EVE Search - Dev blog + speed nerf in words..

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Dev blog + speed nerf in words..

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 14:45:00 - [1] Edited by: BiggestT on 09/10/2008 14:46:32 Ok heres the interview in a nutshell.. Talked about delaying web fires + scrambler changes for first "stage"..While leaving in balance of mass/agility etc. Interceptors: Speed fit rigged ceptors wont be able to outrun missiles and warrior II's, but will take less damage (they say approriate weapon shld be able to hit appropriate ship, hence why they shld do some dmg..) They are thus addressing medium weapons/missiles dmging them.. Reproaching stargates: FastShips wont be able to use momentum to get back to gate, their not sure how to work out on tranq, they are possibly reducing stacking penalty on webs (there was one!? lol).. Damage: Missles/other weapons getting nerfed/adapted to suit (as already known) speed changes, missiles getting new dmg fromula ofc. Also talking about drones needing looking at as they are "too effective". Small sig radius will now mean less dmg from missiles compared to today (an indirect nerf to LSE+MWD). They said "its a factor of having mwd or not having mwd", they want to change this and make ab's much more useful with missile dmg being less efective to ab fitted ships ofc. What to expect on singularity when it gets there: revamped missile system, agility changes + original nerf. Minmatar ships are apparently getting agility buffed a bit as they were noted to have issues there. Webs: Marauder ships bonus talked about: abilty aimed to stay useful, this is done by increasing bonus per level on marauders, they wont be as powerful, but they reckon they will be "most powerful" or something incoherent lol. M for manditory in MWD: Most setups require mwd, they want to make ship setups without mwd feasable, they are trying to make ab's the desirable choice, by reducing mwd effectiveness (lol but this still leaves the fact that non-speed ships have to fit a speed mod?). Why does their method to make overpowered ships too slow, when theyre also nerfing ships that are already slow? e,g bs+bc: They want to make max sustaianable velocity 8kms (kinda dodged question) and want to reduce diff. between t2 setup and maxed out rig setup. Apparently they want to make pimp setups only twice as good as typical t2 setups. Speed of cruisers apaprently the same as before (base ofc), while frigs are faster. Missile counters: Talked about defender missile suckage. Want to make more useful, no announcement of adding in a kind of "missile trakcing disruptor". (because its a matter of "moar diverse counterszzszs!1!"). Webbing drones: No buffs at all, due to programming difficulty. "Ludicrous speed": When asked "why not simply nerf those overpowered setups rather than this massive revamp?"..They didnt really answer the Q properly..Just talked about how their going to stack them lol. Warp scrambler: Talked about mwd shutting off effect, currently their useless, this change is to make them useful. (and its used to nerf mwd's of course). No script will be implemented. Talked about current players already with snakes etc.: As many speed implants are now going to go all in the same slot when they used to take 3, the plants will be unplugged and put in players hanger. Good, fair resolution there imo. Talked about the death of fast skirmish gangs: As speed fitted ships nerfed, skirmish warfare is hit. They basically said "the change is big but we think guerilla warfare will persists because it did so before nanos (but mwds were still used back then eh!? left that out lol). They also talked about buffing black ops possibly, to keep it fresh or something. Want to make hold bigger etc. Will speed patch buff af and give it a roll? CCP say yes, as af's will be faster. They said that there problematic due to the design of a "frigate tank" they think that due to sig radius being a bigger factor in battle, plus mwd and scrambler changes, that af's will be useful as they can speed tank turrets and missiles with transversal. (<-LOL) Soz bout tpyos + grammer, typing while listening ftl Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 14:45:00 - [2] Reserved Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 14:46:00 - [3] DISCUSS! :P Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:07:00 - [4] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 09/10/2008 15:10:41 Originally by: BiggestT DISCUSS! :P Someone link the Picard facepalm picture. "Interceptors: Speed fit rigged ceptors wont be able to outrun missiles and warrior II's, but will take less damage (they say approriate weapon shld be able to hit appropriate ship, hence why they shld do some dmg..) They are thus addressing medium weapons/missiles dmging them.." Translation: interceptors will be suicide ships. "M for manditory in MWD: Most setups require mwd, they want to make ship setups without mwd feasable, they are trying to make ab's the desirable choice, by reducing mwd effectiveness (lol but this still leaves the fact that non-speed ships have to fit a speed mod?)." Translation: we're failing to realize that AB speeds are not enough to fill 90% of the TACTICAL uses of MWD, and is only applicable for solo fits. "Reproaching stargates: FastShips wont be able to use momentum to get back to gate, their not sure how to work out on tranq, they are possibly reducing stacking penalty on webs (there was one!? lol).." Translation: if you jump into a camp, you should just die (or logoffski). Picard facepalm picture would be appropriate at this point. As for dodging the questions about slowing already slow ships and why not just fix overpowered setups... The idea that ABs will be viable for anything short of soloing in small ships is laughable. ABs will be viable only if they have the capability to offer (for a short time, if need be) a high enough speed increase to fulfill the tactical uses currently fulfilled by MWD (reapproaching gates, range control, getting out). Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:12:00 - [5] Edited by: BiggestT on 09/10/2008 15:13:14 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: BiggestT DISCUSS! :P Someone link the Picard facepalm picture. "Interceptors: Speed fit rigged ceptors wont be able to outrun missiles and warrior II's, but will take less damage (they say approriate weapon shld be able to hit appropriate ship, hence why they shld do some dmg..) They are thus addressing medium weapons/missiles dmging them.." Translation: interceptors will be suicide ships. "M for manditory in MWD: Most setups require mwd, they want to make ship setups without mwd feasable, they are trying to make ab's the desirable choice, by reducing mwd effectiveness (lol but this still leaves the fact that non-speed ships have to fit a speed mod?)." Translation: we're failing to realize that AB speeds are not enough to fill 90% of the TACTICAL uses of MWD, and is only applicable for solo fits. As for dodging the questions about slowing already slow ships and why not just fix overpowered setups... This, glad to see someone whos equally frustrated by the blind-eyed view CCP is employing on this nerf.. I mean what?!?! They want to remove mwd's from fits for ships that arent designed for them. So what do they do? Replace it with an AB?!?! A) The ship still has to fit a speed mod (ab), which its not designed for, so the nerf objective fails. B) The ships are actually worse off in the effort to reduce their fitting requirement constraints. As their slower and still lose a mid to the speed mod. (Which wont be used anyway coz it still sux, they are still forced to use mwd, but are now worse off form mwd nerf..) CCP get one unit of.. FAIL on that one. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:29:00 - [6] Thing is, MWDs are a neccesity because of the need to change your position as quickly as possible, wether to score kills, get in your weapons range, get out of hostile weapon range, run away, reapproach gates, etc. They're neccesary for mobility. The assertion that you should use AB for speedtanking is misguided - BS/BC/CS/plated cruiser&HAC fits do not use MWDs to speedtank. They use MWD to achieve mobility, and MWD nerf (even coupled with a web nerf) does not make ABs viable for them, because the low speed of the AB, while making it viable for solo speedtanking of larger ship classes, makes it totally unusable for achieving on-grid mobility. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Xori Ruscuv The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:32:00 - [7] Edited by: Xori Ruscuv on 09/10/2008 15:32:03 Gah. Interceptors becoming suicide ships. I knew I shouldn't have trained for inties on a whim. Oh well, at least it didn't take as long as my arazu.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:35:00 - [8] Originally by: Cpt Branko Thing is, MWDs are a neccesity because of the need to change your position as quickly as possible, wether to score kills, get in your weapons range, get out of hostile weapon range, run away, reapproach gates, etc. They're neccesary for mobility. The assertion that you should use AB for speedtanking is misguided - BS/BC/CS/plated cruiser&HAC fits do not use MWDs to speedtank. They use MWD to achieve mobility, and MWD nerf (even coupled with a web nerf) does not make ABs viable for them, because the low speed of the AB, while making it viable for solo speedtanking of larger ship classes, makes it totally unusable for achieving on-grid mobility. Exactly, somehow, CCP think they are doing the right thing, as they are nerfing ludicrousely fast ships. But they fail to realise that mwd's arent like other mods, that can simply be nerfed and replaced relatively easy, they are ESSENTIAL for the aforementioned reasons, nerfing them is just stupid. Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Zubakis Bambooule	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:57:00 - [9] If they do this nerf, i would consider to give 500% boost to AB's on overheat. You wouldn't be able to run the mod forever, but it would give you still the advantage of mwd speed. -- Zuba
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:01:00 - [10] I just listened the the dev blog for myself...it really doesn't sound that bad.... We will all live, we will adapt and more importantly we will find the next game exploit soon enough, post it here on this forum, give everyone and there mom the idea too....then everyone else will start doing it... Then CCP will nerf that to.... And the cycle continues......
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:06:00 - [11] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian I just listened the the dev blog for myself...it really doesn't sound that bad.... We will all live, we will adapt and more importantly we will find the next game exploit soon enough, post it here on this forum, give everyone and there mom the idea too....then everyone else will start doing it... Then CCP will nerf that to.... And the cycle continues...... Too bad they are nerfing some of the most interesting aspects of eve such as small gang warfare, while encouraging blobbs etc, somehow I dont really think EVE will be better off Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:07:00 - [12] Originally by: Zubakis If they do this nerf, i would consider to give 500% boost to AB's on overheat. You wouldn't be able to run the mod forever, but it would give you still the advantage of mwd speed. Thats not a bad suggestion, it would allow for the need for mobility, without being stable enough to be used all the time.. Still prefer it never to happen though -.- Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:10:00 - [13] Too bad they are nerfing some of the most interesting aspects of eve such as small gang warfare, while encouraging blobbs etc, somehow I dont really think EVE will be better off I really don't think that will be the result. Different methods will simply need to be implemented.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:10:00 - [14] Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Too bad they are nerfing some of the most interesting aspects of eve such as small gang warfare, while encouraging blobbs etc, somehow I dont really think EVE will be better off I really don't think that will be the result. Different methods will simply need to be implemented. Maybe, but I dont see them involving much else than BS's and RR lol Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Luke Rygel Amarr Rygel Industries	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:26:00 - [15] They should remove the cap penalty and lower the cap consumption (to less than an AB) on MWDs, but leave all the other changes they way they are proposed. Then change afterburners to also give a 500% speed increase but give it the cap penalties and a HUGE (larger than current MWD) cap consumption so that it will only run for about 10-15 secs before draining your cap completely (before any cap mods are equipped) This will effectively reduce ludicrous speeds to a short burst escape method using an AB. And a more permanent but slightly slower and more easily defeated (with the upcoming speed nerf changes) MWD for speed tanking on ships that should be able to speed tank in the first place. Although sig radius effects may cause this to not work to well and should be adjusted after testing. OR---------- ABs could be buffed to a 300% or so bonus thus making them the more permanent but slightly slower speed tanking option (as there would be no sig radius penalty), slightly increase the cap consumption but make it still able to run on most ships permanently or at least close to it (kind of like an armor repair or shiled booster) Leave the MWD in it's current form (i.e. none of the incoming nerfs) except maybe increase the cap consumption so they could only be run in short bursts for all the previously mentioned tactics they are employed for, like escaping bubbles. --------------------------------------------------------- with the current direction of this nerf I can't see AB's being any more useful than they are now. They are just too slow to make any real tactical difference. And you will NEVER remove the need for a speed mod an every ship in a game where speed is the only means of escape in almost every situation ---------------------------------------------- Taking something from one person is called stealing, taking everything from everybody is called government.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:37:00 - [16] Originally by: Zubakis If they do this nerf, i would consider to give 500% boost to AB's on overheat. You wouldn't be able to run the mod forever, but it would give you still the advantage of mwd speed. TBH remove MWDs from the game. Then make afterburners scripted / use charge If you use an afterburner when you have no charges loaded it acts like an AB. if you have charges loaded it functions like a MWD Mwd cycles eat charges maybe they hold like 3-4 charges (like cap boosters), but like scripts you can load/unload charges instantly betwee cycles. ==> Look, now you can't permanently run MWDs (probably), but you don't have to make the sacrifice between AB (for tactical speed) and MWD (for range control / GTFO). Also give interceptors a big buff to AB boost speed. Yes, this means that they will go stupid fast when they turn on that MWD.... which I think is awesome. Maybe 2km/s with afterburner, up to, oh, 10km/s with MWD. After the nerf. And before any speed mods. also, hey look, now interceptors can tackle the shit out of something. And are really good and placing warpins. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Kaeten Hybrid Syndicate	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:50:00 - [17] Originally by: Cpt Branko if you jump into a camp, you should just die thats how it should be... ________________________ I'M POOR
Liang Nuren No Salvation	Posted - 2008.10.09 16:51:00 - [18] It's not a bad idea Terianna... ever since they implemented scripts I've been thinking they should do more with the idea. Not that I particularly appreciate what they did to all my favorite modules, but I was thinking more for the purposes of boosting and adding functionality than removing it. :) -Liang --
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:16:00 - [19] Originally by: Cpt Branko Translation: interceptors will be suicide ships. They arent now in larger battles? I dont see why youre all going emo, its not like shipclasses will be obsolete after the patch. Its not like people will stop using inties. Its not like people wont need to use inties. It will be just fine, youll see. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:19:00 - [20] Originally by: Liang Nuren It's not a bad idea Terianna... ever since they implemented scripts I've been thinking they should do more with the idea. Not that I particularly appreciate what they did to all my favorite modules, but I was thinking more for the purposes of boosting and adding functionality than removing it. :) -Liang Idea has been further fleshed out and turned into its own thread; time to stop hijacking this one \o/ __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
RedSplat	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:20:00 - [21] in b4 threadlock
Jokerret Ventis Secundis Send More Paramedics	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:25:00 - [22] Is there a recording of the dev blog anywhere?
Take Enemy Amarr BAD WOLF INC.	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:33:00 - [23] Originally by: Terianna Eri Originally by: Zubakis If they do this nerf, i would consider to give 500% boost to AB's on overheat. You wouldn't be able to run the mod forever, but it would give you still the advantage of mwd speed. TBH remove MWDs from the game. Then make afterburners scripted / use charge If you use an afterburner when you have no charges loaded it acts like an AB. if you have charges loaded it functions like a MWD Mwd cycles eat charges maybe they hold like 3-4 charges (like cap boosters), but like scripts you can load/unload charges instantly betwee cycles. ==> Look, now you can't permanently run MWDs (probably), but you don't have to make the sacrifice between AB (for tactical speed) and MWD (for range control / GTFO). Also give interceptors a big buff to AB boost speed. Yes, this means that they will go stupid fast when they turn on that MWD.... which I think is awesome. Maybe 2km/s with afterburner, up to, oh, 10km/s with MWD. After the nerf. And before any speed mods. also, hey look, now interceptors can tackle the shit out of something. And are really good and placing warpins. I think this is a great idea (though really no need for 10ms Inties - maybe 6 or something).
Imaos	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:37:00 - [24] Originally by: BiggestT Edited by: BiggestT on 09/10/2008 15:13:14 Originally by: Cpt Branko Originally by: BiggestT DISCUSS! :P This, glad to see someone whos equally frustrated by the blind-eyed view CCP is employing on this nerf.. I mean what?!?! They want to remove mwd's from fits for ships that arent designed for them. Took you long to notice that you argue on the same side in every freaking (anti)nano patch thread. Btw not every ship needs an MWD now. It is just damm convinient. Maybe there will be more fighting in the future when you need to fight to remove gatecamps instead of having a good chance running through. Maybe more people will use a scout and try different routes. You don't need a MWD. Your playstyle needs it. Imaos ------------------------------------------ Originally by: NoNah My friend, this is EVE, as it's a space oriented game, they couldn't have trolls. We have Caldari.
Marcus Druallis Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:53:00 - [25] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko Translation: interceptors will be suicide ships. They arent now in larger battles? I dont see why youre all going emo, its not like shipclasses will be obsolete after the patch. Its not like people will stop using inties. Its not like people wont need to use inties. It will be just fine, youll see. Any ship with warrior II's will now be able to pop the inty. You know how many ships have a drone bay that can fit Warrior II's? --
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:58:00 - [26] Edited by: Cpt Branko on 09/10/2008 18:04:21 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 09/10/2008 18:00:48 Originally by: Imaos You don't need a MWD. Your playstyle needs it. You mean your playstyle is such that range control (getting both in and out of range) does not matter, distance does not matter and you never do burn away to gtfo, or burn to control transversal, reapproach gate after jump-in so you're in RR range, etc? Using 'oh, but use a scout' is just mis-representing the problem, because MWDs are not just used to burn away from bubbles. 99% of the ships in low-sec use a MWD as well, and it is a environment without bubbles. Originally by: Take Enemy I think this is a great idea (though really no need for 10ms Inties - maybe 6 or something). Inties do need 7-8+km/s to have any survivability. 6km/s interceptors are flying coffins. I kill them on TQ virtually every time they tackle me Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:00:00 - [27] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 09/10/2008 18:00:48 Originally by: Marcus Druallis Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Cpt Branko Translation: interceptors will be suicide ships. They arent now in larger battles? I dont see why youre all going emo, its not like shipclasses will be obsolete after the patch. Its not like people will stop using inties. Its not like people wont need to use inties. It will be just fine, youll see. Any ship with warrior II's will now be able to pop the inty. You know how many ships have a drone bay that can fit Warrior II's? Nope. 1. They are adjusting that to reasonable damage. How about you listen to the live blog? 2. Even without the adjustment I could handle 5 warrior IIs in my malediction back when version 1 of the speed patch was on sisi a while back. Maybe try the changes before commenting on them? ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
carleyjones Caldari Blood and Silver	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:48:00 - [28] Edited by: carleyjones on 09/10/2008 18:49:14 "Warp scrambler: Talked about mwd shutting off effect, currently their useless, this change is to make them useful. (and its used to nerf mwd's of course). No script will be implemented." Warp scramblers where meant as a counter to warp core stabs and since stabs where nerfed out of the game theres no reason to use scrams. Since scrams are now shutting off mwds, wont have a counter and arnt going to be scripted they should bring back warp core stabilisers in a different role as a counter to the new scrams edit: i dont actually agree with the stab idea but i did put as much thought into it as ccp did with the proposed nano nerf. which wasnt alot.
jerrard iceni Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:55:00 - [29] Originally by: Imaos Maybe there will be more fighting in the future when you need to fight to remove gatecamps instead of having a good chance running through. Maybe more people will use a scout and try different routes. Why would more people use a scout now? If they had any sense they should have been using a scout anyway. CCP already gives you the tools you need to help with avoiding gate camps and finding alternative routes (eg the star map). I doubt there would be much of an increase in fights at gates either. The initative is always with the gate campers (and you can bet your bottom dollar they do have a scout out). As soon as a force arrives they feel they cant take they will be off.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:59:00 - [30] Originally by: carleyjones Originally by: Lyria Skydancer 2. Even without the adjustment I could handle 5 warrior IIs in my malediction back when version 1 of the speed patch was on sisi a while back. Of course you malediction could It actually can. I have tested it ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.