open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Band of Bloggers #42, Tuxford's This and That
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

Author Topic

CCP Tuxford

Posted - 2006.11.23 08:25:00 - [121]
 

I'm gonna answer Hakera's question as I think they are too the point and something I should have addressed in the blog.

Originally by: Hakera

1) Tackling modules - webs, scramblers, even with the capacitor increases, do you think that these should be tweaked, or even overhauled to class specific modules?


I don't know if you have remember it but there was a grand plan on changing the propulsion system with the ECM system. I for one don't believe that any sort of randomness is appropriate in the system. I know people here have always wanted to change it somehow but tbh its such an important system in combat that we're wary of touching it.

Originally by: Hakera

2) Will the aggression timers be changed? (the one minute non aggro disappear and the 20min aggro disappear)


This is something we've been talking about. I don't think its unlikely that we will change it but I doubt it will happen in Kali 1

Originally by: Hakera

3) NPCs, will their damage increase in proportion to the HP changes? As it stands, npc damage must increase by approximatly 15-25% inline with this change or you make ratting of all types too easy as the HP change is a PvP change rather than a PvE one


Increasing the damage they do by 15-20% changes things in a way that hitpoints does not. It means a setup that could previously tank npc's may no longer be able to do so. I'd like npcs to be made more challanging, but simply boosting The "right" way to do it would be to increase their hitpoints but I'm afraid that would just make you generate less isk/hour and make it more boring.

Originally by: Hakera

4) Sentry/Concord/Faction police damage - boosted inline with HP changes?


No we haven't done that. Sentries aren't really that hard to tank and Concord will still take you down, just takes a bit longer.
Quote:

5) Any thoughts on destroyer sig radius (especially with mwd on) ?


Its really not something we've taken too close a look at. It was on the todo list but you know, we had to do other stuff. I'll say this though, destroyers are not supposed to be bigger than frigates. Maybe double the sigrad is a bit too much though, we'll take a look at it after the patch.

Originally by: Hakera

6) Survey/Salvage specialised ship classes? - Kali 2?


You can fit a salvager module on any ship afaik. We haven't really nailed down a design for one but I don't think its unlikely that we'll make one. No promises though

Originally by: Hakera

7) faction class ships - more on the horizon for all the extra ship classes we have now since castor? Would sure be dandy for FW looming


Yeah more faction ships for everyone. Well not everyone but definitly more faction ships with factional warfare coming in.

Originally by: Hakera

8) POS damage - increase inline or other defence options becoming availible?


No POS damage increase now. As for changing POS defenses there is a great plan for that. Starbases will get a lot more attention post Kali 1.

I didn't mention the Hyperion because I think its fine. So does any other blaster pilot within CCP, well any other blaster pilot I know of.

CCP Tuxford

Posted - 2006.11.23 08:29:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Shin Ra
I'm afraid now that hitpoints have increased, but dmg has increased by more than 25% with the addition of rigs. Once again, having cake and eating it.

That is not true. While it is true that you can fit two rate of fire rigs or a damage rig and a rate of fire rig, these rigs are stacking nerfed with modules so if you have damage mod or two,.. three the rigs aren't really adding that much. Furthermore these rigs are adding to the grid need of your guns so putting two will likely force you to either downgrade your guns or force you to change a damage mod for a rcu or pds.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2006.11.23 08:38:00 - [123]
 

errrr...
i don't see why there should be such a double inflation regarding cap boosters: modules still need the same amounts while the ships have the same "cap levels" (same applies to all kinds of energy emissions). if they have been balanced so far, why do they get +25% amount and-20% volume?
this way, they'll be required less often and last longer? Question

Bluetit
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:02:00 - [124]
 

with the smaller increase to shields for t2 ships and the 25% increase to shield recharge rate accross the board will this not reduce the effectivness of passive tanks on T2 ships? Was this meant or should the rchg rate be increased in line with the shield increase?

CCP Tuxford

Posted - 2006.11.23 09:11:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Bluetit
with the smaller increase to shields for t2 ships and the 25% increase to shield recharge rate accross the board will this not reduce the effectivness of passive tanks on T2 ships? Was this meant or should the rchg rate be increased in line with the shield increase?

Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank.

Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because

(ship_shield*1.125 + shield_ext*1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t

Flabida jaba
Caldari
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:18:00 - [126]
 

Thanks Tux

for the informitive Blog.
its great that you can take some time to give us an idea where we're going
with Kali and beyond and I appreciate it.

I think you should take your OMGWTFBBQ Hurricain for a spin on the forums more often!
It certainly lays down the PwnageTwisted Evil
But you do realise I will have to fit a nice tracking disrupter on my Drake to
PWNd u noob...lol

NEway........

ive only got 1 thing left to say.....
and thats in my sig.......

Im out!




Lucian Corvinus
Gallente
Expert Systems
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:29:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Tuxford

Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank.

Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because

(ship_shield*1.125 + shield_ext*1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t


I can understand this, but you've made a static 25% across the board, what about the battlecruisers which recieved a 56% increase, the shield recharge per second will get stronger, and what about the phoenix?? just wondering, not complainingVery Happy

kDaser
Caldari
FinFleet
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2006.11.23 09:53:00 - [128]
 

I've been told carriers are getting a boost to Drone bay and Ship maintanance bay size but cant find any mention of it. Can someone confirm this?

Rafein
Posted - 2006.11.23 10:20:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Shin Ra
I'm afraid now that hitpoints have increased, but dmg has increased by more than 25% with the addition of rigs. Once again, having cake and eating it.


Not sure how so, considering rigs stack with damage mods. So, having 3 BCU on a Raven, you adding a rig that either increases damage or ROF is pointless, for the most part.
Think of damage rigs as hlf a damage mod. fitting one ROG rig and one damage rig has the EXACT same effect as fitting one BCU, stacking penalty and all.

Bluetit
Posted - 2006.11.23 10:31:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Lucian Corvinus
Originally by: Tuxford

Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank.

Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because

(ship_shield*1.125 + shield_ext*1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t


I can understand this, but you've made a static 25% across the board, what about the battlecruisers which recieved a 56% increase, the shield recharge per second will get stronger, and what about the phoenix?? just wondering, not complainingVery Happy


that was sort of my point. I really don't mind if they are better or worse than T1 only that this has changed them and wanted to know if it had been thought about :) . I understand that the extenders will give 25% bonus and this could over power T2 if they only had the reduced shield charge rate.

Also the ferrox now will have an even better passive tank than it did before like the guy above said.

Thanks for all the work and i bow to the superior maths equasions :)

CCP Tuxford

Posted - 2006.11.23 10:35:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Bluetit
Originally by: Lucian Corvinus
Originally by: Tuxford

Why should it have better base shield per second? Its not like shield boosters work any better on t2 ships than t1 ships. The fact that you have a better tank on the t2 ships is because of the better resists which works just as much on a passive tank and as an active tank.

Furthermore increasing the recharge time less on t2 ships might potentially make them overpowered with shield extenders because

(ship_shield*1.125 + shield_ext*1.25)/(t*1.125) > (ship_shield + shield_ext)/t


I can understand this, but you've made a static 25% across the board, what about the battlecruisers which recieved a 56% increase, the shield recharge per second will get stronger, and what about the phoenix?? just wondering, not complainingVery Happy


that was sort of my point. I really don't mind if they are better or worse than T1 only that this has changed them and wanted to know if it had been thought about :) . I understand that the extenders will give 25% bonus and this could over power T2 if they only had the reduced shield charge rate.

Also the ferrox now will have an even better passive tank than it did before like the guy above said.

Thanks for all the work and i bow to the superior maths equasions :)

To be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it.

Jim McGregor
Posted - 2006.11.23 10:47:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Tuxford
blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it.


Bring a translator... Laughing

Lucian Corvinus
Gallente
Expert Systems
Posted - 2006.11.23 10:50:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Tuxford

To be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it.


Rgr, thx for the reply, and looking forward to seeing what you come up withCool

Pottsey
Enheduanni Foundation
Posted - 2006.11.23 10:56:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Pottsey on 23/11/2006 10:57:43
ďTo be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it.Ē
I donít know if I should be jumping around and shouting in joy or hiding in fear at what might come. What ever you do I am sure it will be for the best just please donít make Gallente rubbish at it.

In my mind Caldari should be hitpoint passive or active boost based
Gallente should be shield recharge based or active amour. But who knows what is planed.

EDIT: Please add T2 shield relays and flux or at least make the named modules better then T1.

CCP Tuxford

Posted - 2006.11.23 11:02:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Pottsey
Edited by: Pottsey on 23/11/2006 10:57:43
ďTo be honest the whole passive tanking needs a look at. We won't really have time do anything before Revelations but expect a blog with all sorts of math logic and stuff from me after it.Ē
I donít know if I should be jumping around and shouting in joy or hiding in fear at what might come. What ever you do I am sure it will be for the best just please donít make Gallente rubbish at it.

In my mind Caldari should be hitpoint passive or active boost based
Gallente should be shield recharge based or active amour. But who knows what is planed.

EDIT: Please add T2 shield relays and flux or at least make the named modules better then T1.


Hiding in fear obviosly Razz

Seriously there are number of things that are different between passive and active tanking, preferably I'd like them both to be viable and neither overpowered.

Kaylana Syi
Minmatar
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:05:00 - [136]
 

What are your thoughts on artillery Tux could you please show us what's on your mind?

Nifel
PAX Technologies
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:12:00 - [137]
 

Your thoughts on the Maelstrom then? You didn't mention it the blog and as far as I can see not in any comment.

Pastora
Russian SOBR
SOLAR FLEET
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:32:00 - [138]
 

Just want to make sure, that nobody forgets about t2 frequency crystals for energy turrets. Is their volatility going to change (by 50%), or just their volume? Or will there be no changes at all to frequency crystals?

volly
Amarr
Full Contact
Blade.
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:36:00 - [139]
 

Are there any changes of omni tanks planned?

Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:37:00 - [140]
 

Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 23/11/2006 11:36:53
let me rephrase my concern to make it easier to understand:

Why do you boost cap equally for all ships without considering how much cap each ship will need?


Tiuwaz
Minmatar
No Paradise
Posted - 2006.11.23 11:58:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne
Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 23/11/2006 11:36:53
let me rephrase my concern to make it easier to understand:

Why do you boost cap equally for all ships without considering how much cap each ship will need?





initial cap was given to ship on the basis of what they need/should have for balance purposes

the cap increase given in Kali is %, so those who had more cap to begin with will also get more cap nominal wise, but in the end nothing changes


so whats the issue? if you have problems with the cap of some ships to begin with then thats a different balance issue but utterly non-relevant to this change

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:19:00 - [142]
 

How about giving the Hurricane back its 7th turret, but having the bonuses only apply to Artillery, not to ACs? No more overpowered AC setups and we get back our 7 turret arty ride! Wink

Udyr Vulpayne
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:23:00 - [143]
 

Edited by: Udyr Vulpayne on 23/11/2006 12:23:55
Originally by: Tiuwaz

initial cap was given to ship on the basis of what they need/should have for balance purposes


not sure if that ever was the case but it msot certainly is not so now.


Originally by: Tiuwaz

so whats the issue? if you have problems with the cap of some ships to begin with then thats a different balance issue but utterly non-relevant to this change


the problem is that these changes serve to exacerbate the already existing cap problems of laser/hybrid ships.

- if fights last longer the risk to run out of cap becomes greater
- this is much more of a concern for laser/hybrid users
- the more you increase the duration of fights the more ships that require cap to fire will be at a disadvantage

- with kali fight duration gets increased
- ships that use projectiles/missiles need more ammo to fire longer -> reduce ammo size
- ships that use lasers/hybrids need more cap to fire longer -> reduce capneed of guns or increase cap for those ships


also see here: earlier reply

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:30:00 - [144]
 

Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 23/11/2006 12:35:07
Just thought Id pop in and post my self-centred thoughts on the Gallente ships I (cos I don't know jack about the others).

Mymidon: The Gallente Forum Patrol whined for a larger drone bay and we got it..... not the greatest of ideas. With medium drones the ship still does below par DPS, sure with heavies it's a beast (read: potentially overpowered) but who is going to take the risk, 5 volleys and you may as well self-destruct. Should have tweaked the drone damage bonus (for scout drones only) imo.

Hyperion: It looks like the mutts nutts but as has been said lacks purpose. C'mon Tux, give me an excuse to fly this baby (perhaps altering the mega to make it more focussed on rails would clarify both ships roles).

Other than that I'm pretty happy with the HP increases, I have faith you'll find the right balance in time, and pleased to hear about the tweaks to cap booster volume. I do have some concerns over drones (HP increase or, preferably, sig radius decrease is needed and of course the issues with the AI) and ammo volumes, we'll see what the future holds.

oh and NERF AMARR! Laughing

Gunship
Amarr
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:39:00 - [145]
 

longer battles = good.

It takes pilots ages to get the ships and also time to find a battle, so with it all over in a few seconds, the time boost is well needed.

Example: I was in a battle taking down a carrier and had time to play with different damage types till I could inform the fleet what was the best to use.

I also like that the T1 ships gets more of a bonus than the T2.

Alex Tremayne
Gallente
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2006.11.23 12:48:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Tuxford

I didn't mention the Hyperion because I think its fine. So does any other blaster pilot within CCP, well any other blaster pilot I know of.



There's nothing wrong with it at all, it's a perfectly servicable blaster ship, the problem is that the Megathron is a perfectly servicable blaster ship too and it might be nice for the two ships to have different roles so there's a reason to fly one over the other apart from how they look or how much ISK you have in your wallet at the time.

Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
Posted - 2006.11.23 13:15:00 - [147]
 

sry to be poking this soon again.
just wondering if, in the end, there'll be cap booster 1000 with 30m≥. (instead of the 800 with 40m≥ as of now)

'cause then i'd really slap large shield transfers on a scimitar (minnie logistics) and screw cap batteries

Krayl
Quantum Industries
Prime Orbital Systems
Posted - 2006.11.23 13:32:00 - [148]
 

Pity the a change to Khanid didn't make it into Revalations but ah, well, I can wait.

I guess 5% damage to heavy missiles with no damage type restriction isn't an option. Just a slightly worse version of 5% rof anyway. I'm sure it was originally stated that the new BCs should be damage ships, but it seems they've lost their way. Perhaps it clashed badly with the prolonging combat ideal... The best idea I can think of right now is give all the Tier 2 some sort of agility bonus as their second instead of a tanking one. Since we all know BCs are bricks, and bricks don't attack too well. Problem is this would probably make them tank better anyway >_>

Offtopic, but the conversation has drifted this way, I had assumed T2 shield relays and the like would be available through invention. I had heard they were in game (from an event). Or perhaps it's going to be possible to blunder about and try and invent things you can't get.

Borothis Quishir
Posted - 2006.11.23 13:42:00 - [149]
 

Change the mealstroms shield boost amount to a 5% per lvl hardness I mean 7% shield boost ammount kinda sucks your better off sticking proj on the abaddon and tanking it out.

Jin Entres
Malevolent Intervention
Posted - 2006.11.23 13:50:00 - [150]
 

Edited by: Jin Entres on 23/11/2006 13:52:20

The lengthy discussion plagued with uncertainty had me a little worried, but thank you for your effort in communication. This blog clarifies your view on the features. Sadly, though, I still disagree with some of them.

What many of these new ships lack, in my opinion, is clearly defined roles. Some of them seem to just do what their precessors do but better: will people still use Prophecy, Cyclone or Ferox?

On the other hand some of them lack improvements but come at a higher price: will Hyperion be used over a Megathron for any other reason than looks? Will Myrmidon be left in the shadow of the Dominix?

These issues aside, there are two issues I would be interested in knowing your view on:

1. Nosferatu. Do you share the view that prolonged combat will increase the efficiency of Nosferatus? If you do, are you considering an efficiency decrease? Many consider Revelations the era of combat revolving around capacitor and the diminished usefulness of direct damage.

2. Battlecruiser / Command Ship signature radius. Like with destroyers they are much closer to their older brother than their younger brother. This, in practice, renders them incredibly vulnerable to Battleships and too easily outperformed by them. Will this get a look at?

If you find a moment to answer these, thank you. Smile


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8

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