open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Capital Ships In Dominion
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 ... : last (62)

Author Topic

Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
Posted - 2009.11.21 10:10:00 - [1471]
 

Well I can't really blame you for scrapping the changes, since your team clearly hasn't got a clue what you want to achieve with the capitals at this point. It seems pretty boring to me as it is now anyway, since you can count all the cap ship types with the fingers of your hand.

You might want to consider broadening the options people will have in your future plan. I know you want very specific roles for everything now, but i feel that with the current design mentality, we would have a maximum of 2 ships per every T1 class and only one battlecruiser. Even minor differences in ships can make them useful for different people and purposes. They don't have to be totally unique in all aspects to be worth implementing and flying. The wide variation in smaller ship classes is one of the best things about them. Just something to keep in mind, when designing your plan for the new capital warfare theater.

Draahk Chimera
Interstellar eXodus
Posted - 2009.11.21 10:42:00 - [1472]
 

I'm self destructing my phoenix on december 2. True story. I think it would be the best statement if most caldari and minnie pilots did this. Take out platinum insurance and self destruct your dread after Dominion nerfs the 2 worst dreads and keeps the 2 good ones the way they are. Then use the money to get a carrier or a rev.

And I'm signing in with the chorus here. Why did you remove the changes the entire community was happy with? Did you get a chock from having such a huge positive responce to an expansion for once?

Darriele
Minmatar
THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY
Posted - 2009.11.21 10:46:00 - [1473]
 

Edited by: Darriele on 21/11/2009 10:51:42
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Hi, everyone
We have been carefully watching this thread and I want to set the record straight on a few misconceptions.

First, Iíd like to say that a single developer cannot come in and unilaterally change everything with no oversight. People are spewing a lot of hate at CCP Nozh but instead itís a case of shooting the messenger. He is just doing his job trying to improve the game and explain the reasoning for why changes were made. We work as a team and agree on the direction things are taking. We want the game to be balanced and fun for everyone to play. We also think about the future of the game and how it will be in years to come after our changes weighing the medium- and long-term repercussions.

We werenít entirely happy with the direction and balancing of MOMs before development of Dominion began. Even during the SISI tests they still werenít falling into place for us. They were potentially too powerful and that would have resulted in a small minority having a lot of fun at the cost of thousands who would be instapopped in 0.0. So we tried to tune them again to a point we felt was balanced, but then the role of the ships wasnít clear once we started to lower the damage. Instead, they started to blur with dreads and carriers.


You all made your voices clear with important feedback, we listened and reverted things back to like they are on TQ while we take more time to reassess. We could have tried to put out ďsomethingĒ just because we have been talking about it, but then we would be in a situation where players are getting into ships that might very well change again in a coming patch. Given the amount of work to get one of these we just didnít feel that was the right thing to do.

Stuff about Sisi.

Please remember that we are here to make a game that you all love to play. None of us comes to work thinking of ways to enrage the playerbase. As the Lead Game Designer, I take my responsibility seriously and that includes taking responsibility for any decisions made by our team. To me, EVE is much more than a job, itís something Iím passionate about constantly improving. I promise you I want EVE to thrive just as much as you do.

Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer


Someone correct me if I'm wrong. So, you basically wasted precious amount of time actually accomplishing nothing (regarding capitals) and also you succeded to "enrage" a good portion of eve playerbase in the process. Way to go.

I was gonna say something ugly about this: "They were potentially too powerful and that would have resulted in a small minority having a lot of fun at the cost of thousands who would be instapopped in 0.0" , but I'm gonna say only this: tests on paper (and in lab) will always yield different results compared to real life usage. You reached a point where proposed "attributes" (as seen previously on Sisi) made a good impression and got "a little seal of approval" from majority of playerbase, but, I guess you got way too scared when you looked on paper results and those nice useless graphs.
Let us judge if "They were potentially too powerful" since we play the game, trust me, if your fears about "too powerful" proves to be true, nobody will have a grudge on you when trying to rebalance it, since you will get the feedback directly from us, the players who actually play this game.

Better throw the dead cat in our courtyard and make us happy instead of getting your courtyard dirty and your house filled with unnecessary expired tomatoes and eggs.
And probably you will be entitled to "I've told you so" too.

Verifarita Goshiaku
Posted - 2009.11.21 10:47:00 - [1474]
 

Originally by: CCP Hammer
Hi, everyone


We have been carefully watching this thread and I want to set the record straight on a few misconceptions.


First, Iíd like to say that a single developer cannot come in and unilaterally change everything with no oversight. People are spewing a lot of hate at CCP Nozh but instead itís a case of shooting the messenger. He is just doing his job trying to improve the game and explain the reasoning for why changes were made. We work as a team and agree on the direction things are taking. We want the game to be balanced and fun for everyone to play. We also think about the future of the game and how it will be in years to come after our changes weighing the medium- and long-term repercussions.


We werenít entirely happy with the direction and balancing of MOMs before development of Dominion began. Even during the SISI tests they still werenít falling into place for us. They were potentially too powerful and that would have resulted in a small minority having a lot of fun at the cost of thousands who would be instapopped in 0.0. So we tried to tune them again to a point we felt was balanced, but then the role of the ships wasnít clear once we started to lower the damage. Instead, they started to blur with dreads and carriers.


You all made your voices clear with important feedback, we listened and reverted things back to like they are on TQ while we take more time to reassess. We could have tried to put out ďsomethingĒ just because we have been talking about it, but then we would be in a situation where players are getting into ships that might very well change again in a coming patch. Given the amount of work to get one of these we just didnít feel that was the right thing to do.


The other misconception I want to address is about our public test server. SISI is there so we can have as many people as possible looking for bugs. We think it best to put things out in the public as soon as possible regardless of whether or not itís final so we get more eyes on it. This just makes sense to us from a QA standpoint because EVE is an extremely complex piece of software. SISI isnít really meant to be a place to try new fittings, do FFA battles or preview upcoming features, although we know people use it for that and we really donít mind because more load on our test server helps us find bugs. Itís also not a guarantee as to what will be in the next expansion. There have been plenty of times when we dropped a feature that was partially complete on SISI. Arenas and storefronts are two recent examples. Itís highly probable that we like pulling features from a release even less than you do but sometimes it cannot be helped. So while supercarriers were on the test server and had gone through plenty of testing it still wasnít guaranteed to end up on TQ in that exact state. Only what lands on TQ on patch day is guaranteed.


Please remember that we are here to make a game that you all love to play. None of us comes to work thinking of ways to enrage the playerbase. As the Lead Game Designer, I take my responsibility seriously and that includes taking responsibility for any decisions made by our team. To me, EVE is much more than a job, itís something Iím passionate about constantly improving. I promise you I want EVE to thrive just as much as you do.


Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer


Thanks for replying! Can we in the future maybe get more DEV responses to hot topics like this? From the perspective of a normal working day, replying within a day after a threadnought like this appears may seem "fast", but from our perspective it's like waiting forever.

Astal Atlar
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:08:00 - [1475]
 

Quote:
Just do this. Motherships Get Dread Jump range. Motherships get 20 Drones at Lvl 5 carrier. Citadel torps AND Cruise get 1500 Explosion Radius, Torps (and compact get roughly 60ms explo velocity). Motherships get a EHP buff. Fighter Bombers (with 20 fighter bombers and lvl 5 fighter bomber) do roughly 8000 dps+ Motherships cant dock Motherships dont get build costs reduced Motherships lose triage and clone vat to balance the increased damage. Titans Get 5minute DD timer. Titans get the same damage as 2-3 Dreads (8-12k dps) with lvl 5 Titan. Naglfars dont get a split weapon bonus (the dread with 4! weapons should be doing the most damage. Currently the Nags artys with EMP (20 shots) has to reload every 5 mins, which is sooner than every other dread and it requires carrying more ammo types). Phoenix should get a 5% ROF damage bonus and a 5% bonus to ALL missile damage types. Cit Cruise and torps should have 1500m explo raduis, being make smaller with skills for the cruise so they are effective against large pos mods and small pos. Right now Turret ships can still hit medium and small pos mods for massive damage while missile dreads FAIL extremely FAIL at this. Do this and ALL problems will go away. Everything will be good. Harmony will spread out among the player base. This is TESTED BY THE PLAYERBASE and everyone was in agreement. Only your shortsighted Egomania felt that Capships being used aggressively was a bad idea. Also- I think you are out of line starting your post with a 'Lets see' as if the players are all idiots and have missed something. You CANNOT impliment ANY of these Titan changes if you are going to leave motherships as they are. You have also forgotten to do any work on Triage- It was said originally that Triage duration would be cut to 5mins and strontium consumption would be reduced. Why you feel Torpedos need something so bizarre as a 3000+ explo radius ive no clue, you are terrible for causing more problems with your problem ideas.



listen this man he speaks the truth!

RoCkEt X
Hostile.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:20:00 - [1476]
 

current sisi build is fairly well balanced i think, (at least for momships)

fighterbombers limited to 15 due to bandwidth, but can still launch 20 fighters with carrier 5.

ironically however, the fighterbombers @ 15 is pure fluke, considering the MS's have now had thier original bandwidth restored.

also, fighterbombers are now ineffective on sisi (damage has been reduced to 0.0):

"11:19:19 Combat Compact Purgatory Torpedo I belonging to RoCkEt X hits you, doing 0.0 damage."






Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:22:00 - [1477]
 

Edited by: Sarah Norbulk on 21/11/2009 11:40:57
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Hi, everyone

Damage Control

Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer


First of all, thank-you for the response. The fact that getting a response from a Dev seemed to take ages and the responses that we're given were more or less total nonsense was really worrying.

On to the changes. If motherships were introduced with the jump range extension and HP, I see them in no way being over powered and hardly game breaking. Given the current changes on SiSi any confirmation on if those will stay or not would be greatly appreciated.

As for dreadnoughts, the nerf to missile sig radius was the worst justified change I've seen in my 3 years in game. Pointing to target painters as a valid tactic in capital fights suggests to an incompetence and lack of understanding of game mechanics and no real reason has yet been given for the change. Likewise, the Naglfar(soon to be Naglfail again) change seems harsh and uncalled for. Minimitar pilots pushed for years for that change and within months of it being implemented it was removed, not only to pre-boost levels, but actually worse than in its previous fail configuration.

After reading all 50 posts(not counting deleted posts, of those not sure how many were constructive and how many were free Abathur), After the initial outcry against shelving motherships and concerns that they would be put on the back burner once again, most of the posts were concerned with the general lack of understanding of game mechanics. this was further fueled by the Nozh's response which was condescending and again featured target painters being utilized against EWar immune ships as a justification for damage changes and 5 DCU mothership setups for damage comparison. The general lack of understanding was frightening for myself, personally, as well as most other 0.0 players who were experienced capital pilots.

In closing, the way that the information about these large changes were being made could have been handled much better. There are still unanswered questions and capital launchers and Naglfars are desperately in need of attention as they currently are on Sisi. It is good to see that at least some Devs are still watching this.

-Sarah Norbulk
The Initiative.

P.S. Pls don't delete this post.

[1484] Page - 50

Zxmagus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:27:00 - [1478]
 

Delay the patch please i don't care about waiting a few more months been playing eve for years i'd much rather have everything 80% of the way there rather then a half assed patch of features that don't work right.

Tappits
North Eastern Swat
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:29:00 - [1479]
 

Edited by: Tappits on 21/11/2009 11:40:57
Originally by: Sidus Sarmiang
The changes to titans and motherships had the potential to change this around. With a tier of ships above dreadnaughts, the possibility of escalating a conflict above a mere capship fight became possible. Imagine an enemy is sieging your POS. You have engaged their subcap fleet, they responded by bringing in dreadnaughts and carriers, you countered them with a hotdrop. You have a slight advantage, but one large enough to win.

Up until the original plan for Dominion, that would've been the end of it. You would win the battle, an important battle, but odds are the war would continue. The titan and mothership changes introduced a new possibility and level to the conflict. Instead of the battle ending with your victory, another cyno opens and suddenly five of the enemy's titans and twice that many motherships supported by repping carriers drop onto the field. The risks and the rewards of the battle have changed. The possibility to lose your dreadnaught fleet in a spectacular manner now exists, but in return the enemy has given you the chance to destroy a good chunk of their supercapital force, which, due to the cost and long construction time, compounded by the lack of sov 4, would effectively destroy them. In order to take advantage of this, though, you have to risk your own supercapitals and the possibility of crippling your own alliance.

This is a hell of a lot more interesting than any type of warfare before it.

You had a chance to give us this.

Instead you want to give us super-rorquals and 18 billion isk titan-bait POS-huggers.


Just fing epic post right there.......................

1486

Terianna Eri
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:31:00 - [1480]
 

Edited by: Terianna Eri on 21/11/2009 11:33:03
Originally by: CCP Hammer
Hi, everyone

Damage Control

Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer

Hi, Hammer

When you make huge sweeping changes to what the entire playerbase had good reason to believe was going live to TQ, and these changes will pretty much effect all capital warfare everywhere, can you please make this kind of post before you make the change and take feedback on it, instead of after two 50+ page threadnaughts?

Also if you don't want us to shoot the messenger you should probably send a messenger who doesn't ignore the biggest concerns and makes fundamental mistakes on how the topic at hand works, because CCP Nozh is not just a messenger, unless of course you're having dev blogs delivered by people who have nothing to do with the changes presented, which would be silly.

P.S. You should probably do something for poor the Naglfar pilots you keep messing up :(
P.P.S. Truthfully thank you for the post but the claim "yeah we didn't like the way motherships were shaping up on sisi" is kind of a poor explanation
P.P.P.S. Seriously, why did you shaft the Nag and Phoenix pilots so hard? :(

Thanks for listening
Terianna Eri
Senex Legio

lord cyrez
Caldari
xell network seven
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:32:00 - [1481]
 

Originally by: Eheufaucan
@lord cyrez
Nice work. I did some calculations and test runs on Sisi and get the same results (except I didn't look at the Claymore and Ragnarok Sig Bonuses). Just one thing: nearly all Caldari pilots use shield tanks and with shield extender rigs your sig radius goes up. In a real fight the Phoenix sig radius would be around 2000 so the damage reduction from citadel torps would only be around 11% and not 21%.


true, didnt think about fittings since i wanted to show how flawed they are to begin with.

Originally by: Eheufaucan
I would never ever drop 2-3 tank slots on that thing just to fit painters.


amen.

Originally by: Eheufaucan
You've only looked at the explosions radius but the situation is even worse. The range of your Citadel Torps is limited to 37km and you can't switch to lange range ammo like turret dreads. But the biggest problem is the explosion velocity. In siege mode it's reduced to 12m/s and in my opinion thats a bigger problem than the high explosion radius.


indeed Shocked
i was pretty shocked about the most obvious - the extremely huge explosion radius, because my first glance was at dreads. but taking carriers into account and that most of them aren't using triage, thus moving, didnt come to mind.

Originally by: Eheufaucan
Damage reduction because of the slow explosion velocity:

Nidhoggur 85%
Thanatos 81%
Archon 81%
Chimera 78%


now its really getting ludicrous. carriers speed-tanking 80%+ torp damage. dreads sig-tanking 25% torp damage. even motherships and (partly) titans speedtanking them.

combining your post and my post (page 45, pending more deletions) i get a feeling that even citadel cruise will have a serious damage reduction on moving carriers - but i'm too appalled already, not daring to crunch the numbers on that.

so the only thing left where torps are working "normally": TCUs, SBUs and IHUBs. at least those wont run away Laughing ugh

H Zebra
Zebra Corp
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:35:00 - [1482]
 

so they are NOT changing any capitals in dom?

or are they SCREWING over dreads in the name of balance still?

Astal Atlar
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2009.11.21 11:52:00 - [1483]
 

At last answer from ccp, but something bugs me,why should be a 10-12 bil ship ovepowered doing 8000dps,as with the curent dread and carier numbers they will melt,and the total number of ms is low at all you don't have 100 ms fleet and they take ton of money to fit.
And yeah returning back to before dominion,you make ms vulnerable to 2 dd cool...

cpu939
Gallente
Volatile Nature
White Noise.
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:02:00 - [1484]
 

Originally by: H Zebra
so they are NOT changing any capitals in dom?

or are they SCREWING over dreads in the name of balance still?

sorry mate dread changes are going ahead ccp are making us fight with more range i personal feel it is so it looks good but that puts the caldari and minmatar at the disadvantage due to missile use.

Now on to the next part it's now clear that ccp will not change there minds on the ms and dread changes but i would live to invite ccp, goons, -a-, sys-k, cven, se, PL, IT, Rzr, MM, MH, Atlas, Tri, basicly all the big alliances in the game to have a voice talk about changes to the ms that we might get out in the next 6 months would ccp and the rest of you guys be willing to do this, let move forward together, btw in the metting i think ccp nozh and hammer should both be there let us here your point and let us tell you our points. voice coms would make this easyer as text can be misread and also allows you to give more details. this could take place on sisi or tq, i leave this to ccp show us you value us the players and come forth and accept this invite.


Lith Erivi
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:44:00 - [1485]
 

Edited by: Lith Erivi on 21/11/2009 12:47:49
So being both a phoenix and a wyvern pilot I guess this patch does just about everything it can to **** on me doesn't it? One is changed so it is pretty much useless against any out of siege, moving and/or non target painted dead and the other is just titan bait that I pretty much have to cloak, deep safe, and log out till it get's some sort of change so 2 random ***gots cant cost me 20b in the time it takes them to lock me.

Off-topic.Applebabe

Julio Torres
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:45:00 - [1486]
 

Originally by: cpu939
Originally by: H Zebra
so they are NOT changing any capitals in dom?

or are they SCREWING over dreads in the name of balance still?

sorry mate dread changes are going ahead ccp are making us fight with more range i personal feel it is so it looks good but that puts the caldari and minmatar at the disadvantage due to missile use.

Now on to the next part it's now clear that ccp will not change there minds on the ms and dread changes but i would live to invite ccp, goons, -a-, sys-k, cven, se, PL, IT, Rzr, MM, MH, Atlas, Tri, basicly all the big alliances in the game to have a voice talk about changes to the ms that we might get out in the next 6 months would ccp and the rest of you guys be willing to do this, let move forward together, btw in the metting i think ccp nozh and hammer should both be there let us here your point and let us tell you our points. voice coms would make this easyer as text can be misread and also allows you to give more details. this could take place on sisi or tq, i leave this to ccp show us you value us the players and come forth and accept this invite.




Regarding the Titans, that is undoubtedly the first think CCP should have done.
They know who pilots Titans. Why not simply ask us for out opinions in how to balance them? I doubt there is anyone that knows better about what is wrong with Titans then us.

Free Titans and Motherships for all on SiSi isn't a way to get reliable feedback.
They don't have any experience to reference back too.

Catari Taga
Centre Of Attention
Middle of Nowhere
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:49:00 - [1487]
 

Originally by: Draahk Chimera
And I'm signing in with the chorus here. Why did you remove the changes the entire community was happy with? Did you get a chock from having such a huge positive responce to an expansion for once?
I think that must actually have been it. I think it was the first expansion I saw where bascially everybody was liking the general direction of the changes and discussion was only about details. So they nerfed it all last minute and now we are back to the usual pre-expansion threadnaughts of unhappy players that they are used to. And they probably feel that's a good thing.

[1501]

ShadowDraqon
The Quantum Company
Independent Faction
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:50:00 - [1488]
 

Ok, I think I know what happened here...
  • CCP prepares an expansion.

  • Some Players whine.

  • CCP makes changes to expansion.

  • Other Players whine.

  • CCP changes the changes.

  • More Players whine.

  • CCP tries to get whine under control.

  • Some Players whine even more while others whine about the whine while others whine about assault frigates.

  • Changes to the Changes gets changed.

  • Players are confused.

  • CCP is confused.

  • More Changes to changed Changes are changed.

  • Everyone is confused.

  • More whine is whined.

  • Everyone is frustrated

Business as usual, I think...

Lith Erivi
Caldari
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2009.11.21 12:53:00 - [1489]
 

CCP if you want to test caps instead of inviting any random person who can log into an account to suggest balance tips how about invite the people who actually live in 0.0 to come and fight it out under your scenarios?

Maybe that's too organized and constructive for yall.

Zaiyo Modi
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.11.21 13:27:00 - [1490]
 

Edited by: Zaiyo Modi on 21/11/2009 14:15:48

Due to the 4000 char limit, and a 5 min posting limit, I had to cut my text down to this:

The performative ways of game development:
Things get absurd, at a point when a game change and people might feel that something changed for the worse. Anyone can surely accept a fair change, as when unintended circumstances favor someone on the expense of others, by cheating, exploits or something not thought possible.

It is important to understand the notion of something being "intended", however one should here not confuse an intention with forms of idealism, as in applying anything reflexive to justify an intent. Obviously, if people cannot agree to what is an "intended game mechanics", any discussion regarding it will probably be messed up, as the outcome perhaps be accidental or biased perchance justified with another set ideals introduced with a reflexive move later on.
It is like when a state says that it is right because it is a state having certain rules. A tautological condition, making no fair sense other than what is implicitly stated.

With life in general being or having become a complex endeavour, the true nature so to speak about a performative game development, is not without help from the people who play a game and give feedback. Even when someone is developing a game unaffected by player feedback, surely they have the players in mind, trying to tailor to an envisioned player experience.

So, when developers and players get involved, by making comments or present critique about game for the better, they should imo have clear ideas about what it meant by "balance" or by "balancing" something. Even if a context is put forth by a developer or player to explain an intention for wanting "balance" (about something), what might missing is the tragic cirumstance, which ought to be the sensible part of making a decision for "balancing" something in the first place.

Balancing for the sake of balancing does not make much sense, unless we all agree to what we want with the game mechanics. Here is the ultimate problem of developing a game; "What do we want with the game mechanics?". Sure, a developer might keep information about future development a secret from the players, but alienation and absurdity will probably ensue. It get worse when such a condition of absurdity is excused by expressed intentions alone, and then people will/might find themselves offended.

I don't know what the developers have in mind, but I worry that the founding concepts of Eve, end up pitting players against eachother, with the players having differing concepts of what is sensible game-mechanics. Some will be focused on options with tactics, while others look for damage per second or knee-jerk reactions to an unfavourable situation. Then there are people favouring lore, flying spaceships, being a Minmatar, thinking ahead, enjoying a coherent setting.

I would like to see a change, in the sense of evolvement of "pacing" or "options" for game mechanics. Else I fear that the devs will juggle ship stats as they like, in a misunderstood attempt to recreate a "balance" that never was meant be be. It shouln't be a "balance" of a dynamic economy, alienating players by keeping the system going with proclaimed intention of "balance", but a "balance" of sensible ecology. By making sense without shaking parts of the big sandbox every now and then.

Conclusion: I worry that Eve Online has some underlying issues that have been there for some time, and is not limited to upcoming changes for Dominion. And I don't like it.

If anyone has some other opinion of what is perceived as the basic working of Eve online, I would like to hear about it. I might of course have overlooked something.

Edit: I also think "roles" is another misunderstood denomination. Ask for "paradigms" instead, less tragic that way and more meaningful I'm sure. That way you can't just pretend there is faulty game mechanics when all is ok.

Battle Tested
Shiva
Posted - 2009.11.21 13:30:00 - [1491]
 

Originally by: CCP Hammer
Hi, everyone

We werenít entirely happy with the direction and balancing of MOMs before development of Dominion began. Even during the SISI tests they still werenít falling into place for us. They were potentially too powerful and that would have resulted in a small minority having a lot of fun at the cost of thousands who would be instapopped in 0.0. So we tried to tune them again to a point we felt was balanced, but then the role of the ships wasnít clear once we started to lower the damage. Instead, they started to blur with dreads and carriers.

You all made your voices clear with important feedback, we listened and reverted things back to like they are on TQ while we take more time to reassess. We could have tried to put out ďsomethingĒ just because we have been talking about it, but then we would be in a situation where players are getting into ships that might very well change again in a coming patch. Given the amount of work to get one of these we just didnít feel that was the right thing to do.

Thanks for listening
CCP Hammerhead
Lead Game Designer


All the more reason to do "something" with the mothership so it doesnt have to sit idle for 6 more months and be useless. At the very least give it some survivability with the HP buff originally made so it can survive on the battlefield. Thre rest of the stuff can get worked out later.

Battle Tested
Shiva
Posted - 2009.11.21 13:39:00 - [1492]
 

Edited by: Battle Tested on 21/11/2009 13:42:17
Edited by: Battle Tested on 21/11/2009 13:41:31
Originally by: Obsidian Hawk

Everyone quiet and stop the hate for 5 mins




Lets review ----

motherships are not being changed they are going to be like tq motherships atm.

-- not mentioned, CCP never said they werent getting an hp buff, you all are just assuming they wont. So shush, wait for them to give more details.

second,

-- This is not the place to rant about nag, moros, and phoenix, test server feed back is in a different forum.


third

Nozh is a messenger, so that means he drew the short straw when or lost a bet to the rest of the staff about announcing the changes. Nozh thank you for taking it in stride, you deserve a beer, especially after all the crap we have put you through.

4th

Hammer, you did a fairly good job of explaining everything, but when you answered many of the questions you left a lot more to be asked, you may want to make a long detailed dev blog about all the capital changes and why.

5th,

everyone stop posting for a while, its friday, go get a beer, drink a little bit and relax, calm down and come back to the forums and make some intelligent post.


Everyone, just needs to relax seriously. Our testing was not in vain, we just showed to them there might be several balancing issues that could result.

We have learned though from press releases and articles that show how much players care about their game.


CCP devs, thank you for taking the hate storm in stride, you guys do put up with a lot. It's just going to take some time for the anger to calm down and we can get on with the release of dominion.

Once again everyone stop the hate, let the devs and gms spend time working on dominion rather than be forum police.

-OH


-we arent assuming ****....It was specifically stated "NO CHANGES WILL BE MADE TO MOTHERSHIPS"
- This is the place to complain about all changes to capital ships...notice the OP description?
- All Hammer did was attempt damage control and prevent more flaming of Nozh

Ammath
Amarr
Burning Technologies
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.11.21 13:47:00 - [1493]
 

Edited by: Ammath on 21/11/2009 13:51:04
What I want to know from CCP, and this is a reasonable request is a Blog post from CCP stating what they view the roles of each class of ship in EvE should be. For the purposes of this discussion I would like to see what they want Carriers, Dreadnaughts, Motherships, and Titans roles should be.

It is ok if they are not happy with the current implementations of any. But I think the community would like to know the VISION CCP has for these classes of ships, the steps of how to get there obviously require testing and balance.

What is not "o"k is statements like "titans shouldn't be direct damage dealers, so we are going to give them all kinds of crazy direct damage buffs and a massive EHP boost so they can stay on the field and fight longer" The dichotomy of that statement is mind-blowing. You might as well say "Motherships should be fleet support ships so we will be giving them the old Titan AOE doomsday" it makes about the same sense.

Basically guys this is project management 101 here. Define the vision, identify the issues, make the changes, test, do QA, and release. But further breaking one class of ships (titans from their alleged vision of them), re-balancing another class (dreads), and doing nothing for carriers, nor motherships will NOT achieve the balance nor vision you seem to have for capital ships in EvE. Although to be fair this vision has not been formally spelled out so we are going of anecdotes and one-liners from specific devs.

Honestly guys, if you want to do a redux of Capital Ship balance in EvE you need to do them ALL at once or you will never get the real-world data to tweak things properly. All you are doing is creating more mismatches.

Lets just see a simple vision matrix from CCP on combat caps..

example:
Ship Class, general role, secondary role, preferred target
Carrier - Fleet Support - Anti-Sub capital - Battleships/Support

Carriers are designed to be large fleet support ships, which still have significant combat capabilities with their Fighters and Drones to provide support for fleets against sub-capital targets.

The above is just an example... CCP could you please do this for us so we know the intended vision of these classes? If you feel a class doesn't meet your vision, explain why.

For the record for this release Motherships should get the HP boost, and jump-range boost. Those frankly are needed no matter what and have been a problem since 2006.

glassmanipulator
Gladiators of Rage
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2009.11.21 13:49:00 - [1494]
 

Originally by: CCP Hammer


We werenít entirely happy with the direction and balancing of MOMs before development of Dominion began. Even during the SISI tests they still werenít falling into place for us.


It's our game too, without US you would have nothing to develop. What you devs want and what people that actually play the game want are sometimes two very different things.

I agree with leaving the HP buff on mom's to fit in with the new dd's. Leave the rest for now till you guys can get an idea of what your really doing. Try actually playing the game or talking/listening to people that do.

sdchew
Gallente
Jazz Associates
Aeternus.
Posted - 2009.11.21 14:24:00 - [1495]
 

I got an idea CCP. Why don't you STOP doing any Capital Ship changes for Dominion. Don't do anything for Titans, Moms, Nags, Cap Cruise Missiles, etc. Just leave it like it is on TQ for now.

Win for CCP as you can concentrate on the Sov changes
Win for CCP as you can stop the all crap going on the forums.

And once CCP Abathur is done with all the Sov stuff, re-assign him back to sort this all out. Call it Dominion 1.1

Just my 2 cents.

Darriele
Minmatar
THE MuPPeT FaCTOrY
Posted - 2009.11.21 14:51:00 - [1496]
 

Originally by: sdchew
I got an idea CCP. Why don't you STOP doing any Capital Ship changes for Dominion. Don't do anything for Titans, Moms, Nags, Cap Cruise Missiles, etc. Just leave it like it is on TQ for now.

Win for CCP as you can concentrate on the Sov changes
Win for CCP as you can stop the all crap going on the forums.

And once CCP Abathur is done with all the Sov stuff, re-assign him back to sort this all out. Call it Dominion 1.1

Just my 2 cents.


Your 2 cents aren't that worthy, not in EU. Only thing that must be changed , and everyone agrees on so far , is the titan class.
Mom's maybe, dreads wth, why is the Nag vertical and also totally useless every time they try to balance it?

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2009.11.21 14:52:00 - [1497]
 

I don't know why they have problems working out a role for the mothership.

It's a mothership, that itself to me implies, low offensive capability but pretty much the ultimate fleet support and logistics vessel.

For example off the top of my head;

Some new module that drops a protection bubble with limited hp that can be used as emergency dd protection and that small ships can hide in?

Rapid dock and undock repair and resupply for frigates?

Maybe It should be able to move a whole fleet with it and cyno them further then any other ship is capable of?

Maybe it should give bonuses like a command ship on steroids?

It should basicly be a ship that empowers every other ship on the battlefield rather then being wtfbbqsauce itself.

Offensive capabilities should stay the same, It just needs more hp so it can survive the battlefield longer.

Sertan Deras
Gallente
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.11.21 15:13:00 - [1498]
 

Hey CCP, a cap fight happened last night, and I have it on very good authority that two things are true:

It happened at close range
No target painters were used

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2009.11.21 15:20:00 - [1499]
 

Originally by: Ammath
Edited by: Ammath on 21/11/2009 13:51:04
What I want to know from CCP, and this is a reasonable request is a Blog post from CCP stating what they view the roles of each class of ship in EvE should be. For the purposes of this discussion I would like to see what they want Carriers, Dreadnaughts, Motherships, and Titans roles should be.

It is ok if they are not happy with the current implementations of any. But I think the community would like to know the VISION CCP has for these classes of ships, the steps of how to get there obviously require testing and balance.

What is not "o"k is statements like "titans shouldn't be direct damage dealers, so we are going to give them all kinds of crazy direct damage buffs and a massive EHP boost so they can stay on the field and fight longer" The dichotomy of that statement is mind-blowing. You might as well say "Motherships should be fleet support ships so we will be giving them the old Titan AOE doomsday" it makes about the same sense.

Basically guys this is project management 101 here. Define the vision, identify the issues, make the changes, test, do QA, and release. But further breaking one class of ships (titans from their alleged vision of them), re-balancing another class (dreads), and doing nothing for carriers, nor motherships will NOT achieve the balance nor vision you seem to have for capital ships in EvE. Although to be fair this vision has not been formally spelled out so we are going of anecdotes and one-liners from specific devs.

Honestly guys, if you want to do a redux of Capital Ship balance in EvE you need to do them ALL at once or you will never get the real-world data to tweak things properly. All you are doing is creating more mismatches.

Lets just see a simple vision matrix from CCP on combat caps..

example:
Ship Class, general role, secondary role, preferred target
Carrier - Fleet Support - Anti-Sub capital - Battleships/Support

Carriers are designed to be large fleet support ships, which still have significant combat capabilities with their Fighters and Drones to provide support for fleets against sub-capital targets.

The above is just an example... CCP could you please do this for us so we know the intended vision of these classes? If you feel a class doesn't meet your vision, explain why.

For the record for this release Motherships should get the HP boost, and jump-range boost. Those frankly are needed no matter what and have been a problem since 2006.


This.

Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
Posted - 2009.11.21 16:04:00 - [1500]
 

Originally by: Eheufaucan
But the biggest problem is the explosion velocity. In siege mode it's reduced to 12m/s and in my opinion thats a bigger problem than the high explosion radius.
Wait... WHAT?

They reduce the tracking penalty for XL turrets in siege, but don't reduce the explosion velocity penalty?

That's it. I thought the notion that CCP had no clue about how missiles work was just an overreaction, and surely someone at CCP was indeed aware of all factors that account for missile damage.

Apparently not. Seems they're getting their info from the "missiles always hit and always do full damage"-whiners on the forums thou.

At least now we know why explosion velocity and radius was omitted from the Capital Weapons thread in the Test Server forum. It was not included in their calculations at all Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Missiles

Next up, within the next week, Citadel Torpedoes and launchers will see their stats change dramatically and we will introduce Citadel Cruise Missiles and launchers. Phoenix pilots, rejoice! While these changes will not hit SiSi for another week or so, we can give you the the current working stats:

Old Value / New Value

Citadel Torp Launcher I
RoF: 48 seconds / 33 seconds

Citadel Torpedoes
Flight Time: 20 seconds / 7.5 seconds
Base Velocity: 2750 / 3500
Base Damage: 1800 / 2000

Citadel Cruise Launcher I
RoF: 48 seconds

Citadel Cruise Missiles
Flight Time: 20 seconds
Base Velocity: 4250 (3500 on sisi ATM)
Base Damage: 1800 (1500 on sise ATM)


So in summary;

Citadel torps get a 61% increase in raw dps ( rof/dmg ), but they get an increase of 125% to explosion radius. That's a 36% sig tanking reduction in dmg ( against a 1700m signature radius ). So the end result is a mere 3% damage increase against dreads in siege.

I would rejoice, but you cut my range of those extra 3% dps in half. No Phoenix pilot is going to risk fitting Citadel torps and be a sitting duck with that engagement range. On top of that, the explosion velocity is now even worse in siege, compared to XL tracking.

CCP, don't try and tell me XL turret tracking and damage is balanced against this. Against targets going 12m/s? Who are those targets? Do they have a signature radius that makes tracking an issue at all? I don't think hitting Titans and Moms is an issue, even with the new XL turret tracking values in and out of siege. Where's that potential to do more damage against larger targets for citadel torps? I only see XL turrets being able to do full damage.

So citadel torps get 3% more damage against anything larger than a dread, as long as it's sitting still. And God knows how much of a decrease against anything moving, and/or, smaller than a dread. Trading in half their range.

What about cruises? The thread says 1800 base damage. Sisi says 1500. Which means -300dps compared to current torps... oh wait, did you EFT with Caldari Dread LVL 4 CCP? Then it's 1800 Rolling Eyes

Still, an 50% increase to explosion radius compared to current torps. Less damage, and the same explosion velocity. That's what Phoenix pilots can look forward to. After they finish Cruise Missiles 5. I'm rejoicing in my pants as I type, thinking about these 70km range, crap damage cruises.

I'm so happy you balance this in EFT with skill bonuses applied, or, decided to cut Citadel cruise stats by 20/25% after that thread was started. Those cruises would clearly have been a monsterô.


Pages: first : previous : ... 46 47 48 49 [50] 51 52 53 54 ... : last (62)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only