open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Live Dev Blog - Trinity, is it holy?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2007.12.17 18:22:00 - [1]
 

We've started with the Live Dev Blogs (LDB) again and first out was of course one about Trinity. There are a few new things with the LDBs, one being that we will have one person, Mindstar, to ask the questions and we have also changed it so instead of every three weeks it will now be every month. We're working on some additional ideas that we hope to include at some point next year.

But back to the current LDB, we had two good speakers, Hammerhead and Zulupark. They ran into some trouble at first, since not all questions posted were about Game Design, but we made sure all questions asked were on topic. To listen to the LDB, please head over to the Live Dev Blog - Trinity, is it holy? page!

For a list of older Live Dev Blogs, please go here.

Kappas.
Galaxy Punks
Posted - 2007.12.17 18:43:00 - [2]
 

Woohoo thanks Wrangler Smile

Jameroz
Echoes of Space
Posted - 2007.12.17 19:58:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Jameroz on 19/12/2007 01:33:25
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Currently there are no plans to create transcripts for the Live Dev Blogs.


Decided to try my skills at it and here is the transcript.
ISK donations are welcome! Wink

FawKa
Gallente
x13
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.12.17 20:14:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: FawKa on 17/12/2007 20:15:29
Fine blog

Drone HP boost? We didnt get any in the HP patch

Drone dmg mod? Any news about these?

Overheating? Having 4 slots empthy or offlined helps a bit, but not much. Any news of a skill that will be able to overheat longer before the module actually takes dmg?

Sound effects : now that we have shiny graphics, will we ever have soundeffects that doesnt sound like broken vacuumcleaners? (eek listen to the lasers on a 5.1 surround Neutral)

Guess thats questions right of the head.

Treelox
Posted - 2007.12.17 20:17:00 - [5]
 

any chance of a written transcript? I find that listening to all the "ummmm""errr""awww" drives me insane. Please note it is not that I expect the Dev's to have great public speaking skills, but my sanity can only last for so long, when so many monosyllabic pause words are used.


CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2007.12.18 00:02:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Treelox
any chance of a written transcript? I find that listening to all the "ummmm""errr""awww" drives me insane. Please note it is not that I expect the Dev's to have great public speaking skills, but my sanity can only last for so long, when so many monosyllabic pause words are used.
Currently there are no plans to create transcripts for the Live Dev Blogs.

Jameroz
Echoes of Space
Posted - 2007.12.18 01:25:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Currently there are no plans to create transcripts for the Live Dev Blogs.


Working to write this down as best of my abilities. Hope it's okay to post it here?

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2007.12.18 01:31:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Chainsaw Plankton on 18/12/2007 01:41:24
Edited by: Chainsaw Plankton on 18/12/2007 01:39:49
t1 modules = not worth anything Laughing

Im excited, do you know where?
yes
.....
Okay

blah blah blah <insert 1 of several issues>
Boost Patch!
Laughing Twisted Evil

MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
Posted - 2007.12.18 03:53:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Originally by: Treelox
any chance of a written transcript? I find that listening to all the "ummmm""errr""awww" drives me insane. Please note it is not that I expect the Dev's to have great public speaking skills, but my sanity can only last for so long, when so many monosyllabic pause words are used.
Currently there are no plans to create transcripts for the Live Dev Blogs.


you had them for all the other ones...

or were those submitted by players?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 04:24:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 18/12/2007 04:26:06
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

t1 modules = not worth anything



Assume 3 100k isk refinable battleship sized modules in each BS wreck.

1m isk/battleship == 30% increase in income by picking up rat loot.

Since some modules are worth much more in refinables, this is a conservative estimate in the amount of isk reduction.

ed: Will the named modules be given an increase in the amount of base cost/refinables so as to keep the same previous income?

Also, this may be an issue with heat, since named modules being cheaper for refine/base cost makes the much easier to repair.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 04:29:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 18/12/2007 05:04:55
If torpedos were changed to be inline with other short range weapons, why do they do more damage than pulse lasers with greater range?

And why dont they have easier fitting than their long range counterparts?[this applies to HAMs as well]

edit: Oh hey, got answered. But what?

P.S. fitting isnt a trade-off for massive damage unless you cant actually fit and use the weapons[see tachyons].

Especially with the strength of med slot items and extenders/plates.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 04:32:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 18/12/2007 04:40:40
If you want assault frigates to fill a role, what role do you have in mind for assault frigates to fill? Knowing this can help us brainstromers to put out ideas for you-all to look at.

edit: That is nice to know about command mods.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2007.12.18 05:06:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 18/12/2007 04:26:06
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton

t1 modules = not worth anything



Assume 3 100k isk refinable battleship sized modules in each BS wreck.

1m isk/battleship == 30% increase in income by picking up rat loot.

Since some modules are worth much more in refinables, this is a conservative estimate in the amount of isk reduction.

ed: Will the named modules be given an increase in the amount of base cost/refinables so as to keep the same previous income?

Also, this may be an issue with heat, since named modules being cheaper for refine/base cost makes the much easier to repair.


so i take it you agree that this is a clearly false statement.

now to beat that into hammerhead's/zulupark's head

and then there is the meta1 which is worse then the basic tech 1 because it refines for crap Sad

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 05:10:00 - [14]
 

Yes, i agree. I just didnt quote the emote because i used copy/paste and not the feature, which gave me "laughing"

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.12.18 08:50:00 - [15]
 

Will Gallente battleship (well really *all* battleship) sizes be reviewed in the "boost" patch to be inline with other battleships (under 500k assembled size)?

Sorela
Gallente
Posted - 2007.12.18 08:53:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
Currently there are no plans to create transcripts for the Live Dev Blogs.


Could you maybe elaborate on why? It's pretty clear at least a large amount of people find it to be a pain in the ass to listen to a dev blog. They also get much less feedback than written blogs.

Sorela
Gallente
Posted - 2007.12.18 09:00:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Sorela on 18/12/2007 09:00:10
Quote:
Edited by: Chainsaw Plankton on 18/12/2007 01:39:49
t1 modules = not worth anything Laughing



I found his comment on this vaguely disturbing as well. It's not some vague loss of cash that can be left as is till the next major patch. They borked up a lot of things like this and before a "Boost" patch they need to release a "undo our screw ups" patch.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.12.18 09:18:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
ed: Will the named modules be given an increase in the amount of base cost/refinables so as to keep the same previous income?


Keeping named modules refinables low is probably a deliberate design decision to encourage their trade and use as actual modules, rather than just another supply of minerals. If you really want minerals, fit a mining laser.

Originally by: Goumindong
Also, this may be an issue with heat, since named modules being cheaper for refine/base cost makes the much easier to repair.


Well, named modules are supposed to have advantages over their base T1 counterparts. Cheaper repair being one of those advantages doesn't seem unbalanced to be.

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
and then there is the meta1 which is worse then the basic tech 1 because it refines for crap


The whole point with named modules is that they are just that, named modules. They're not supposed to be a mineral drops in module form. Meta1 equals or exceeds the performance of the base T1 item in every situation, therefore the value of the meta1 items as items themselves should always equal or exceed their T1 counterparts. As the T1 modules have a price floor at their refine value, the value of meta1 modules should always equal or exceed the T1 refine value, regardless of the refine value of the meta1 itself.

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2007.12.18 10:07:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Alex Harumichi on 18/12/2007 10:26:16
Good blog. I especially liked hearing about that upcoming "boost patch", here are some of the things I'd like you guys to take a look at wrt that (I won't mention things you already said "will be boosted", like AFs). My issues are mostly to do with EW and gang support.

- Sensor damps are now too weak on specialized damp ships (Arazu/Lachesis/Celestis). Where a Rook can totally shut down 2-4 ships, an equally skilled and rigged Lachesis cannot even shut down one ship totally; dropping target range to about 15km on bs is the best it can do. Damper optimal range is so low that the role you might imagine for these ships (shutting down snipers) does not work in practice. The sensor damp bonus on these ships needs a boost, otherwise there is no reason not to fly a Rook instead as EW support. There are numerous threads about this on the game development forum, with maths and discussion.

- Same thing goes for tracking disrupters on the Amarr recons, with the added emphasis that tracking disrupters were already weak pre-Trinity, few people were using them. Now they have become an utter joke, and we've lately seen Curses fitted with... ECM!. Unless you really want to see everyone, even the TD-specialist ships, switch to ECM, the TD bonus on these ships needs a serious boost. Specialist ships should be very good at the thing they are specialized in, and at the moment this just isn't true with Gallente and Amarr recons. Pilgrim would also seriously need some extra help, it has numerous issues separate from the TD uselessness one.

- While the nerf to Eos was warranted, it went a bit too far. In particular, for some bizarre reason the drone bay size was also nerfed a lot, in addition to the drone bandwidth. This makes no sense, and makes the already weak gang support capabilities of this ship even weaker. This ship needs a big drone bay so it can carry a large array of logistics and combat drones and use what's needed -- preferrably a static large drone bay, with the drone bay size per level bonus changed to something gang support / logistics -related (bonus to logistics drone effect, or some such). At the moment, the Eos is very weak as a gang support ship, the intended role. I couldn't care less about DPS, that's not the point of this ship. The problem is, it doesn't bring much to the gang as compared to the other fleet commands. Some boost, as outlined above, would imho be warranted, this ship was hit by what, 5 separate nerfs?

- Related to above, information warfare gang links are much weaker and less general-use than the other 3 types. In addition, they were actually nerfed in Trinity instead of boosted, a move that left most fleet support pilots scratching their heads. Please boost these to the same utility level as the other types, I've practically never seen anyone fly a ganglinked Eos, while I've seen tons of Damnations, Claymores, etc.

- Some faction ships (Ashimmu, Gila, etc) have been untouched for ages and are currently very weak (usually due to outdated and low grid/cpu). At the same time, some other faction ships have been given a makeover (Phantasm etc), making them very nice. How about taking a look at all the faction ships, and at least boosting the grid & cpu to reasonable levels in the cases where a complete rethink isn't warranted?

Alex Harumichi
Gallente
Gradient
Electus Matari
Posted - 2007.12.18 10:22:00 - [20]
 

Added: while it's still too early to tell, it does seem that the new Black Ops ships are a bit too heavily nerfed at the moment. In particular, they seem shackled by:

- very low jump range
- small cargo, leading to fuel problems
- ridiculously small active time of jump bridge
- high fuel costs of using the above

All of which combine to make their envisioned role (sneak self + recon gang past enemy lines) very very iffy in practice. If you can only make one short-range one-way jump into hostile space, and only move a 2-3 recons with you, the theoretical use case scenario falls flat on its face.

In addition, it seems that these ships have serious CPU issues.

So... while it's still a bit early, I'd recommend you keep an eye on these. If it turns out nobody actually flies these, then... well, see above for one list of obvious problems.

I like the idea of the Black Ops ships, but the implementation needs some serious tuning.

Sorela
Gallente
Posted - 2007.12.18 10:33:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Matthew

The whole point with named modules is that they are just that, named modules. They're not supposed to be a mineral drops in module form.


This value is what matters though. Belt ratting is a big activity and if the value of isk it generates is going to be altered it should of been heavily considered and discussed.

This band-aid fix of putting meta in there is needed but problems like low value meta modules (and high ones) will probably make the npc loot even more imbalanced than it was. This needs to be considered at least.

Zarch AlDain
GK inc.
Posted - 2007.12.18 11:18:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Matthew

The whole point with named modules is that they are just that, named modules. They're not supposed to be a mineral drops in module form. Meta1 equals or exceeds the performance of the base T1 item in every situation, therefore the value of the meta1 items as items themselves should always equal or exceed their T1 counterparts. As the T1 modules have a price floor at their refine value, the value of meta1 modules should always equal or exceed the T1 refine value, regardless of the refine value of the meta1 itself.


Your assumption is invalid.

Take cargo scanners for example. Demand for them is incredibly low (a few pirates and high sec gankers). Supply is constant.

As a result even the best named meta modules are basically worthless - it is always better to refine them than to sell them.

In the case where the minerals inside a module are worth more than the module is then getting a tech 1 module that refines to more than a named one means that the tech 1 module is actually worth more as a loot drop.

Xenofur
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.12.18 13:26:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Xenofur on 18/12/2007 13:25:57
Paging Mindstar:

Reminder on sound technology:
Microphone goes slightly above, below or to the side of the mouth, unless it's WELL buffered with some of that big foam stuff.
NEVER perfectly in front of the mouth, as you end up breathing and blowing on it, which creates horrible bass sounds.

Thanks for your attention. Smile

Messingaround
Posted - 2007.12.18 14:42:00 - [24]
 

I disagree with Zulupark's comments on active shield tanking in PvP.

Yes, of course you can fit an active shield tank when a buddy tackles for you, and on some rare ships you can even spare a slot for a scrambler when solo. However, the question was not "can it be done?", but rather "is it viable when done?". And that's where the problem lies.

Active shield tanks make great PvE tools, no doubt.

However, with the same number of slots available to you, an armor tank or passive shield is ALWAYS more desirable in PvP than an active shield tank (Unless you are flying a capital ship, which are about the only ships that can both live and still do their job with a full active shield tank fitted). This is because of the simple fact that in PvP, cap is life.

-Armor tanking is much more sustainable because the armor repairers have a higher hp for cap efficiency. If you want the same efficiency with a shield tank, you have to fit two modules: the booster, and a boost amplifier. You lose one slot right there.

-Ships always have less midslots than lowslots when compared across the races. For example, prior to the introduction of the Golem, no Caldari battleship had more than 6 midslots, while there were two Amarr battleships with 8 lowslots (and the Golem has 6 effective midslots as well, since it needs one for an ECCM array). This is because midslots are more dangerous, because so many valuable modules go into them. Giving a ship too many midslots would give it the potential to become horribly broken, especially when considering passive shield tanks. However, the active tanking system occupying midslots requires more slots than other tanking systems, so there's a conflict there.

-Shield tanks have the advantage of generating more hp/sec than armor tanks. However, by also consuming more cap/sec, this is rendered irrelevant because you cannot sustain it. You can especially not sustain it with the help of a cap injector, because by doing so you weaken your tank (and many shield tanker ships don't have the grid for an injector anyway). While you conceivably could micromanage your shield booster, the point still stands that you have to invest additional attention into something that requires more slots to pull off the same thing as a different module that requires less attention.

-Cap and resistances: armor tanks have great passive resistance modules. That's one of the reasons why EANMs will always be more popular than single active hardeners: because they use no cap. Shield tanks have no really useful passive modules, requiring you to pump yet more cap into sustaining the resistances for an already cap unstable system.

-Cap and slots: Armor tankers have three modules they can use to generate more cap for themselves: cap rechargers in the mids, which don't bother them at all; cap injectors in the mids, which cost hefty grid, but at least armor tankers have more base grid to start with (so, say, a powergrid rig will provide much more extra grid); and cap power relays in the lows, where they hurt the armor tank but at least generate huge amounts of extra cap out of nowhere (and they have more slots anyway). Shield tankers have one: the power diagnostic system in the lows, which generates the smallest amount of extra cap of the four presented modules. Cap rechargers don't fit because you have no slots; cap injectors don't fit because you have no slots AND no grid; and cap power relays will cripple a shield tank from the get-go unless you completely design the ship around them, sacrificing several extra slots in both mids and lows in order to gain a real benefit. This works with capital ships, but not with others. No, cap fluxes don't cound, as power diags generate more cap than they do and then have additional benefits. Cap fluxes just suck so much.

-"All The Small Things": Damage controls do slightly more for armor tanks than for shield tanks; power diagnostics do slightly more for passive shield tanks than for active ones; and so on.

Feng Schui
Minmatar
Cruor Evertum Dominicus
Posted - 2007.12.18 15:58:00 - [25]
 

Listening to the devblog, I got the feeling that CCP Zulupark didn't know that Recons existed.

CCP Zulupark, if you read this, please eve-mail me on TQ. I would love to set up multiple testing runs with you in regards to the Pilgrim, and possible fixes for it. We can use my corp's Vent server if need be, which would be preferred (or ccp's vent server, but I wouldn't do that for security reasons).

There have been a GREAT many suggested fixes for both the Pilgrim and the Curse, in regards to tracking disruptors, NOS, neuts, capacitor, etc.. etc. I can't go into the list of suggested fixes, as they are very detailed in a particular 14 page thread that goes ignored, seemingly.

Think of this as a challenge. I challenge you to tell the Curse / Pilgrim community that these ships are working in their intended roles. If you cannot honestly tell us that, then I challenge you to work with one of the three outspoken Amarr Recon "specialists" that are on this forum to get these ships fixed.

The ball is in your park.

Fastercart
Gallente
Ornery Cantankerous Curmudgeons
Posted - 2007.12.18 16:08:00 - [26]
 

Hehe Feng. Maybe if you suggest Eve Voice, you'll increase your chance of getting a reply.

/me watches a Veldspar roll between Feng Schui and Zulupark.

clockedu
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:16:00 - [27]
 

its funny how awkward it sounded hehe Razz

Drash Kammatarr
German Cyberdome Corp
AAA Citizens
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:21:00 - [28]
 

Has the dictor nerf been addressed in LDB?
Didn't have time yet to listen to it all.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:34:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Goumindong
ed: Will the named modules be given an increase in the amount of base cost/refinables so as to keep the same previous income?


Keeping named modules refinables low is probably a deliberate design decision to encourage their trade and use as actual modules, rather than just another supply of minerals. If you really want minerals, fit a mining laser.


When 30% or more of your ratting income comes from refining tech 1 modules, you ought to be able to understand why it would make sense to increase the refinable drop on named modules to compensate for the lack of tech 1 modules that will be dropping from rats, which was done because tech 1 modules were increased in size to be so large as to be impossible to effecitlvy loot.

It ends up adding u up to a lot of minerals being taken out of the ecnomony for a change that was designed to make the movement of minerals harder, not make them less prevelent, its not a decision to be taken lightly.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.12.18 19:47:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Alex Harumichi

- Related to above, information warfare gang links are much weaker and less general-use than the other 3 types. In addition, they were actually nerfed in Trinity instead of boosted, a move that left most fleet support pilots scratching their heads. Please boost these to the same utility level as the other types, I've practically never seen anyone fly a ganglinked Eos, while I've seen tons of Damnations, Claymores, etc.



Actually information warfare gang links are much stronger than the more generally used types, except for maybe skirmish. While siege and armored warfare benefit a large gang with about 12.5% more hit points[if that] an info link increases the range and strength of all ewar. This is incredibly strong, since the main tank on an ewar ship is range. This means you damp farther, td farther, jam farther, and jam harder, td harder, and damp harder. Granted, the reducton in the boost to tds and damps was unwarranted, info war links are still incredibly strong.

However, they suffer from the same problem that ECM does, in that they increase the value of a public good at the expense for ones self. Ewar ships in general dont get much praise or time flown because while they have the largest effect on gang usefullness, they dont have much range and dps, which means they dont get on a lot of killmails, and because they are so strong they tend to be primaried first.

E.G. before the last ECM buff[jesus why CCP?], a scorpion was worth about 2.5 enemy battleships. I.E. if you bring one scorpion you will remove about 2.5 enemy battleships from the fight. But since a scropion is worth 2.5 enemy battleships and a friendly damage bs is only wort 1 friendly battleship, scorpions tend to get primaried very quickly. Even though the scorpion pilot has provided a better benefit to the gang than a damage BS[I.E. a primaried damage BS would provide 1 cycle of 1 friendly damage bs worth of damage, and a primaried scorpion would prove 1 cycle of -2.5 enemy battleships worth of DPS, a 1.5 battleship advantage to the scorpion(technicially more due to the long cycle times on ECM)], because they are consistantly primaried and because their contribution often show up on the bottom of the mail if at all[since they ought to be jamming ships that arent primary], the benefit to the individual is much less than the benefit to the gang[individual is nearly guarenteed to lose his ship, individual is nearly guarenteed to not be on many if any mails].

This pushes people away from using the ships unless they are provided free of charge because most people arent team players an arent willing to take the considerable isk hit in order to produce for their gang.

I.E. its a standard collective action problem with a few slight stipulations[someone has to fly damage battleships, the optimal mix is just that, where as a standard collective action problem you need the majority of people to comply to make it valuable]


Pages: [1] 2

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