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

mastergamer
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:44:00 - [121]
 

Does the scripted heavy dictor disruptor work in highsec as an infinite-point scram too? Or is it just lowsec/0.0?

Zakgram
POW ZAP THWAPP
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:45:00 - [122]
 

The script thing on modules is a bit of a pain. Unlike the existing module you have to deactivate the module, wait for it to finish it's cycle, change whatever it's doing, then re-activate. For things like the SB the cycle time is 10 secs for the T1 and 20 secs for the T2...

Changing the scripts should be allowed while the module is active.

Liache Lempourage
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.11.20 15:49:00 - [123]
 

Hello,

thanks for the new dev blog, it is very interesting to see into what direction EVE is developing and how the devs work and think.
There is however one part that concerns me:

Quote:
(...)the Gallente drone ships are biased towards firepower at the expense of spare drones. The Vexor, for instance, now has 75Mbit/s bandwidth (enough for 3 heavy drones)(...)


If the dev blog is supposed to be written by devs, then I wonder if those devs are qualified for their job, since it is known that the maximum firepower with the vexor can be aquired by using 2 heavy, 2 medium and one light drones. Why do they then give the example with 3 heavy drones? Bigger = better? This has already been mentioned in the thread and but it should draw more attention.

Still I am looking forward to the changes in gameplay that will occure with the new patch. Laughing

Cyberus
Caldari
Red Federation
RvB - RED Federation
Posted - 2007.11.20 16:07:00 - [124]
 

Edited by: Cyberus on 20/11/2007 16:08:06
Drones--> dont realy care about tbh.
scripts--> seems as bull**** to me. (exept HIC script)


Matalino
Posted - 2007.11.20 16:57:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Matalino on 20/11/2007 17:11:34
Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc
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 sounds like an excellent way to balance the power of the super-point scramble.

I would recommend setting the balancing point such that a HIC with 2x SB/RSB needs 15-20 seconds to lock a battleship, or 10-15 seconds with 3x SB/RSB.

That would allow travel fitted ships (particularly the Blockade Runners) a reasonable chance to get into warp before they can get locked down, but still allows the HIC to be useful as a secondary tackler.

I just thought of why this might not work: the HIC might get the lock before loading the script therefore bi-passing the lock time penalty, this however could still be fixed by setting a 10 second load time for loading a script into that module.

I expect that is possible as lasers have a different load time than hybrids, so the HIC scramble module should be able to have a different load time than a SB.
Quote:
Under the old system the bonuses were applied to multipliers on the module, but with the new system the bonuses are instead applied to percentage bonuses on the module. To give an example, the Tracking Disruptor II has a base penalty to the optimal range of the targeted ship of -40.2% with an Optimal Range Disruption ARM script installed. The Weapon Disruption skill adds a 5% bonus per level to this penalty, so at level 5 the penalty would be -40.2% * 1.25 = -50.25%. By using this module on e.g. a Curse with Recon Ships level 5 the penalty would be increased to -40.2% * 1.25 * 1.25 = -62.8%. Rigs and warfare link bonuses are applied in a similar manner.
You have provided a one sided explination of this change, but you have failed to provide a comparision to what the original effectiveness was.

There is much fussing about how this has reduced the effectiveness of the E-war modules that now use scripts.

Please provide us with the official comparision of Ewar effectiveness before and after, along with a explination/justification for that change.

Cardice Makar
Dark Knights of Deneb
Posted - 2007.11.20 17:01:00 - [126]
 

Anything I could say has been said already, I'm afraid.

I really like the *theory*, but pre-nerfing dedicated ships is dangerous... as an Amarr/Gallente Recon pilot, my concerns grow with this blog.

I appreciate finally telling us what your intentions are, but I'd like some additional information saying something to the effect of "No, we don't want to leave you with your pants down and weeks of skill training on the line".

The Damp nerf was needed... is needed and should be implemented... however, uber-nerfing them rips out the heart of Gallente recons too. Something NEEDS to be looked at there.

Don't even get me started on the Pilgrim.

More Gold bars please.

Mark Lucius
Final Agony
B A N E
Posted - 2007.11.20 17:52:00 - [127]
 

Edited by: Mark Lucius on 20/11/2007 17:55:19
Good to hear that the dual bonused modules (SB,TD,SD) are getting reduced! I am loving the option to focus their power already. Very Happy I do hope that specialized ships (ie. recons) keep their significant bonus though.

I do think that the focussed, infinite strength scrambler needs looking at with regards to T2 industrials too.

Caullus
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.20 17:56:00 - [128]
 

Edited by: Caullus on 20/11/2007 18:10:34
Edited by: Caullus on 20/11/2007 18:02:25
While I agree that low-sec MOM's should be nerfed or at the very least they should have some risk associated with them, but the infinite point scramble is not the way to do this. People are right when they say this will BREAK gatecamping and blockade running. This change, if not carefully considered, will make WCS worthless for smugglers and make lowsec unaccessible to them.

As for the ARM's.. it's a neat idea.. in theory, but most pilots are right when they say that no more micromanagement is needed. We don't need yet another parameter to watch and modify during PVP combat. This might work for PVE, but will only HURT PVP. Heat, rigs, and (possibly) boosters are more than enough variation in combat as it stands and more is not needed. Combat may not take enough time for the devs, but I promise, this is NOT the way to fix that particular problem.I could see something like ARMs for drones but for modules it's just TOO MUCH. Please reconsider adding FURTHER micromanagement to the system.

As for the drone "nerf", and it is a nerf, albeit a smallish one, is not a bad idea to keep people from using 5 heavies on a ship with 25m3 drone bays, but the drones themselves need fixing too. The HORRIBLE AI and constant target switching MUST come to an end. And yet after almost a year of promises and hoping, very little, IF ANYTHING, is being said to address this particular issue. Not to mention the "firepower focus" of Gallente drone ships, this makes VERY little sense if any. Gallente drone ships were GREAT b/c if you needed an extra drone or 2 in the bay, gallente could accomidate, now you're switching this focus to Amarr (not that they didn't need the love). Increasing the bandwidth a little for Gall ships but NOT increasing their bays will mean that Gall drone bays will not be able to fight the long fight. They may hit hard, but will have v little if any staying power compared to the amarr ships.

With so many bugs still left in the game I was REALLY looking forward to the large number of fixes that we were told would be coming along with this patch. I don't think it's a great idea to break what's working and NOT fix what is broken (even tho RSD's did need some sort of nerf).

All of this while nano-ships are still (for the most part) broken, and fleet battles still lag so badly it's VERY hard to enact any kind of complex strategies to kill fleets bigger than your own. I for one am tired of the "go bigger or go home" attitude surrounding the fleet combats.

In closing:
What happened to the "fix more, add less" attitude described in this dev-blog http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=501
ARM's : Unneeded, extra micromanagement *thumbs down*
Bandwidth : Ok, but consider it carefully, and fix the drones themselves too, not just the ships.
Supercap jamming : needed, but not an infinite point scramble (try a MOM jammer, that can only fit on H-dictors)

FIX THE BUGS AND THE FLEET LAG AND THE DRONES, then give Amarr a little love (5-10% laser boost to damage and slightly lower fitting reqs). After BOTH of these are done, THEN maybe add something.


MTX PT
New European Regiment
R.U.R.
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:09:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Caullus
Edited by: Caullus on 20/11/2007 18:02:25
...

As for the ARM's.. it's a neat idea.. in theory, but most pilots are right when they say that no more micromanagement is needed. We don't need yet another parameter to watch and modify during PVP combat. This might work for PVE, but will only HURT PVP. Heat, rigs, and (possibly) boosters are more than enough variation in combat as it stands and more is not needed. Combat may not take enough time for the devs, but I promise, this is NOT the way to fix that particular problem.I could see something like ARMs for drones but for modules it's just TOO MUCH. Please reconsider adding FURTHER micromanagement to the system.

As for the drone "nerf", and it is a nerf, albeit a smallish one, is not a bad idea to keep people from using 5 heavies on a ship with 25m3 drone bays, but the drones themselves need fixing too. The HORRIBLE AI and constant target switching MUST come to an end. And yet after almost a year of promises and hoping, very little, IF ANYTHING, is being said to address this particular issue. Not to mention the "firepower focus" of Gallente drone ships, this makes VERY little sense if any. Gallente drone ships were GREAT b/c if you needed an extra drone or 2 in the bay, gallente could accomidate, now you're switching this focus to Amarr (not that they didn't need the love). Increasing the bandwidth a little for Gall ships but NOT increasing their bays will mean that Gall drone bays will not be able to fight the long fight. They may hit hard, but will have v little if any staying power compared to the amarr ships.

With so many bugs still left in the game I was REALLY looking forward to the large number of fixes that we were told would be coming along with this patch. I don't think it's a great idea to break what's working and NOT fix what is broken (even tho RSD's did need some sort of nerf).

....




I agree, no more micromanagement, it's enough.

Matalino
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:19:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Caullus
As for the ARM's.. it's a neat idea.. in theory, but most pilots are right when they say that no more micromanagement is needed.
The alternative nerf is to make seperate modules for the different attributes.

Atleast with scripts we will have the option to change which attribute gets a bonus without swapping modules.

I don't expect that scripts will be changed often in combat, rather the desired script will be most often loaded ahead of time, or at most changed once during combat to match the need, one for close range, the other for long.

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:20:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Huitzilopochtli Tlaloc

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.


That's a very elegant solution, in my opinion. They shouldn't have an impossible time locking sub-caps, it should just get very tricky without remote sensor boosting as the target gets smaller and more agile. It's a nice trade off for the extra range and unlimited strength.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:20:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 20/11/2007 11:06:00
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
as for the hactors catching blockade runners, how is that different from a remote repped/sensor boosted arazu with 8 points or so on it?



Quite different.

- you only need one person in HIC, not a multiship setup

- An Arazu with 8 points will need to use 2-pt scramblers and will be able to scramble with only about 16km range (18?), which is a *lot* worse than the 30km range of the new module. It's a critical difference, when camping a gate. If the Arazu wants range, it will need to use 1-pts, limiting it to 6 pts (and that's assuming it uses all mids for them, which is rare).

- An Arazu can't fit many sensor boosters if it also wants to get lots of points. The Broadsword can fit all mids full of sensor boosters (resulting in frigate-level lock times), and still be able to scramble at 30km *and* tank.

All those factors result in an Arazu gate camp being much, much more survivable than a Broadsword one.

Quote:

and the arazu, sorry i haven't tested it, but from what they said it sounds like you will be able to damp me down to that same 9km lock range, only i will have my normal lock on time under 9k, is that so bad?


It is, when you consider that you'll need all of you EW capacity to achieve just that lock reduction. Compare to the Rook, which can lock down multiple ships with ease, and do it totally -- not just a lock time + range reduction.

When in addition you realize that the new inties can now scramble at 30km range, and the new HIC module existing, this leaves the scramble bonus of the gallente recons also a lot less valuable than before.



yes yes i know, thanks for clarifying though (5am posts ftl) facepalm.

although i would like to point out that a 1 man hic camp should fall apart very quickly. 80ish% resist zealot tanks 350ish dps, people say gateguns do 300ish, thats what a frigs dps will blow up a hic under sentry fire?

although the benefits of using a hic are and should be obvious to using a recon to tackle. its just that its possible to put a lot of points on one thing now.

and yes that does suck for the arazu, although it took 3 damps to do that before. i was just commenting on how the range reduction should be the same before/after patch, i never said it was a good thing. i was just saying locking at point blank is about as bad as locking at point blank and taking forever to lock.

Natalie Jax
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:24:00 - [133]
 

CCP does not care what we think on this matter. They have failed yet again to address the concerns of their community. We are apparently just a bunch of ignorant children who cannot possibly voice a rational argument against their divine decisions. Moreso, we are apparently considered too stupid to understand their reasoning, therefore we are just told to trust them.

You post your "proposed" changes on the Game Development forum then after nearly 200+ posts all we get are a pair of terse, defensive, and arrogant posts from a Dev saying "we don't see anything here that changes our minds" without providing even a remote shred of information as to why.

Natalie Jax
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:29:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

and yes that does suck for the arazu, although it took 3 damps to do that before. i was just commenting on how the range reduction should be the same before/after patch, i never said it was a good thing. i was just saying locking at point blank is about as bad as locking at point blank and taking forever to lock.


Incorrect. There is an additional nerf on the strength of RSD modules independent of the ARM scripts. They are also halving the strength of the RSD boosting rig.

You cannot achieve the same range reduction with an Arazu as you can today. Not even with rigs, implants, and max skills. Even adding a fourth RSD II doesn't get you there because of the massive 4th module stacking penalty.

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2007.11.20 18:38:00 - [135]
 

The following movie shows scripts in use. Just take a look at the last 2 or 3 minutes, doesn't it look exciting to have to change your scripts like that!?

Steppa
Gallente
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:09:00 - [136]
 

Gallente drone ***** here. Pretty much the epitome of whoever at CCP thought of when they built drones into the game. Most of my offensive skill points are in drones on a character that has been around since the beginning of the game.

POINT 1) This change is absolute crap. "biased toward firepower", so less spares...OMG. DRONE USERS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE IN THE GAME THAT CAN HAVE THEIR WEAPONS DESTROYED. We...NEED...spares.

POINT 2) If you braniacs that meddle with this game are going to do this, you need to include a toggle to SHUT OFF bandwidth to ANY deployed/active drone. This would free up bandwidth to launch another drone. I consider this an absolute necessity if they're going through with this change.

Why is that important? If you don't know, you don't use drones. If you don't use drones, why do you care?

Arcan Somez
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:17:00 - [137]
 

Edited by: Arcan Somez on 20/11/2007 19:17:19


Needless micromanagement.

Needless nerf.

VauXurne
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:21:00 - [138]
 

Snipers are already vulnerable. Why nerf them? I can see the need to nerf sensor damps, but nerfing every sniper kit accross all races is a really bad idea. What is the justification for this? Who is responsible for the uber whining that resulted in CCP wanting to nerf snipers? They are an integral part of fleet, and fleet warefare is currently very balanced. Leave it alone.

Mrs M34N
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:25:00 - [139]
 

muhaww that interview was fun...

best was the part bout bombs for stealthbombers:
"we have improved them so they go with a FORWARD trajectory, making it easier to go away after launch before bomb goes boom" arghh +#*/% BACKWARD trajectory !!!!!!!
I want to go AWAY after bomb launch,
so I will be aligned !! so the bloody bomb needs to be launched BACKWARDS !!!

nerf narf

Marc Vestabule
Minmatar
Amnion Partners
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:26:00 - [140]
 

Another drive by dev blog.

Why bother having comments if its not going to be a two way process? I assume we are in feature freeze so there is nothing anyone could say to make any changes.

The dev blog does not address its impact on specific ships or explain its intention other than someone thought it would be a neat idea to introduce scripts.

I can only assume that if you protest enough all you are doing is placing the ship/ module into the nerf firing line. Those who posted on the ships and modules for a boost for the Eagle must be kicking themselves in offering the ship up for further kicking.

Anwylyd Al'Vos
The Knights Templar
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:30:00 - [141]
 

/me has just decided to take a second look at heavy dictors...

very nice

Maraq
Caldari
Radikus Industries
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:38:00 - [142]
 

I like the idea of drone bandwidth. It is a great idea.

That said, I can not understand why you are nerfing the myrm. It is a drone carrier. It has NO gun bonuses. There is no reason at all for it to have less than 125m3 bandwidth.

If you think the myrm does too much damage (lol) reduce the number of turrets it gets. As a drone-centric ship it is sad that CCP would even consider nerfing its drone use.

Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:49:00 - [143]
 

Drone bandwidth is a fantastic and long overdue feature that looked like it would add a (good) new dimension to drone ships. Then CCP turned it into yet another horrible/unbalanced nerf. Shocked

Scripts could be a great new feature adding a new depth to combat but their unbelievably poor execution turns them into yet another horrible/unbalanced nerf. Sad

Yes, I know I'm not being constructive but there are plenty of constructive posts, some by me, in this and other threads addressing these issues if CCP would only pay attention to them.

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:50:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Shevar
The following movie shows scripts in use. Just take a look at the last 2 or 3 minutes, doesn't it look exciting to have to change your scripts like that!?



You are telling us that you can change the scripts ONLINE, while the module is active and it will change in the next cycle according to the loaded script ? So you don't need to deactivate the module, reload the script and then activate the module ? Be cause what I saw in the video was just offline loading of scripts.

000Hunter000
Gallente
Missiles 'R' Us
Posted - 2007.11.20 19:54:00 - [145]
 

Yes lets just nerf more stuff!!! Rolling Eyes


Alz Shado
EverFlow
Posted - 2007.11.20 20:09:00 - [146]
 

Windows 3.1 called, they want Drag N Drop back. And some guy named Fitts called you dumb and slow.


Kodiak31415
Queens of the Stone Age
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2007.11.20 20:24:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Dev Blog
As a general rule, the Gallente drone ships are biased towards firepower at the expense of spare drones.


Right...because 'reducing' the drone bandwidth of the ishkur eos and myrmidon from pre bandwidth levels really sounds like a bias towared firepower at the expense of spare drones.

I don't care too much about the nerfs but could CCP please stop putting out bogus info like this in its devblogs? Trinity is coming out on november 27th right. I read it in a recent dev blog, must be true. Also carriers are getting limited to 5 drones at a time, read it in a dev blog. Please proofread this stuff before publishing it to the playerbase.....

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2007.11.20 20:26:00 - [148]
 

When are you going to "balance" the game breakingly powerful nanos and speed rigs? Why is it so wrong a Command ship feilding five heavy drones yet a Cruiser doing 10K km/s is perfectly acceptable in your eyes? Are you going to provide turrets with the tracking needed and missiles the speed needed in order to counter the so-called "Speed tank", presently the most broken and ridiculously overpowered setup in Eve?


Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2007.11.20 20:32:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Hugh Ruka
Originally by: Shevar
The following movie shows scripts in use. Just take a look at the last 2 or 3 minutes, doesn't it look exciting to have to change your scripts like that!?



You are telling us that you can change the scripts ONLINE, while the module is active and it will change in the next cycle according to the loaded script ? So you don't need to deactivate the module, reload the script and then activate the module ? Be cause what I saw in the video was just offline loading of scripts.


From what I can see it's a lot like switching crystals in lasers, the modules weren't active while changing. Just as you can't change crystals while pewpew'ing.

So the modules weren't off line in the vid just not activated.

Breyghun
Amarr
Royal Amarr Institute
Posted - 2007.11.20 20:47:00 - [150]
 

Drones ... CCP's "Need for speed" in action. Reducing drone numbers at any one time will reduce server load. If you don't like the "bandwidth solution" suggest an alternative way of achieving this end.

Heavy Dictors .... These babies will reclaim the choke points into 0.0 and reduce the flow of materials to Empire. The result will be less supply of 0.0 derived stuff and price rises as a result. Also MS impact will be reduced.

ARM scripts.... Forces specialisation and keeps the gear heads at the heart of the game happy! I can't wait to see out Fleet set up instructions now :p I have a concern that this works against "need for speed" though and therefore could be a lag factor.


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