open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Fendahl Dev Blog, ARM Scripts and Bandwidth
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

Author Topic

Wu Jiun
State War Academy
Posted - 2007.11.20 11:41:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
It's empty enough (and I'm in lowsec a lot of the time, thankyouverymuch). Sure, there are more people in lowsec than 0.0, but that's just because 0.0 is mostly empty. Compare lowsec to higsec population figures.



Agreed 100%. Still if 0.0 is even emptier how much can we expect? Much too often (for my taste) lowsec is depicted as a deserted and unreal place where only mass murderers and indiana jones will take their chances.

I am just saying such radical viewpoints aren't accurate and further building this image will only keep more people away from lowsec. You should keep that in mind if you are interested in prosperity of lowsec too. That of course wasn't meant to imply you don't know your stuff, sorry if it sounded like that.

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

It's far from a ridiculous scenario. Sure, a well-organized gate camp with a remotely supported Lachesis can be deadly. Thing is, the Broadsword will be much better, and it will also be able to operate solo if needed. That's a big, big difference.



You are right that broadsword might even be deadlier than a lachesis in a good gang. I didn't run the maths on the scan resolutions so i can't tell atm. But a good organized team imo should be able to catch blockade runners.

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

- Try to warp out before you're locked. Only possible in very fast ships.



If you count blockade runners as very fast ships that statement is accurate. I think my blockade runner needs 5 seconds to get into warp give or take. Given latency and human reaction times i doubt i'll ever be catched. However i am sure you agree that a situation where a blockade runner can always escape isn't nice either, right?

As for other ships i don't really see the point as they aren't really made for running through gatecamps imo.

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

- Get back to gate. This requires that you not get webbed (iffy), can tank (simply not possible in a large number of ships), and can fit MWD (also not possible in many ships). Result: simply not an option for lots of ships.



Yes, but well thats the nature of a gatecamp. Most people just park some sensor boosted bcs and bs in front of a gate and expect to catch people. Those camps (majority) are easily passed in a blockade runner or any cruiser or smaller ship with mwd.

A good organized group will mean certain death for about anything that is not shuttle, frig or a blockade runner. Sometimes it will kill the blockade runner too. Imo this is how it should be.

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

- Cloak and hope for the best. So from now on, cloak is mandatory for all ships in lowsec. Hooray.



Well smart hauler fit it anyway. Its an option, you can take your chances if you prefer. Its not like pirates can complain now how heavy dictors are "necessary" for good gatecamps. The otherway round - its an option. You cannot deny that a cloak is a good survivability option and not a liability.

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

I'm pretty sure this module will open a huge can of worms for CCP (and the players).

What you don't seem to realize is that there only needs to exist a realistic threat of an uncounterable gate camp. Multiship Lachesis setups are pretty rare, since they need skills, people and setup. Now we get a one-ship one-stop solution to all your gate piracy problems.



You will still need a huginn thats sure. You will not be able to tank sentries, get high enough scan resolution and a web all at the same time in a viable setup. Not even with the broadsword although its awesome. So solo camping yes but not "uncounterable". And my point about blockade runners stands. When i said we often cannot even lock them with 2 x sb + 1 x remote sb on a lach - that was firsthand experience and not some stupid talk. So uncounterable gatecamps are bad - but so are uncatchable haulers.

veremon
Posted - 2007.11.20 11:42:00 - [92]
 

A nerf, then.

The mechanics of ARM sounds fun, The way youve changed the modules abilities is aweful.

ARM scripts should boost the selected atribute to more than what it was before. In reality the addition of ARM scripts is just reducing the effectiveness of one attribute and giving us nothing better than what weve already had before with the other.

Rubbish.



Gragnor
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.11.20 11:43:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Calmdown
Edited by: Calmdown on 20/11/2007 09:39:33
This is a totally ridiculous, to be perfectly honest.
(continued...)


You have reduced me to agreeing with Burn Eden!!!!

Now that alpha strike is dead and nano ships are dead - what is the difference between races? NOTHING. Everyone fitted to tank and gank. You are reducing Eve to a lowest common denominator game where everyone is the same.

You are willfully destroying diversity and your arrogance in totally ignoring your player base is breathtaking.

Revolution Rising
Serenity Engineering and Transport Company
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2007.11.20 11:56:00 - [94]
 

Love the idea and the new makeup of one of my favorite drone cruisers the Arbitrator.

It allows people a lot more selections when it comes to drone versatility which is a really good thing.

Nice work.


Darth Felin
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:04:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: Xaen
Originally by: Vladimir Norkoff

All told, not really looking forward to Rev3 so much.. Which kinda sucks because it's making me lose interest in the game more and more.. Sad

I guess the Minmatar recons are up for the nerfbat next. They got the Caldari, Amarr ones and the Gallente already...


Don't worry Caldari ECM will be boosted in Trinity and it seems that they will dominate again as super EWar, so they can be nerfed next patch again

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:17:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Wu Jiun

I am just saying such radical viewpoints aren't accurate and further building this image will only keep more people away from lowsec. You should keep that in mind if you are interested in prosperity of lowsec too. That of course wasn't meant to imply you don't know your stuff, sorry if it sounded like that.



No prob. And you're right, we shouldn't get too extreme here. Sure, lowsec is pretty empty comprated to highsec, but it's far from empty.

I'd love to see more people in lowsec (and no, I'm not a pirate :), that's all.

Quote:

But a good organized team imo should be able to catch blockade runners.



Sure. My concern is just that the HICs (or whatever you want to call them) may make this a bit too easy, and especially too easy to set up very deadly solo gatecamps. Solo gatecamps that are hard to evade don't seem good for the game, imho.

Quote:

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

- Try to warp out before you're locked. Only possible in very fast ships.



If you count blockade runners as very fast ships that statement is accurate. I think my blockade runner needs 5 seconds to get into warp give or take. Given latency and human reaction times i doubt i'll ever be catched. However i am sure you agree that a situation where a blockade runner can always escape isn't nice either, right?



Sure, you need some danger -- but imho there is one, a Lachesis/Arazu can pack more scramble than most blockage runners can/will stab for, so the danger is already there.

My blockade runner aligns and warps very fast, I'm not really worried about myself here.

Quote:

As for other ships i don't really see the point as they aren't really made for running through gatecamps imo.



Well... yes and no.

Sure, a proper gate camp should be able to drop your random non-blockade runner indy.

But the thing is, we now have something that can kill pretty much any non blockade runner indy, with just one ship and solo setup. That's bad, as in very bad.

Why? It will have a huge effect on all industrial ops in lowsec (including ours). If we can't move materials with at least some amount of safety from solo pirates, then lowsec industry becomes not worth the risk. So we move back to highsec, and as a result there's less things for sale in lowsec, and less people.

Problem in nutshell: a solo HIC now becomes a "gatecamp" for haulers, and one that's near-guaranteed death (unless you get very lucky with cloak).

Result: industrial ops in lowsec become not worth it. You don't want to haul high-volume goods in blockade runners, not enough cargo space.

Quote:

And my point about blockade runners stands. When i said we often cannot even lock
them with 2 x sb + 1 x remote sb on a lach - that was firsthand experience and not some stupid talk. So uncounterable gatecamps are bad - but so are uncatchable haulers.


Yeah, and I agree that blockade runners will probably stay in the "difficult to catch" category (though I am a bit worried about the Broadsowrd and its ability to fill mids with sensor enhancers).

The main problem is everything else except blockade runners. If noncombat (or mission runner) ships now face near-guaranteed death at gates from a solo ship, the risk vs reward of lowsec -- which is already a bit iffy -- will get horrible. The few people who now live / operate in lowsec will have precious little reason to stay there.

Hoping I'm wrong, here, of course.

Drackx
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:23:00 - [97]
 

This whole thing is another micro management item on ships

Module fitting
Ammo
Drones
Rigs
Heat
ARM scripts Scripts

Problem that I see is that Heat is not being as widely used as it was intended. Anyone using it in Empire, mission runners, traders, miners (0.0), mini professions, explorers, etc..., and why would anyone? What was the percentage of players in Empire?
Quote:
We found that 78% of all characters were located in high security areas (security status at 0.5 or higher), 13% were located in low security areas, and 9% were in 0.0 at the time the snapshot was taken

Isn't that enough indication that Heat is not the way to go.
But no, CCP is going to continue this way and will bring ARM scripts. Nice going for new players and your 78% Empire players. Eve is known to have a steep learning curve and this is going to even make it steeper. New players will not even bother and if they bother they will think, pfffff a lot of work for exactly what gain??
For other players, you will need another 10minutes before you can undock just to have the right scripts in the right place etc...
You want to prevent blobbing but all nerfs on ranges indicate the opposite.
These micro management additions are not the way to go and you should therefore review it, there are other areas to be creative, planetary interaction for example or something like Drone Hives where you can dock and they move from system to system...

Just reconsider all micro management additions, it will not help to grow your customer base.

Drackx

Ishina Fel
Caldari
Terra Incognita
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:25:00 - [98]
 

Originally by: Gragnor

Now that alpha strike is dead and nano ships are dead - what is the difference between races? NOTHING. Everyone fitted to tank and gank. You are reducing Eve to a lowest common denominator game where everyone is the same.


Nano ships dead? When did that happen?

Odd that I see exclusively nano-ships in in (non-fleet) gangs these days, when they are so dead. I even tried bringing a tank/gank ship to a "everything goes" gang and ended up hitting the fan together with the proverbial *bleep* because all my teammates had nano ships and all the enemies did, too.

If anything, the above changes further increase the need to nano it up, since either tracking or range will be getting completely gimped on any given ship.

Miklas Laces
A.N.A.R.C.H.I.C.A
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:25:00 - [99]
 

Tell me again why Sensor Booster and Tracking Computer need a nerf ?

Please sack all game-designers and use the money to buy hardware and optimize code. Eve is fine as it is now, we only want less lag. Laughing

Intel Cylon
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:26:00 - [100]
 

Great Balancing CCP Razz
One (many) more reason here to fly caldary ships.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:31:00 - [101]
 

I have.... a few concerns about the ARM scripts. In principle, I like the idea of adding an extra layer of tactical flexibility and functionality to ship setups, but to me it looks like it's being balanced a little to vigorously.

Quote:
Scriptable modules have also been modified to accommodate the ARM scripts. For instance, a Sensor Booster II now has a 30% bonus to targeting range and a 30% bonus to scan resolution. The sensor booster can still be used without any ARM scripts, but with reduced effectiveness compared to the 60% bonuses it had before. The ARM scripts can then be used to boost one bonus at the expense of the other. For instance, the Targeting Range ARM script gives a 100% bonus to the targeting range bonus of the sensor booster and a 100% reduction in the scan resolution bonus in the module it's installed in. This means that a Sensor Booster II with a Targeting Range ARM script gives a 60% bonus to targeting range, but without any bonus to scan resolution.


It's this bit specifically that has me worried. While I can see the logic behind it, I have to say that I think halving the bonus might be a little too heavy-handed.

Let's do the maths as they stand at the moment, using the module listed above.

simplified, the module at the moment gives two +60 bonuses.

60+60 = 120

the proposed changes reduce these bonuses to:

30+30 = 60

With an ARM fitted, the bonuses become:

60+0 = 60

While I appreciate that my model is rather simplistic relative to the actual state of affairs, the end result is that the module's overall effectiveness is halved, and nothing you can do will alter that fact.... meaning that this is effectively a flat-out multi-module nerf. Considering the fact that these modules have been balanced, re-balanced and balanced again for good measure pretty much since the day they were first thought up, I'm failing to see the necessity for this change - remember the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it".

I'd be less uncertain about all of this if the effects weren't so drastic across the board. Instead of swinging to either the full existing bonus on one attribute, and no bonus whatsoever on the other, I'd prefer it to be a straight boost to slightly ABOVE the existing baseline for one attribute, and a drastic (but not complete) reduction for the other, and for the new baseline to be about 66% of the original.

following this pattern, the new maths on our old friend the Sensor Booster II could be:

base stats: 40+40 = 80
ARMed: (40+70%)+(40-70%) = 68+12 = 80

At this point, the implementation of ARMs actually serves to provide us with a tangible benefit for using them - by using them, we slightly improve the performance of our equipment in one attribute, relative to what we already had, at the expense of a big drop in the other. The system as proposed at the moment offers no reward for fitting ARMs, other than that you get to keep using ONE aspect of your modules at the same level as already exists.

Like I said, I can see the logic behind ARMs, but I think EVE requires a more subtle touch when balancing, and as it stands this system is.... not subtle.

Slate Fistcrunch
Red Federation
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:31:00 - [102]
 

Edited by: Slate Fistcrunch on 20/11/2007 12:35:10
I have to agree with the micro managing complaints. Combat is way too short and the interface way too clumsy to realistically allow so many tasks to be performed in a fight. Add in lag and you have people pulling their hair out, not shouting in joy that their quick and decisive use of scripts won the day.

edit: To the poster right above me, you don't want the module giving two bonuses due to stacking. I'm hoping they have implemented this such that one sensor booster giving range and a second sensor booster giving speed won't be stacking nerfing each other.

Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:42:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Stitcher on 20/11/2007 12:45:53
Originally by: Slate Fistcrunch
edit: To the poster right above me, you don't want the module giving two bonuses due to stacking. I'm hoping they have implemented this such that one sensor booster giving range and a second sensor booster giving speed won't be stacking nerfing each other.


Even factoring in the stacking penalty, the system as proposed still works out worse cross the board.

I don't know the specifics of the stacking penalty system, I'm afraid, but I know that if you fit two sensor booster IIs to your ship, the bonus you receive is greater than 60/60. The ARM system would reduce the bonus from fitting two of those sensor boosters to exactly 60/60.

I fail to see the benefit of introducing a system that actually reduces the efficiency of existing setups without providing some benefit in return - especially when the system being introduced alters a section of the gameplay that was not, as far as I can tell, actually in any great need of attention.

Like I said, I like the idea - but I think its implementation as proposed is too heavy-handed. This game's system is by now so intricate that a more delicate approach is needed.

Soyemia
Minmatar
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:56:00 - [104]
 

LoL theyr nerfing tracking disruptors. They clearly were overpowered Laughing

Apertotes
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:58:00 - [105]
 

2 questions:

- ¿how much time does it take to switch scripts?

- if i fit 2 tracking computers, one loaded with optimal script, the other with tracking script, the way the bonus and penalties work, means that i would loose both bonus making the 2 modules completely useless, right?

Seriya
Caldari
LogiTech Systems
Posted - 2007.11.20 12:59:00 - [106]
 

Edited by: Seriya on 20/11/2007 12:59:12
I don't like +100%/-100% modification taking 30/30 boosts to 60/0, I think that's really harsh and overly nerfing. Base stats such as 40/40 on Sensor Boosters with a +50%/-50% modification would give 60/20 boosts and be much more palatable whilst having a similar effect.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2007.11.20 13:00:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/11/2007 13:00:23
Originally by: Soyemia
LoL theyr nerfing tracking disruptors. They clearly were overpowered Laughing


Yeah, that's one "wtf?" moment right there.

Any random player could have told the you that damps were a lot more powerful than disruptors, from which any random player might have figured out that disrupters need to be nerfed a lot less than sensor damps.

Let's do a market check:

- best named damp: 11 - 15 mil
- best named TD: 500k - 1 mil

Yeah, no difference there. No indication of anything. Rolling Eyes

Apparently the devs aren't "any random player", and see no power difference between damps and TDs. Shocked

Mrs M34N
Posted - 2007.11.20 13:00:00 - [108]
 

Still not sure what these ARM stuff is usefull for on a SensorBooster anyways.
People always forget that there is a low slot SignalAmp too.
Why don't just change the SensoBoost to a pure SensorRangeBooster, and change the SignalAmp to a pure SignalResAmp ?
No further Minin-Professions, Fancystuffincargo and don't forgettoclickbeforefight needed

Shocked

Mrs M34N
Posted - 2007.11.20 13:04:00 - [109]
 

Hint: Why is everyone using Damps ? Cause ECM was nerfed some Patch ago.... so what will be next ?

...unforeseen consequences...

Smile

Grim86StonE
Amarr
Telsa inc
Waterboard
Posted - 2007.11.20 13:06:00 - [110]
 

This is outrageous. How can you introduce a ship with infinite warp scrambling power? Unless you aren't in a cloaker or an interceptor, or nano-ship you will not be able to travel through lowsec, let alone 0.0 where again the bubble mode has infinite strenght. This is beyond stupidity and I can't understand what you are trying to achieve or "fix". But since I have been playing this game, I have seen that CCP's notion of fix actually means "mess up"(shame I can't use the f word). I urge you to reconsider what you are doing. There are small (1-10 players) corps that cannot afford to buy a jump freighter to fuel their small ratting POS in deep 0.0. You are also dealing a huge blow to industrialists and confine most of them to empire space. I don't want to get a 10 man escort everytime I need to go to empire to get a ship or some ammo. Again you are taking solo work from people who like to live alone or in very small numbers.

As a proposed fix, the mobile bubble should not have more than 1 point scrambling power and the focused one should have 2 points of scrambling power(to be an improved version of the 7,5km 2 point scrambler). Also, dictor bubbles should also have finite power. The only bubbles with infinite power should be the anchorable ones.

Please think about what you are doing and change this.

ISD Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc


ISD YARR
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:02:00 - [111]
 

have to admit the ship with infinite warp scrambling power worried me alot, as now it can just lock down anything it also doesnt get many penalties for doing it, though im sure it would be great fun for the person who is flying it (hell that might even be me :D ) its really going to kill the elite haulig classes and there is not much point fittign traveling fittings on a BS anymore.

Why not give the script a negative bonus to sensor strenth so that when you have the uber focused scrambling beam loaded it takes you ages to lock something smaller than a mothership or titan? say it takes 20 seconds to lock down a mother ships which means it would take a very long time to lock down anything else?

this would mean ships which have fast warp travel setups or fast to warp blockade runners will still have a chance to get through because the heavy inmterdictor will nto have time to lock them.

Exus
Die Trying
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:02:00 - [112]
 

Bandwith and scripts
both bad ideas. I dont argue, i just plus it. every good arguments are allready said.

Angel Syn
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:06:00 - [113]
 

..."tools that will allow players more flexibility when using certain modules and drones."

Hmm. The way things are going it sounds like you'll soon have to be a f***ing engineer to play eve..

Scripts for modules?!? ugh

First comes heat & combat boosters which basically should add more exitement to fights.. yeah, right. I've never heard anyone actually using them.
Then comes all the nerfs.. Specially with character trained to Amarr (and recons) I really think there's enough balancing issues needed to work with - without any new micro-managing-module-scripting-hell - which will soon need nerfing. Evil or Very Mad


Stitcher
Caldari
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:12:00 - [114]
 

My above notwithstanding, I have to say this entire thing looks like a case of the Devil making work for idle hands. While my above posts are a plea for subtlety in this change, the fact is that ideally the ARM scripts change in particular simply should not be implemented, as it is totally unnecessary.

These things really aren't broken guys - there's no need to try and fix them. Or at least, if there is, this isn't the way to do it.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:21:00 - [115]
 

Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 20/11/2007 14:29:46
Originally by: Stitcher

Let's do the maths as they stand at the moment, using the module listed above.

simplified, the module at the moment gives two +60 bonuses.

60+60 = 120

the proposed changes reduce these bonuses to:

30+30 = 60

With an ARM fitted, the bonuses become:

60+0 = 60

While I appreciate that my model is rather simplistic relative to the actual state of affairs, the end result is that the module's overall effectiveness is halved, and nothing you can do will alter that fact.... meaning that this is effectively a flat-out multi-module nerf. Considering the fact that these modules have been balanced, re-balanced and balanced again for good measure pretty much since the day they were first thought up, I'm failing to see the necessity for this change - remember the old adage "if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it".

I'd be less uncertain about all of this if the effects weren't so drastic across the board. Instead of swinging to either the full existing bonus on one attribute, and no bonus whatsoever on the other, I'd prefer it to be a straight boost to slightly ABOVE the existing baseline for one attribute, and a drastic (but not complete) reduction for the other, and for the new baseline to be about 66% of the original.

following this pattern, the new maths on our old friend the Sensor Booster II could be:

base stats: 40+40 = 80
ARMed: (40+70%)+(40-70%) = 68+12 = 80

At this point, the implementation of ARMs actually serves to provide us with a tangible benefit for using them - by using them, we slightly improve the performance of our equipment in one attribute, relative to what we already had, at the expense of a big drop in the other. The system as proposed at the moment offers no reward for fitting ARMs, other than that you get to keep using ONE aspect of your modules at the same level as already exists.

Like I said, I can see the logic behind ARMs, but I think EVE requires a more subtle touch when balancing, and as it stands this system is.... not subtle.


Employ this guy. This is how ARM scripts should work.

Bandwith: why are you people so narrow minded ? ever seen a Vexor use 3 heavy drones ? Then it was a NEWB that failed his math class every time. Seems my training for amarr cruiser 5 (Khanid HAC) will have a secondary benefit of getting the Arbitrator too ...

Oh and it is good being Caldari. Realy. I mean Moa and Eagle will actualy have a purpose now without getting boosted in any way. Even tho the desired change would be +1 turret on both.

EDIT: Why the HICs ? I mean scripting the actual cyno field generator would be a more simple and elegant solution to Moms in lowsec. Like unscripted it allows only capital ships to jump to the field, scripted it allows only supercaps (while using different fuel). And scripted cannot be activated in lowsec. All problems solved ?? And we have a few f...ed off pirates that cannot move their mommy.

Trass
Caldari
Lamb Federation Navy
Posted - 2007.11.20 14:36:00 - [116]
 

Edited by: Trass on 20/11/2007 14:40:18
TO CCP OWNER: NERF SALARY OF YOUR WORKERS. They have too much money, they dont fix bugs, only create more of work to do.

Proof? http://myeve.eve-online.com/updates/knownissues.asp after each patch list is longer and longer. But no: fixing problems is boring. Lets kill this game! Yeah and they do it.

J Valkor
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:00:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: J Valkor on 20/11/2007 15:04:01
Edited by: J Valkor on 20/11/2007 15:01:37
Good changes.

Nerfing sensor disruptor's will make all other forms of ECM more widely used, or at least make combinations used instead of the current spam one one module.

Instant locking ships at huge distances was nonsensical.

Drone bandwidth, eh. EOS pilots will never stop complaining because they can't get it through their heads that their ship was broken. These comparisons so the DPS of an astarte only show how twisted their perspective is. Maybe more people will use, heaven forbid, utility drones.

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:07:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: J Valkor
Edited by: J Valkor on 20/11/2007 15:01:37
Good changes.

Nerfing sensor disruptor's will make all other forms of ECM more widely used, or at least make combinations used instead of the current spam one one module.



Yeah a great boost for all "other" kinds of ECM I'm sure every minmatar and amarr pilot are thrilled with their great racial ECM being made usefull, I'm sure everyone will start fitting target painters and tracking disruptors.

/sarcasm


It will just result in everyone using ECM modules instead of damps. And if they as a result nerf the ECM AGAIN then eve will be 1 step closer to being pure gank/tank ugh. I guess that that you don't consider everyone only fitting tank/gank on t1 ships to be more "varied" as the current system?

Garat Mant
Moons of Pluto
Space Exploration and Logistic Services
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:17:00 - [119]
 

Hi CCP Fendahl,

Thanks for the blog, it's interesting to read about these new changes. I hope you can answer (or clarify) a question that a lot of comments have already posed, and will only be asked more as these changes become more widely known:

Is it CCP's intention to frighten people away from low security space?

As described, the Heavy Interdictor's ability to overcome all warp core stabilizers, appears to enable players to completely prevent travel through a jump gate. Is this the case? Will Blockade Runners still be able to, with correct fitting, overcome this anti-warp bubble?

Have CCP's plans changed with regards to the general push to get people into low security space? As a miner/industrialist, my current reward for low security operations is generally better ores and more capable deployable stations. While the Heavy Interdictor's abilities doesn't prevent me or my friends from mining or using a POS, it does further add to our workload (with scouts even more valuable now, and the possibility of even a small pirate group being able to trap us in-system).

That last paragraph sounds much like a whine; that's not the case, I greatly enjoy the risks and rewards of this game. However I do want to make it clear that, along with a lot of people in the comments in this thread, that I feel CCP is making EVE less of a game, and more of a job with every patch.

Please reconsider the changes you are making in the light of player workload and enjoyment.

-G

Havok Pierce
Gallente
Aperture Harmonics
K162
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:20:00 - [120]
 

Edited by: Havok Pierce on 20/11/2007 15:24:01
Originally by: CCP Fendahl
The Amarr drone ships are biased towards spare drones, e.g. the Arbitrator has 50Mbit/s bandwidth (enough for 5 medium scout drones) and 150m3 drone bay (enough for 3 waves of medium scout drones).

Isn't that supposed to be Amarr drone ship?

Anyway, interesting flexibility change with ARMs; it'll only be a matter of time before the min/maxers figure it out again. Oh, and lowsec gank supercaps? Methinks your days are numbered.

I, for one, welcome our new bickering shipfit overlords.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9

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