adjustment at some possible time in the future maybe TBC perhaps you see how I'm being non-committal here right. Stopping mid-fight refitting is a "cute" solution that may or may not end up contributing to this in practice, but it's not behavior we want to support anyway so removing it now seems reasonable. The tracking nerf on XL weapons may or may not still be needed, we'll see how that pans out. The tracking formula is now very much on my radar; as above I make no predictions about when we might look at it but it does warrant another look I think. Criticisms? Limite refitting to Supers, let's carriers refit still. And maybe do it on an aggression basis.
steave435 Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 56	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:02:00 - [553] - Quote Darirol wrote: -dmg scaling for turrets that sounds like a very smart solution, but you should be carefull with this. because if you even out everything the game will be boring. if turrets work the same way as missiles do, when drone regions drop the same bounty as other regions and so on. They'll still be different. Turrets will hit instantly, can't have their damage smartbombed away and you can maneuver to influence hit chance. Missiles are delayed and always hit, but since you can't influence transversal you might get a further damage reduction based on that.
Raivi Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 82	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:03:00 - [554] - Quote Lord Maldoror wrote: CCP Greyscale wrote: Criticisms? I feel the general drive here is wrong, in that it makes Eve into a lower skill game. Right now the tracking formula is rather esoteric but it works. A move toward "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" reduces operational versatility on the field and encourages simply X countered by Y countered by Z. If you're in one-sized ship and you get jumped by different sig ships, you should be able to use your assets, armed with painters and webs, to kill those who have ambushed you. And, in turn, if jumping you with larger ships, they should have the same options to employ those to hit you. Whilst I'm sure that would still be possible after the proposed changes, "turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius" is a step against it,. Unmodified is a bad word in an open-world sandbox game. There should always be opportunity to modify variables to respond to a situation. Otherwise, we increasingly move to a rock, paper, scissors game with no fleet wanting to jump in first, lest the next fleet bring the perfect sig counter. A game like Eve does not stand still. As the game grows, so does the collective knowledge of the people who play it. In 2007, people would jump into camps they would never dream about now - it was a lot easier to find a fight. This is not because people lack courage now. It's simply because people have come to learn what it means when they see falcons at range, or a given number of logistics or the speed of a 100mn AB Tengu, or the firepower of a super-capital or whatever else. People have learnt what counters what. As a result, the mystery of a game, and the heart of the game, now lies in how people can adapt to given situations. The esoteric turret formula is a major part of that. If you see a bunch of battleships hitting a tower, you should never know - unless you ship scan them - whether they'll be able to hit your frigates or not. While on the subject, let me also say I'm concerned that the tracking formula is not seen within CCP as a monument of Eve and a pillar of their mechanics. I remember talking to Agent Xer0 and Lord Zap many times late at night after fleet, and listening to stories of m0o in the dawn of Eve back when I was still wasting my time on de_dust2. The introduction of tracking and sig had a monumental impact on the initial Wild West that they describe. You might even say that 'modern' Eve was born at that point. And whereas much mystery has been dispelled in the collective growth of Eve knowledge, tracking and sig have remained esoteric to many people. Note, for example, the continual 're-discovery' of these mechanics. Every so often (e.g. AHACS, Afs, rifters, etc. ) a lower sig class of ship becomes vogue, catches on and is finally countered en masse by painters and webs. Gradually those counters themselves fall out of vogue and history repeats itself. People should never have an answer to the question 'will they hit me?' before they take the fight. These last frontiers need to be enshrined and protected within the Eve code. The tracking formula and its relation to both speed and sig is one of Eve's finest technical accomplishments. Ultimately, I don't feel the statement GÇ£scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radiusGÇ¥ is congruent with the finest aspects of Eve's game design or a full analysis of its history. This is a good post. If you need to do the unmodified sig thing due to time constraints, please commit to beginning the process of iterating on titans (finding a better solution) on April 25th. Don't stick it at the bottom of the backlog to be done after the rest of the ships in eve have all been balanced.
Hatsumi Kobayashi Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 79	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:07:00 - [555] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: I'm Down wrote: something I think I agree with the principles here, yeah. never agree with yaay ever CAUTION SNIGGS
Ampoliros Aperture Harmonics K162 26	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:16:00 - [556] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: OK, so the approach we're currently considering is: - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted Criticisms? These two changes would have too broad an impact, IMHO. What you're talking about is not only hitting supercaps, but now dreads and carriers as well, something that was specifically avoided with earlier rounds of changes. Meissa makes a solid point - if titans are a problem, nerf titans. By my measure, dreads and carriers in w-space are fairly solidly balanced against subcaps and each other, these changes would hugely affect that dynamic in favor of subcap blobs.
Dwindlehop Stimulus Rote Kapelle 2	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:28:00 - [557] - Quote Meissa Anunthiel wrote: [Refitting midcombat] is a good thing because it gives people adaptability. I agree adaptability is a good thing. The proper thing for CCP to do is removing refitting midcombat, and instead give players the tools to display adaptability midcombat. These tools should benefit subcaps as well. Refitting midcombat gives cap warfare an unfair advantage over subcaps.
Zeekar Spricer Raiden. 5	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:33:00 - [558] - Quote steave435 wrote: Zeekar wrote: - Revisiting EW immunity. What exactly are you trying to do with that? The current supercarrier in its form is nothing else but a glorified dread, with shittier tracking i might add, and with rr ability. Which can not dock. Has to be built in a CSAA with a 3 week build time and requires a larger skill, implant and fitting investment for it to be actually considered deploying. And even then it barely out preforms a dread. The bolded part prooves you have no clue what you're talking about. Hint: It's not all about raw damage potential, stuff like mobility and tank is pretty significant too... The listed reasons, the decent damage, high volley, decent mobility and huge tank are in truth large advantages of supercarriers. But removing EW immunity will pretty much kill all of those advantages except them being large EHP bricks that take a while to die. Their damage potential can already be removed from the battlefield with some creative tactic which cant be said about dreads and their mobility when already low with removal of EW immunity would pretty much get destroyed ( double web that aeon, so it doesn't get any where). So for them to actually give a decent bang for buck they have to keep the EW immunity. steave435 wrote: Zeekar wrote: - If you implemented an attribute to turrets that would cause a damage reduction based on signature why not implement it on all turrets? Or you only consider 1000m sig resolution XL turrets shooting a 500m sig battleship broken in that regard and a 400m sig resolution 1400mm arty tracking an ahac with 90m sig without a problem as intended game mechanic? The difference in rations is actually in advantage to the XL turrets just to give you a hand with the math. Can you imagine all the balance considerations that would need to be made if that was to be applied to everything right of the bat? It would be way outside the scope of this quick fix. He did open up for applying it to sub caps later on thought, and mentioning that he'd like to re-work the tracking formula while talking about that is a pretty good clue. He's just not promising stuff he's not sure he can keep. I'm just trying to get his response about a specific game mechanic i hope you dont mind ;)
Lyron-Baktos Selective Pressure Rote Kapelle 75	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:44:00 - [559] - Quote regarding not refitting while locked, leave that alone for now and see how the other changes hold up. Stopping this removes some very fun advanced tactics and the benefits of removing it may not be worth it On holiday. -áIn some other world. Where the music of the radio was a labyrinth of sonorous colours. To a bright centre of absolute convicton. -áWhere the dripping patchouli was more than scent. -á It was a sun
Martin Ehrenthal Harpoon Delivery Services 0	Posted - 2012.04.03 23:56:00 - [560] - Quote I hope it won't prevent dreads from shooting gardians sleepers in w-space.
Jita Alt666 987	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:02:00 - [561] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted I can see the logic behind this suggestion, however it will drastically limit tactical options. How is this for a "mid point": Non-targeted ships can refit as current mechanics stand Targeted ships suffer the same capacitor penalties when refitting that ships suffer when off-lining and on-lining modules.
james1122 Aperture Harmonics K162 25	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:08:00 - [562] - Quote Love the tracking scaling change. Please please dear god though balance test it to high hell so you don't fec up the balance between cruisers, frigates and bs. Two Step for CSM
Ganthrithor GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 201	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:10:00 - [563] - Quote Posting to reiterate that scaling gun damage based on unmodified ship sigs is a bad idea. Also if you wanted to limit combat-refitting restrictions to supercaps I'd be OK with that. Also also, I was re-reading one of your posts, Greyscale, and noticed that you said [turretchanges] would be good because they would stop titans from ratting. What's wrong with ratting supercaps? I'm assuming you guys don't like the idea that they can print isk quickly? I doubt they fall anywhere along the normal "risk vs reward" curve (they're 60b+ isk ships, and I doubt they peform much better than a couple of carriers when ratting) and ratting supers provide gank opportunities that the game sorely needs.
Aloe Cloveris The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 95	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:20:00 - [564] - Quote The only deal-breaker I see is the no-refitting-in-space. Don't do that. That R&K vid really is a prime example of why refitting carrierside shouldn't be scuttered (personally wish it applied only to carriers and subcaps - **** supercapitals forever - but I suppose that's not fair to supercapital pilots* * Goddammit. I actually wrote those last six words. Barf.
Blurtmaster Aperture Harmonics K162 0	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:30:00 - [565] - Quote If you do these changes: What about the PVE End Game and capital spawns? Level 5 missions needs to be revisited and adjusted. You will need to insert Capital Sleeper ships in C6 wormholes to balance the end game content. I am here referring to the capital spawns - which will make absolutely NO sense after a capital nerf - to need capitals to spawn a subcapital fight. We would of course LOVE a hard End Game Sleeper fight. [Currently it is way to easy.] Or just make C7s. [Free beer next fan fest on me.] PS. Also, L6 missions would be nice to see. - All PVE content is not actually needed to be available for everyone. Dying horribly is a part of the game.
SuperBeastie Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore 65	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:31:00 - [566] - Quote CCP Greyscale wrote: OK, so the approach we're currently considering is: - Probably keep the lock count reduction on general principles - Introduce an attribute that lets us scale turret damage based on raw unmodified sig radius, and set this to approximately capital-size on XL weapons - Stop people from refitting their ships while they're being targeted I would like the lock count nerf to go away I'm all for this other than you are suggesting basing it on unmodified sig. If someone chooses to fit their drake to have a sig of a carrier it should be hit like a carrier. After watching the most recent r&k video I can safely say you are nuts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMFahR4wXTg&feature=g-u-u&context=G24eaca1FUAAAAPAAHAA SuperBeastie's Third Party Service My in-game Channel is Supers Third Party
Mindboner Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:38:00 - [567] - Quote Quote: You will need to insert Capital Sleeper ships in C6 wormholes to balance the end game content. I am here referring to the capital spawns - which will make absolutely NO sense after a capital nerf - to need capitals to spawn a subcapital fight. We would of course LOVE a hard End Game Sleeper fight. [Currently it is way to easy.] Or just make C7s. Seems like you need to see the bigger picture here. AND this would also reduce RMT farming in my opinion.
Singular Structure X-Factor Productions 3	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:43:00 - [568] - Quote Quote: #558Posted: 2012.04.04 00:38 \| Report Quote: You will need to insert Capital Sleeper ships in C6 wormholes to balance the end game content. I am here referring to the capital spawns - which will make absolutely NO sense after a capital nerf - to need capitals to spawn a subcapital fight. We would of course LOVE a hard End Game Sleeper fight. [Currently it is way to easy.] Or just make C7s. Seems like you need to see the bigger picture here. AND this would also reduce RMT farming in my opinion. Besides the RMT problem to kill capital ships for farmers, I think that PVE capital content is missing from the 33% in Wormholes, that EVE geographically actually consists of. CCP really need to market Wormholes as the totally unique environment of 48h dynamic world it really is. C7 systems would be a whole new wet dream to explore, bikinis or not.
Miana Zarek School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2012.04.04 00:51:00 - [569] - Quote Quote: CCP really need to market Wormholes as the totally unique environment of 48h dynamic world it really is. C7 systems would be a whole new wet dream to explore, bikinis or not. Exploring new things would be nice! Although C7's would be something wonderful to go into - It would sound to good to be true. Seelene mentioned that Sleepers should attack POSes etc - well that would be an end game worth a challenge. Just capital spawns would actually be enough. (Bikinis, I think I would need them manufactured in nanoribbons for my XL guns. (Even if you nerf them.))
Zxmagus GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 3	Posted - 2012.04.04 01:15:00 - [570] - Quote Nice ideas i think combat refitting has needed to be axed for years and looking at sig with titans guns is a good start.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 30 40 .. 43 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.